Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Lytle
A company called Nutramax markets a product called Cosequin as a supplement to improve the health of dogs. Justin Lytle and Christine Musthaler bought the product based on Nutramax’s representations about the product’s health benefits, but they noticed no improvement in their dogs’ health. Then, after discovering that Nutramax’s claims lacked scientific support, they filed a class action lawsuit against Nutramax. In seeking class certification, they relied, among other things, on an expert report from an economist who explained that damages could be calculated on a classwide basis using conjoint analysis, should the class be certified. Nutramax argued that the report was not adequate to establish that damages could be calculated on a classwide basis because the expert had not executed the analysis. A California district court rejected this argument, finding that the expert’s opinion was admissible to show that damages could be calculated on a classwide basis, noting that the opinion was based on “well-accepted economic methodology,” and rejecting Nutramax’s critiques of the model. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Nutramax petitioned the Supreme Court for review. Arguing that the lower courts had insufficiently scrutinized the expert report, Nutramax asked the Court to address how the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), applies to evidence submitted at the class-certification stage.
Serving as co-counsel in the Supreme Court, we filed a brief in opposition. The brief explains that the case is not an appropriate vehicle to address the question posed in the petition because the primary issue briefed and decided below was not about the applicability of Daubert, but whether there was a categorical rule against reliance on unexecuted damages models at the class certification stage. On that question, there is no divide amongst the courts of appeals. In addition, as to the Daubert question, the courts are in broad agreement that, at the class certification stage, they must scrutinize evidence to the extent that it goes to issues relevant to class certification, but that they need not determine whether evidence will be admissible as to issues relevant only to the merits. Moreover, the district court in this case did conduct a Daubert analysis as to the expert testimony, and its conclusion that that evidence satisfied the relevance and reliabilty standards for admissibility was not an abuse of discretion.