Saki Kohama, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to file overlength reply briefs, a defendant's motion to advance the hearing date on motions to exclude expert testimony, and a plaintiff's ex parte application for relief from premature motions. The court granted the joint motion, granted the motion to advance in part by ruling on the exclusion motions concurrently with class certification, and denied the ex parte application.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Joint Motion to File Overlength Reply Briefs“The Joint Motion is GRANTED.” | agree with court The parties jointly requested an extension of the page limit for reply briefs. Granting a joint stipulation regarding briefing logistics is a standard exercise of the court's case management authority and does not implicate substantive legal rights that would require a specific standard of review. |
Granting in Part Motion to Advance Hearing Date on Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony“The Motion to Advance (Doc. 88) is thus GRANTED in part and the Ex Parte Motion (Doc. 91) is DENIED.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to manage the docket and determine the timing of evidentiary rulings. It relied on Ninth Circuit precedent (Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr.) to establish that Daubert inquiries are appropriate at the class certification stage, thereby justifying the concurrent consideration of the exclusion motions. The decision to rule on these motions now rather than at trial is a procedural determination within the court's broad discretion. |
Denying Ex Parte Application for Relief from Premature Motions“The Motion to Advance (Doc. 88) is thus GRANTED in part and the Ex Parte Motion (Doc. 91) is DENIED.” | agree with court The plaintiff's argument that Daubert inquiries are unnecessary at the class certification stage was rejected based on binding Ninth Circuit authority. Consequently, the plaintiff's request to delay the ruling on the exclusion motions until trial was denied. The court's reliance on Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr. provides a sound legal basis for rejecting the plaintiff's procedural argument. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Sali) to determine that Daubert challenges are appropriate at the class certification stage. It appropriately exercises its discretion to manage the docket by ruling on the exclusion motions concurrently with class certification. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SAKI KOHAMA, individually and on Case No.: 3:24-cv-1422-RBM-BJW behalf of all others similarly situated, 11 ORDER: Plaintiff, 12 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 13 FILE OVERLENGTH REPLY LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., 14 BRIEFS [Doc. 93]; Defendant. 15 (2) GRANTING IN PART MOTION 16 TO ADVANCE HEARING DATE [Doc. 88]; 17 18 (3) DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM 19 PREMATURE MOTIONS [Doc. 91]; 20 21 Before the Court are several motions relating to the Parties’ class certification and 22 summary judgment briefing: a Joint Motion for Leave to File Overlength Reply Briefs 23 (“Joint Motion”) (Doc. 93); Defendant’s Motion to Advance Hearing Date on Motions to 24 Exclude Expert Testimony (“Motion to Advance”) (Doc. 88); and Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 25 Application for Relief from Premature Motions (“Ex Parte Motion”) (Doc. 91). 26 I. JOINT MOTION 27 The Parties “jointly move to extend the page limit . . . from 10 pages to 15 pages” 28 for their forthcoming reply briefs in support of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and 1 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 93 at 1–2.) The Joint Motion is 2 GRANTED. 3 II. MOTION TO ADVANCE / EX PARTE MOTION 4 Defendant requests that the Court rule on Defendant’s motions to exclude expert 5 testimony (Docs. 86, 87) simultaneously with its ruling on the motion for class 6 certification. (Doc. 88 at 4.) Defendant argues that this is necessary because Plaintiff relies 7 on the expert testimony sought to be excluded to argue that her putative class should be 8 certified. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that the motions to exclude expert testimony are more 9 appropriately resolved before trial because (1) the Ninth Circuit has never established that 10 a Daubert inquiry is necessary at the class certification stage and (2) the Court can conduct 11 a rigorous Rule 23 analysis without first resolving evidentiary disputes. (Doc. 91 at 3–4.) 12 This Court has previously explained that “the Daubert standard of admissibility 13 applies at the class certification stage, and that ‘an inquiry into the evidence’s ultimate 14 admissibility should go to the weight that evidence is given at the class certification stage.’” 15 Stewart v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs, Inc., Case No.: 3:19-cv-02043-RBM-KSC, 16 2022 WL 5236821, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2022) (quoting Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 17 909 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2018)). “Indeed, courts in this circuit have continued . . . to 18 examine reports under Daubert’s reliability standard at the class certification stage.” Id. 19 (collecting cases). Accordingly, and given the Court’s wide discretion in considering and 20 ruling on motions in limine, see Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984), the 21 Court finds it reasonable to consider motions to exclude expert testimony in conjunction 22 with the motion for class certification. The Motion to Advance (Doc. 88) is thus 23 GRANTED in part and the Ex Parte Motion (Doc. 91) is DENIED. 24 The Court also understands, however, that the briefing schedule on the motions to 25 exclude expert testimony proposed by Defendant “conflict[s] with Plaintiff’s counsel 26 previously disclosed September vacation.” (Doc. 91 at 3.) At the outset, the Court notes 27 that a more fulsome meet and confer process likely could have obviated the need for motion 28 practice here. (See Doc. 92 at 7 (arguing that this conflict could have “easily be[en] 1 ||resolved”).) This appears especially true given the Parties’ history of cooperation in this 2 ||case. The Court trusts that, moving forward, the Parties will be able to resolve similar 3 issues without judicial intervention. For now, though, the Court will set a briefing schedule 4 the motions to exclude expert testimony. Plaintiff shall file oppositions on or before 5 || October 12, 2026. Defendant may file replies on or before October 29, 2026. This Order 6 not otherwise alter any deadlines or directives in the February 6, 2026 Scheduling 7 Order. (Doc. 54.) 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATE: August 24, 2026 " et Banal Merle 1 ON. RUTH BERM@GDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28