In re Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

2014 DNH 148

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: June 26, 2014
• Docket: Case No. 11-md-2263-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In re: Dial Complete Marketing Case No. 11-md-2263-SM and Sales Practices Litigation ALL CASES Opinion No. 2014 DNH 148

O R D E R

Defendant’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing on Class

Certification, doc. no. 165, is denied. In support of their

respective class certification arguments the parties have

submitted extensive evidence that goes well beyond the pleadings,

including expert reports and depositions; the deposition

testimony by the named plaintiffs and Dial’s Vice President in

charge of Dial Complete marketing; reports about customer

purchasing habits; and statements from Dial employees. See

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1426, 1432

(2013) (courts should “probe behind the pleadings before coming

to rest on the certification question.”) (quotation marks

omitted). In light of that substantial body of evidence and

extensive briefing by the parties, the court perceives no

substantial need in this case for additional live testimony. See

In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Litig., 269 F.R.D. 125,

130, 135 (D.P.R. 2010) (Dominguez, J.) (finding no need for

evidentiary hearing in resolving class certification issues where

the court “received ample evidence from all parties,” including “affidavits and expert reports.”); In re eBay Seller Antitrust

Litig., 2009 WL 2779374, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2009) (denying

defendant’s request for evidentiary hearing “given the breadth

. . . of the record available in this case” and because the

proposed hearing testimony had already been submitted in

deposition testimony and in expert reports).

To the extent defendant wishes to “highlight the testimony

and documents that each side considers most relevant to class

certification” (Def. Br., doc. no. 165-1, at 7), oral argument

will suffice. To the extent defendant wishes to address the

“brand new expert report” (id. at 1) that plaintiffs referenced

in their reply brief in support of their motion for class

certification, that is best done in a sur-reply. Of course,

“should this Court conclude that the record requires

supplementing or clarifying in the process of writing its

Memorandum Opinion and Order resolving the pending [motion for

class certification], it will inform the parties.” In re

Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., Case No. 1:10-md-2196-JZ, at

4-5 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2013).

Counsel shall confer with the Deputy Clerk regarding

convenient dates for oral argument, if oral argument is desired

on the certification motion. Defendant shall file its sur-reply

2 in opposition to the motion for class certification within 30

days of the date of this Order.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

June 26, 2014

cc: Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq. Robert M. Becnel, Esq. Karl A. Bekeny, Esq. Paul E. Benson, Esq. Amy Bloom, Esq. Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq. Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq. Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq. John R. Climaco, Esq. Randall S. Crompton, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Douglas P. Dehler, Esq. Christopher M. Ellis, Esq. John E. Galvin, III, Esq. Jonathan H. Garside, Esq. Mark J. Geragos, Esq. Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. Eric D. Holland, Esq. Edwin J. U, Esq. D. Scott Kalish, Esq. Lucy J. Karl, Esq. Shelley Kaufman, Esq. Sean T. Keith, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Patricia E. Lowry, Esq. Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq. Robert H. Miller, Esq. Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. Cullen A. O’Brien, Esq. Edward K. O’Brien, Esq. John A. Peca, Jr., Esq.

3 Chad W. Pekron, Esq. Frank E. Piscitelli, Jr., Esq. David C. Rash, Esq. Richard D. Raskin, Esq. Allison W. Reimann, Esq. Fred R. Rosenthal, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq. Gerard B. Schneller, Esq. Eugene A. Schoon, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq. Steven J. Stolze, Esq. Reginald Von Terrell, Esq. John C. Theisen, Esq. Robert C. Tucker, Esq. John M. Turner, Esq. Patrick G. Warner, Esq. Robert R. Younger, Esq.