Johnson v. Glock, Inc.

Background

Steven C. Johnson sought certification of a class of consumers who purchased, in California, any Glock pistol designed to shoot 10mm, .40 S&W, 9mm, .45 ACP, .45 GAP, .380, or .357 Sig ammunition, since those pistols were introduced into the stream of commerce by the defendants. The proposed class concerned 30 Glock models and related models with similar chamber designs and feed-ramp lengths.

Johnson alleged that the pistols contain an “unsupported chamber defect,” which Glock calls a “special safety valve.” According to Johnson’s theory, the design can cause ammunition casings to rupture and force gases into the pistol handle when ammunition is over-pressurized or has a weak casing. Johnson alleged that this risk can occur with factory ammunition that Glock recommends and that Glock knew about and failed to disclose the risk.

Glock disputed the defect theory. It argued that the feature is an intentional safety mechanism designed to direct gases away from the user’s face when ammunition fails, and that the relevant failures occur when ammunition is defective, improperly reloaded, or pressurized at or above 200% of the recommended pressure. Glock also challenged the qualifications, methods, data, and conclusions of Johnson’s experts.

Johnson’s claims sought relief under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s false-advertising law, and a fraudulent-omission theory. The court emphasized that the class-certification motion was not a motion for summary judgment and that the court was not deciding whether the alleged defect exists or whether Glock will ultimately prevail.

Class Certification

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy requirements including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. For a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions must predominate over individual questions, and a class action must be superior to other available methods of resolving the dispute.

The court found numerosity satisfied based on evidence that approximately half a million of the relevant guns had been sold since 2001. It found Johnson’s claims typical even though Glock raised issues concerning lead buildup in Johnson’s pistol, possible statute-of-limitations defenses, consumers’ different reasons for purchasing pistols, and Johnson’s lack of reliance on particular Glock advertisements. The court concluded that these issues did not defeat typicality at the certification stage.

The court also found Johnson and his counsel adequate. It concluded that Johnson understood his duties as a class representative and that his counsel had adequately investigated and litigated the case. The court found commonality because the proposed class shared questions about the existence of the alleged defect, Glock’s knowledge and alleged concealment, the materiality of the alleged safety risk to a reasonable consumer, and the calculation of damages.

The court rejected Glock’s argument that differences among pistol models or consumers’ individual purchasing reasons defeated commonality. Glock had not shown that differences in feed ramps or chamber dimensions affected the alleged operation of the unsupported chamber or safety valve. The court also concluded that the alleged risk’s materiality could be assessed under the objective reasonable-consumer standard using common evidence.

The court found predominance satisfied. It concluded that whether the alleged design creates a material safety risk, whether Glock knew about that risk, and whether the risk affected the value of the pistols were common questions. Glock may still present evidence that the alleged failures had other causes, that the risk was insignificant, or that the alleged defect does not exist. The court treated those issues as merits questions that could be addressed at summary judgment or trial rather than reasons to deny certification.

The court also found that class treatment was superior. It concluded that issues involving statutes of limitations, reliance, intended use, ownership transfers, and purchase prices could be addressed through common proof or claim administration. The court declined to certify the class separately under Rule 23(b)(2), because Johnson sought monetary relief that was not merely incidental to the requested injunctive or declaratory relief. The court stated that such relief could still be pursued under Rule 23(b)(3), and that the appropriate relief would be determined later.

Expert Motions

The court applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the reliability and relevance requirements associated with the Daubert standard. It explained that at the class-certification stage, disputes about the correctness of an expert’s conclusions generally concern the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility, while unreliable methods or unsupported speculation may be excluded.

The court denied Glock’s motion to exclude David Bosch’s opinions. Bosch was a materials expert who had studied firearms and ammunition design for at least a decade. The court found that his training and experience, review of Glock documents and testing, measurements, calculations, testing of pistols and ammunition, and evaluation of replacement barrels provided a sufficient basis for his opinions at this stage. Challenges to his data, comparisons, stress calculations, and conclusions were matters for cross-examination.

The court denied Glock’s motion to exclude John Nixon’s opinions. Nixon had almost four decades of experience in firearms, ammunition, and explosives. The court rejected challenges to his methods, data, use of Glock documents, interpretation of testimony, and testing with highly pressurized ammunition. It stated that whether the alleged risk occurs often enough to matter to a reasonable consumer would be tested at summary judgment or trial.

The court denied Glock’s motions to exclude Steven Gaskin and Colin B. Weir. Gaskin proposed a web-based conjoint analysis, a survey method designed to estimate how disclosure of the alleged defect would affect the market value of the pistols. Weir proposed using Gaskin’s analysis along with business records, third-party records, and industry resources to calculate damages on a classwide basis.

The court concluded that the proposed conjoint methodology fit Johnson’s theory and passed the Rule 702 standard at this stage. It rejected Glock’s challenges concerning the survey’s attributes, segmentation, choice levels, external validity, supply-side factors, individual preferences, and variations in purchase prices as issues going to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

Sealing Motions and Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions to seal portions of the filings and exhibits. It stated that narrow categories, such as protected and nonpublic Glock trade secrets, could remain sealed if the justification for sealing outweighed the public interest. Much of the conditionally sealed material, however, might not qualify for continued sealing, particularly material discussed publicly at the hearing.

The court ordered the parties and any designating third party to submit, within 20 days of the order, a joint chart identifying each item they contended should remain sealed and providing the required supporting declaration. The court’s conclusion states that Johnson’s motion for class certification was granted, the defendants’ motions to exclude were denied, and the specified class was certified. The parties were ordered to meet and confer within 30 days about notice and a notice plan, with any disputes submitted within 45 days.

William H. Orrick therefore resolved the motions concerning class certification, expert testimony, and sealing, but did not decide the ultimate merits of Johnson’s consumer-protection claims.