Price v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.

Background

The court had issued an earlier opinion and order granting the defendants’ motion to decertify the classes. The decertification ruling concluded that plaintiffs had not provided a method for calculating class-wide damages consistent with their alleged injury—that consumers paid a price premium because of the challenged claims—as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

The earlier ruling found that Dr. Dubé’s conjoint survey did not isolate damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ misrepresentations. It also found that, even if the survey were proper, the absence of evidence about the quantity and average price of New York and California retail sales made Dr. Dubé’s formula for calculating class-wide damages unreliable.

Plaintiffs’ Motion

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration or, alternatively, clarification. They argued that the court had overlooked evidence supporting the earlier class-certification decision. They also asked the court to clarify that the decertification order was without prejudice and to allow them to conduct a corrected conjoint survey.

Plaintiffs additionally sought to reopen discovery to obtain data for an aggregate damages model and to modify and re-field Dr. Dubé’s survey. They argued that they should instead be allowed to establish a post-verdict process for handling individual claims.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not a vehicle for relitigating issues already presented or seeking a second opportunity to argue the case.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the defendants had waited too long to challenge Dr. Dubé’s inclusion of the term + Silk in the survey. Plaintiffs had made the same argument when opposing the motion to decertify, and the court had considered and rejected it.

The court also stated that the motion would fail even if plaintiffs overcame the challenges to the survey. Plaintiffs had not produced evidence establishing the quantity or average prices of New York and California retail sales during the class period. A post-verdict claims process did not eliminate plaintiffs’ obligation under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide a reliable method for measuring class-wide damages.

The court denied the request to reopen discovery because plaintiffs had more than two years to obtain fact and expert discovery before discovery ended in September 2019. The court noted that plaintiffs had already received permission to submit a supplemental report from Dr. Dubé, after which the defendants deposed him again and served supplemental expert reports. Reopening discovery again would undermine finality and conserve fewer judicial resources, particularly because plaintiffs had been notified of the defendants’ arguments when expert discovery was previously reopened.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or clarification, including the requests to reopen discovery and modify the survey. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about next steps and file a joint letter describing their proposals by December 17, 2021. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 320.