On April 29, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying a motion to certify a putative class of consumers who purchased or leased Honda Pilots with allegedly defective power windows. The court also affirmed the district court’s exclusion of the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert under Daubert, finding his methodology faulty and his testimony unreliable.

• In 2012, named plaintiff Phyllis Grodzitsky filed a putative class action on behalf of purchasers and lessees of 2003–2008 Honda Pilot vehicles. Grodzitsky alleged that the window regulators—the mechanism that controls the windows’ movement—were defectively designed and failed to properly support the side windows, which would ultimately render them inoperable and cause the windows to fall into the doorframes, increasing the likelihood of injuries and accidents.
• Grodzitsky introduced the opinions of an engineer, who posited that the regulators lacked sufficient durability to perform their intended function because they allegedly could not withstand the forces pressing against the window glass as the vehicles were being driven.
• During his deposition, the expert testified that the window regulators “shouldn’t fail ever” and “should work for the life of the car.” He further conceded that he did not have an opinion concerning the proper method that Honda should have used in designing its window regulators.
• The district court excluded the expert’s opinion under Daubert, holding that his methodology was flawed and that his conclusions improperly relied on tests of an inadequate number of samples.
  • The district court further denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class of consumers, holding that the exclusion of the expert was fatal to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because, among other reasons, plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate the requisite commonality without his testimony.
• After the plaintiffs appealed, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, citing the expert’s methodological flaws, such as (i) his failure to identify a common solution to the alleged defects; (ii) the small sample size of vehicles he examined (he sought to prove a common defect in over 400,000 regulators from a sample of only 26); (iii) his failure to compare the window regulators to those from other vehicles; and (iv) his failure to review any industry data concerning replacement rates for window regulators. The court also held that the expert lacked any reliable scientific basis for his observations, as the only testing he performed “was not designed to identify any defects, let alone a common defect.” Instead, he relied on “just a real world driving around test” to support his conclusions.
• The court also affirmed the denial of class certification. As the court explained, absent the ability to rely on their expert’s opinion, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality, as the remaining evidence consisted solely of highly individualized complaints.
• Judge Murguia dissented, holding that the district court should have only excluded certain portions of the expert’s testimony. The majority, however, rejected the dissent’s “attempt[] to salvage [the expert’s] deeply flawed opinion by artificially separating [the] fatally flawed opinion into a series of opinions.”
• The case is Grodzitsky v. American Honda Motor Co., No. 18-55417 (9th Cir.). Read more here.