Corrente v. The Charles Schwab Corporation
4:22-cv-00470
| E.D. Tex. | Jul 27, 2025Background
- The case arises from a class action against The Charles Schwab Corporation, with Plaintiffs (Corrente et al.) seeking approval of a settlement involving a proposed Compliance Program.
- Plaintiffs submitted an expert report (Singer/Tatos) estimating the benefits to consumers from the Compliance Program, but admitted the program's provisions were not yet finalized and data was limited.
- An objector, Huang, moved to exclude this report under Daubert, arguing it lacked sufficient foundation, data, and methodological reliability.
- Procedurally, this Daubert motion addresses whether the Singer/Tatos report should be excluded for inadmissibility, which affects both settlement approval and potentially pending motions (including standing and motions to seal).
- The report is only available in a redacted form, raising further admissibility questions if key content is withheld.
- Court must decide admissibility of the expert report prior to using it as a basis for approval of settlement or attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Singer/Tatos Expert Report | Report properly estimates value of Compliance Program using statistical methodologies; supports adequacy of settlement and fee request | Report is unreliable, speculative, based on insufficient data and unqualified experts | Report is inadmissible and should be excluded |
| Expert Qualifications | Experts are qualified based on antitrust modeling experience | Experts unqualified to evaluate compliance program effects | Experts not qualified; report excludable |
| Sufficiency of Data and Assumptions | Assumptions reasonable given available data and pending program details | Assumptions baseless; analysis lacks sufficient data or fit | Assumptions without basis; insufficient data |
| Use of Expert Report for Settlement/Fee Approval | Report supports “excellent result” and justifies fee award | Without admissible expert evidence, no basis for fee or settlement value | Cannot rely on inadmissible report |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (establishes standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (expert testimony must reliably connect facts and opinions)
- Moore v. Ashland Chem. Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (reliability required for expert testimony)
- Briseno v. Henderson, 998 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2021) (caution on expert estimates of non-monetary class action settlements)
- In re Subway Footlong Sandwich Mktg. Litig., 869 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2017) (settlements lacking effectual class relief are inadequate)