D&G, Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc., 0:09-cv-00983

This is SuperValu, Inc.’s objection to Magistrate Judge Leung’s August 3, 2017 Scheduling Order permitting plaintiffs JFM Market, Inc. and MJF Market, Inc. (collectively "Village Market") to move to reconsider certification of a New England class.
The court previously denied certification of a New England class in 2012 because C&S’s prices in New England appeared to be individually negotiated, preventing class-wide proof of impact.
In August 2015 the court ruled Village Market could not relitigate certification for a narrower New England class.
Village Market says newly discovered and changed evidence (including testimony from a C&S executive) indicates C&S used a formulaic pricing scheme in New England, supporting renewed class-certification review.
SuperValu argues revisiting class certification is barred absent materially changed circumstances and that allowing relitigation conflicts with the 2015 Order and prejudices SuperValu.
The district court reviews nondispositive pretrial orders for clear error or lawfulness and concluded the magistrate did not clearly err in permitting Village Market to seek reconsideration under Rule 23(c)(1)(C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Village Market may seek reconsideration of New England class certification	New evidence and changed circumstances (e.g., C&S executive testimony) justify revisiting class certification under Rule 23(c)(1)(C)	No materially new evidence; allowing relitigation improperly reverses the 2015 Order and prejudices SuperValu	Magistrate’s order permitting a motion to reconsider is affirmed; Rule 23(c)(1)(C) can allow alteration based on new circumstances
Whether the magistrate’s scheduling order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law	Reconsideration is lawful and necessary to evaluate class impact after further discovery	Order is contrary to law because it permits relitigation already foreclosed by prior rulings	Court holds the magistrate’s decision was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and overrules SuperValu’s objections

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (district courts may alter class-certification orders as circumstances develop)
Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2005) (class-certification decisions made before full merits discovery may be revisited after full discovery)
Chakales v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard for "clearly erroneous" review)