Shannon Ray, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
No. 1:23-CV-00425 WBS CSK, 2025 WL 775753 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2025)
Eastern District of California Judge William B. Shubb certified a class of thousands of former NCAA Division I volunteer coaches who had sued the NCAA for anticompetitive compensation prohibitions. The Ray v. NCAA decision gives practitioners on both sides of high-stakes antitrust litigation valuable insight regarding expert evidence standards and differences between class certification and merits determinations.
The Court Shields Expert Testimony from Pretrial Daubert Attack
Judge Shubb refused to exclude plaintiffs’ economic witness, Princeton economist Dr. Orley Ashenfelter, despite extensive challenges by the NCAA.
Judge Shubb determined that a “full Daubert analysis” was premature since discovery remained ongoing and Dr. Ashenfelter was still receiving new data and refining his analysis. The Court emphasized that Dr. Ashenfelter’s use of regression analysis with a “benchmark” approach was a well-established technique in antitrust cases, and his strong background in labor economics was not contested.
The Court characterized, in part, the NCAA’s objections as attacks on the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. This was determinative, as the Court noted that “objections to a statistical study’s completeness generally go to the weight, not the admissibility of the statistical evidence.” Ray at *5 (cleaned up).
Courts Declines to Adjudicate “Battles of Experts” at Certification
The Court’s handling of the two conflicting expert methods of quantifying damages was notable. The NCAA’s witness, Dr. Jee-Yeon Lehmann, protested Dr. Ashenfelter’s methodology on the grounds that it failed to account for “substitution effect[s]” – in effect protesting that members of the class would have to demonstrate they would have been working under the hypothetical world where the NCAA’s restrictions did not apply. Id. at *8.
Judge Shubb explicitly refused to resolve this dispute, stating, “It is not for the court to engage in a ‘battle of the experts’ over the merits at this juncture.” Id. at *9. The Court noted that both arguments appeared plausible and cited rivaling precedent on the issue. This approach is indicative of a general judicial aversion to make authoritative determinations about competing economic theories at the class certification stage.
The Court declined to resolve fundamental disagreements between experts about the proper framework for calculating antitrust damages at the class certification stage if the plaintiff’s methodology is theoretically sound and based on reliable data. The NCAA’s “substitution theory” challenge, while potentially sound on the merits, was deemed inappropriate for resolution at certification.
Individualized Damages Remain Acceptable in Antitrust Classes
The decision reaffirms Ninth Circuit precedent that individualized damage calculations do not automatically preclude class certification in antitrust litigation. The NCAA argued that variations in compensation levels between schools and sports would require individualized determinations that would predominate over common issues. Judge Shubb rejected this argument, observing that “there is no per se rule that a district court is precluded from certifying a class if plaintiffs may have to prove individualized damages at trial.” Id. at *10 (citing Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651, 681-82 (9th Cir. 2022)).
As the Court put it, “proof of an alleged conspiracy will focus on defendants’ conduct and not on the conduct of individual class members.” Ray at *6.
Court’s Analysis of NCAA Challenges
The NCAA challenged Dr. Ashenfelter’s analysis for allegedly failing to control for coach experience and skill levels, but the Court found this criticism factually misplaced – the expert actually had used pay ranking and age as proxies for experience.
The NCAA also posited that Dr. Ashenfelter left out schools that did not fill paid coaching positions after the repeal of the bylaw, but the Court noted that his model had all schools, attributing zero pay to non-paying positions in the but-for analysis.
Finally, the NCAA argued that potential conflicts existed between class members coaching different sports at the same school, since each would need to prove their school would have added paid positions for their specific sport. This was dismissed by the Court as a “speculative conflict” that was not “fundamental to the suit,” noting conflicts must be real and not hypothetical in order to prevail over adequacy. Id. (citing In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 942 (9th Cir. 2015)).
Conclusion
Judge Shubb’s certification order in Ray v. NCAA emphasized the Court’s preference to defer merits determinations regarding expert methodologies. This case is set for trial in June 2026.
_________________________________
This article was originally published in the California Lawyers Association E-Briefs, News and Notes: August 2025
