Ascertainability has been, and will likely continue to be, an important requirement for class certification in the Third Circuit. Over the past decade, almost every circuit has, in one way or another, weighed in on the ascertainability debate. The Third Circuit led the way in defining a “heightened” ascertainability standard in the trilogy of decisions: Marcus v. BMW of North America, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012); Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, 725 F.3d 349 (3d Cir. 2013); and Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013).

In order for a class to be ascertainable under this standard, the class definition must be “currently and readily ascertainable based on objective criteria,” and there must be “a reliable and administratively feasible method” of determining class membership. Further, that method must “permit[] a defendant to challenge the evidence used to prove class membership.” In other words, the Third Circuit, unlike a number of other circuits, requires that both the “objective criteria” and “administratively feasible method” elements are satisfied when considering whether a proposed class is “ascertainable” for class certification purposes.