Plaintiff's damages methodology was found mostly reliable, as the court rejected defendant's assertion that plaintiff could have mitigated its damages since the evidence showed that defendant would not have cooperated with those mitigation efforts or the success of those efforts was speculative at best.

Ascertainability requirement was consistent with the text of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and the purposes of class action litigation, since not being able to identify class members with administrative feasibility would be destructive to the goal of promoting judicial economy, and plaintiffs' proposed methodologies that suffered from reliability and feasibility issues meant they could not meet the ascertainability requirement. Order of the district court affirmed.