Over on the Drug & Device Law blog, Reed Smith partner Jim Beck (aka “Bexis”) makes a case for adding an explicit ascertainability requirement to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (Rule 23), presently under examination by the federal Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for possible amendment. Bexis points out that many courts already (properly) impose an implicit requirement that any proposed class be ascertainable—that is, have a class definition that allows the proposed class members to be readily be identified without detailed individualized inquiries. Adding an explicit ascertainability requirement would bring further rigor to class procedure, give litigants certainty about who is meant to be bound by any class judgment, and require the rejection of any prospective class action where the court cannot “readily identify the class members in reference to existing objective criteria.” Read the full post here.