## Facts

- A class of 9,541 victims (or survivors) alleged torture, summary execution, and enforced disappearance during the Philippines’ martial-law period under Ferdinand E. Marcos (1972–1986).
- After Marcos’s death, the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos was substituted as defendant; representatives appeared for the Estate.
- The litigation proceeded in phases; liability and exemplary damages had already been decided against the Estate.
- The court divided the class into three subclasses: torture victims; families of those summarily executed; and families of those who disappeared.
- For compensatory damages, the court found individualized trials for all class members impracticable.
- The court approved a plan to try compensatory damages for a random sample of 137 class members and use inferential statistics (at a 95% confidence level) to estimate damages for the full class.
- Depositions were taken of the sampled claimants under supervision of a special master; the Estate had notice but did not participate in the depositions.
- The special master made nonbinding recommendations of standardized damages by subclass; the jury was instructed it could accept, modify, or reject the recommendations.
- The jury awarded over $766 million in compensatory damages using this aggregate, sample-based procedure.

## Issues

1. Whether determining compensatory damages for a large class through random sampling and inferential statistics violates the defendant’s due process right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
2. Whether an aggregate, sample-based damages trial violates the defendant’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by not trying each claimant’s damages individually.

## Decision

- The court held that using a random sample of 137 plaintiffs and inferential statistics to determine compensatory damages for the entire class did not violate due process.
- The court held that the procedure did not violate the Seventh Amendment because the jury remained the ultimate factfinder on damages.
- The court upheld entry of compensatory damages based on the sampling plan and the jury’s aggregate award.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to contest evidence; it does not require repetitive, claimant-by-claimant damages trials where a fair alternative procedure is available.
- Aggregate proof of damages using statistically valid random sampling may be permitted when individualized adjudication is impracticable and the method is reliable and transparent.
- A defendant’s due process objection is weakened where the defendant had notice and an opportunity to participate in discovery and challenge the methodology but chose not to do so.
- The Seventh Amendment is satisfied when a jury determines damages, even if the jury relies on statistical and representative evidence, so long as the jury retains authority to accept, reject, or modify recommendations and to make independent findings.

## Conclusion

The court approved a class-wide compensatory damages methodology using random sampling, supervised evidentiary development, and inferential statistics, concluding that the procedure was fair, preserved the jury’s role, and provided the Estate a meaningful chance to challenge the damages proof.


In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 910 F. Supp. 1460 (D. Haw. 1995)