over individual ones. Eisen holds merely that a court cannot conduct a “preliminary hearing” into the merits and conclude that the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the litigation as a basis for shifting to the defendant the cost of providing notice to absent class members. Eisen thus prevents a district court from requiring defendants to a class action to pay the costs of the litigation before any definitive resolution of the defendants’ liability has been made. But surely Eisen does not prevent a court from determining how many individuals will be affected by certain defenses in an effort to gauge, not whether the class will prevail, but whether common questions transcend merely individual ones. See Strong v. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 496 (E.D.Ark. 1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Dura-Bilt Corp. v. Chase Manhattan
holding that while it is not appropriate to consider the merits in determining certification the admissibility of all evidence which has relevance to the merits is not barred if it is relevant to the purpose of refuting or supporting the existence of a class holding that it is not holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees holding that the court cannot examine the underlying merits of the claims in determining whether to certify a class holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits