of plaintiffs statistical evidence; (c) the conflicting anecdotal evidence found in the declarations offered by each side; and (d) the unconvincing nature of plaintiffs social science evidence concerning a “culture of paternalism” at Allstate, as that evidence bears on class certification. We address each of these in turn. a. To satisfy the commonality requirement, Allstate’s employment policies or practices must have affected the putative class members in the same or similar ways. Thoro-good, 547 F.3d at 747-48 (reversing district court’s certification of class where plaintiffs claim depended on class members’ uniform understanding of the significance of Sears’s labeling or advertising on clothes dryers). See also Donaldson v. Microsoft Corp., 205 F.R.D. 558, 567 (W.D.Wash.2001) (<HOLDING>), Allstate argues that plaintiff cannot show
holding that system wide deficiencies in the california juvenile parole system affect all of the putative class members with disabilities regardless of the specific nature of their disability recognizing the wide range of competitive results in oligopolistic markets holding that the proposed class included such a wide range of employees subject to such a wide range of criteria for individual performance evaluations that absent some evidence that microsofts benefits system effected sic  these various employees in the same or similar ways the enormous diversity of this putative class defeats a finding of commonality recognizing district courts wide range of discretion in setting amount of rule 11 sanctions recognizing that the trial judge must be given a wide range of discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared