Int’l, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 471, 477 (S.D.Ohio 2004) (“Before delving into the ‘rigorous analysis’ required by Rule 23, a court first should consider whether a precisely defined class exists and whether the named plaintiffs are members of the proposed class”). At a minimum, the description must be “sufficiently definite that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member.” 7A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1760, at 120-21 (2d ed.1986). As this Court discussed in Brockman, courts have rejected proposed classes where plaintiffs failed to “identify any logical reason ... for drawing the boundaries where they did.” Daigle v. Shell Oil Co., 133 F.R.D. 600, 602-03 (D.Colo.1990) (<HOLDING>). Usually, scientific or objective evidence
holding that a class could not be certified because the definition made class members impossible to identify prior to individualized factfinding and litigation and thereby failed to satisfy one of the basic requirements for a class action under rule 23 holding that when defendant failed to appear at scheduled suppression hearing the court could have decided the motion in defendants absence but it did not have the authority to refuse to consider it holding that the defendants oral promise to appear was insufficient to amount to a required appearance within the meaning of the failure to appear statute holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error holding that plaintiffs had failed to identify a class where the proposed boundaries did not appear to relatte to the defendants activities but were instead arbitrarily  drawn lines on a map