to control the class certification process, and “[wjhether or not discovery will be permitted ... lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 209 (9th Cir.1975); accord Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 871 n. 28 (9th Cir.2001). Although a party seeking class certification is not always entitled to discovery on the class certification issue, we have stated that “[t]he propriety of a class action cannot be determined in some cases without discovery,” Kamm, 509 F.2d at 210, and that “the better and more advisable practice for a District Court to follow is to afford the litigants an opportunity to present evidence as to whether a class action was maintainable.” Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); accord Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416,
holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied holding however that class certification was properly denied without discovery where plaintiffs could not make a prima facie showing of rule 23s prerequisites or that discovery measures were likely to produce persuasive information substantiating the class action allegations holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification