To the extent that Defendants argue that this class is not ascertainable because it requires individualistic determinations about each prisoner's hearing loss, the Court finds such an argument to be grounded in administrative feasibility concerns and not relevant to the ascertainability analysis. See McCullough v. City of Montgomery, No. 2:15-cv-463-RCL, 2021 WL 20449900, at *11 (M.D. Ala. May 21, 2021) (noting that the argument that a class is not ascertainable if individual inquiries are necessary to determine class membership is simply a “repackag[ing of] the administrative feasibility test that Cherry rejected[]”). It appears that Defendants' main concern with Plaintiffs' proposed definition is the possibility that each prisoner may have to be individually screened to see if he is a member of the proposed class.

Today, the Court resolved a motion for class certification in a parallel case. See McCullough v. City of Montgomery, No. 2:15-cv-463 (M.D. Ala. May 21, 2021) ("McCullough slip op."). The disposition of the motion in McCullough, which the McCullough plaintiffs' briefied jointly with Mr. Carter, largely resolves the motion here as well.