Southern Railway Company v Williams Brief in Opposition

    No. 81-778

In  the

Supreme GInurt of tty HnitPii l̂ fateis
October T erm, 1981

Southern Railw ay Company and The Cincinnati, New Orleans 
and Texas P acific Railw ay Company,

Petitioners,
v.

Mzell W illiams, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
P atrick 0. P atterson*

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 
(212) 586-8397

Barry L. Goldstein 
Suite 940
806 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Strauss, Troy & Ruehlmann Co., L.P.A. 
A lan  C. Rosser

2100 Central Trust Center 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

E wen , Mackenzie & Peden, P.S.C.
James C. H ickey

650 Starks Building 
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Attorneys for Respondent Williams

^Counsel of Record



QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the court  o f  appeals correc t l y-  

app l i ed  t h i s  Cour t ' s  d e c i s i o n  l a s t  Term in 

Gul f  O i l  Co. v .  Bernard in ru l i n g  tha t  a 

d i s t r i c t  court  had exceeded i t s  au th o r i t y  

by en f o r c in g  a l o c a l  ru l e ,  now r epea l ed ,  

w h i c h  im p os e d  s w e e p i n g  r e s t r a i n t s  on 

communica t ions  by the  p l a i n t i f f  and h i s  

c o u n s e l  w i t h  members o f  t h e  c e r t i f i e d  

c la ss e s  in t h i s  c i v i l  r i g h t s  a c t i on ,  where 

t h e  r e c o r d  c o n t a i n e d  no e v i d e n c e  and 

the d i s t r i c t  court  made no f i n d in g s  con­

cerning  e i t h e r  the need f o r  such r e s t r a i n t s  

or  t h e i r  i n t e r f e r e n c e  wi th the prosecut ion

o f  the a c t i on .



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Quest ion Presented  ..................................... i

Table  o f  A u t h o r i t i e s  ................................  i i i

Statement o f  the Case ..............................  1

Summary o f  the Argument ...................  13

Argument:

The S ix th  C i r c u i t  C o r r e c t l y
Appl i ed  t h i s  C o u r t ' s  Dec i s i on
in Gul f  O i l  v .  Bernard to  the
Facts o f  t h i s  Case ............................  14

Conclusion .......................     22

- ii -



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Amos v.  Board o f  School  D i r e c t o r s ,
408 F, Supp. 765 { E. D. W i s . ) ,  
a f f ' d ,  539 F .2d 625 (7th C i r .
1976),  vaca ted ,  433 U.S. 672
(1977) .....................................................  20

Bernard v.  Gul f  O i l  Co . ,  619 F,2d 
459 (5th C i r .  1 980) (en -banc), 
a f f ' d ,  101 S. Ct.  2193
(1981) ...............................................  16,18,19

Chardon v .  Fernandez,  50 U.S.L.W.
3341 (Nov.  2, 1981) ........................... 22

Coles  v .  Marsh, 560 F.2d 186 (3d 
C i r . ) ,  c e r t ,  den ied ,  434 U.S.
985 (1977) .....................................  11

Erhardt v .  P ruden t i a l  Group, I n c . ,
629 F .2d 843 (2d C i r .  1980) ...........  20,21

G r e e n f i e l d  v .  V i l l a g e r  I n d u s t r i e s ,
I n c . ,  483 F .2d 824 (3d C i r .
1973) .......................................................  20

Gul f  O i l  Co. v.  Bernard,  101 S. Ct.
2193 (1981) ................................. passim

K i l l i a n  v.  Kroger  Co. ,  No. C-1-76-470
(S.D. Ohio,  Feb. 13, 1978) ............ 11,12

Sword L ine ,  Inc .  v.  United S ta t es ,
351 U.S. 976 (1956) . .

- iii -

22



Page

Other Authorities

F i r s t  Amendment, United S ta tes
C o n s t i tu t i on  ....................................   16

Rule 23.1,  Rules o f  the Supreme
Court o f  the Uni ted S ta t es  ...........  22

Rule 23, Federa l  Rules o f  C i v i l
Procedure ....................................   16,19

Manual for Complex Litigation,
1 P t .  2 Moore 's  Federa l  P r a c t i c e
(2d ed.  1 980) ..................................  3,1 0,1 6

Manual f o r  Complex L i t i g a t i o n ,
T e n t a t i v e  D ra f t  o f  the F i f t h  
R ev i s i o n ,  wi th Amendments to  
Feb. 4, 1980 ( i s sued  June 24,
1980) ........................................................ 3

iv



No. 81-778

SUPREME

IN THE

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1981

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and THE 
CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS 
PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY,

P e t i t i o n e r s ,

MZELL

V .

WILLIAMS, e t  a l .

On Wri t  Of 
Court Of

C e r t i o r a r i  To The United S ta tes  
Appeals For The S ix th  C i r c u i t

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

U nt i l i t s  r epea l  in September o f  1981

(see  Pet . at 9 ) ,  Local  Rule 3 .9 .4  o f  the

U n i t e d  S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  f o r  t h e



2

Southern D i s t r i c t  o f  Ohio,  e n t i t l e d  "P reven­

t i o n  o f  P o t e n t i a l  Abuses o f  Class A c t i o n s , "
1/

prov ided  in p e r t i n e n t  par t  as f o l l o w s :

In  e v e r y  p o t e n t i a l  o r  a c t u a l  
c l a s s  a c t i o n  under Rule  23 o f  the  
Federa l  Rules o f  C i v i l  Procedure ,  a l l  
p a r t i e s  o r  p o t e n t i a l  p a r t i e s  and 
c o u n s e l  a re  f o r b i d d e n ,  d i r e c t l y  o r  
i n d i r e c t l y ,  o r a l l y  o r  in w r i t i n g ,  t o  
communicate c o n c e r n i n g  such a c t i o n  
w i th  any p o t e n t i a l  o r  a c t u a l  c l a s s  
member n o t  a f o r m a l  p a r t y  t o  t h e  
a c t i o n  w i t h o u t  the  c ons en t  and ap­
p r ova l  o f  the proposed communication 
and p r oposed  a d d r e s s e e s  by o r d e r  o f  
the Court . . . .

The l angu age  o f  the  l o c a l  r u l e  was 

e s s e n t i a l l y  i d e n t i c a l  t o  the language o f  

the o rder  r e s t r a i n i n g  communications wi th 

p o t e n t i a l  c l a s s  members in Gul f  O i l  Co. v . 

Bernard , 101-S. Ct.  2193 (1981) .  The l o c a l

1/ The f u l l  t e x t  o f  the  l o c a l  r u l e  i s  
reproduced in the appendix to  the p e t i t i o n .  
(App.  3 1 a - 3 2 a ) .  In  t h i s  b r i e f ,  " A p p . "  
r e f e r s  t o  the  append ix  t o  the  p e t i t i o n  
f i l e d  in t h i s  Court ,  and " J . A . "  r e f e r s  to 
the j o i n t  appendix f i l e d  in the court  o f  
appea ls.



3

ru l e  in the present  case,  l i k e  the o rder  in 

Gul f  O i l , was adopted in accordance with 

the recommendations o f  § 1.41 and Suggested 

Loca l  Rule No. 7 o f  the Manual f o r  Complex

L i t i g a t i o n , 1 P t .  2 Moore 's  Federa l  Prac -
2/

t i c e  a t  31-37 , 225-26 ( 2d ed.  1980 ) .

In this employment discrimination 

action, the local rule was applied by the 
district court in a manner which thwarted

2/ The Manual f o r  Complex L i t i g a t i o n  is  
"being r e v i s e d . In a t e n t a t i v e  d r a f t  issued 
p r i o r  t o  t h i s  Co ur t ' s  d e c i s i o n  in Gul f  O i l , 
the  M anua l ' s board o f  e d i t o r s  c on t in u e d  
to  recommend that  d i s t r i c t  courts  r o u t i n e l y  
e n t e r  b r o a d  p r e t r i a l  o r d e r s  l i m i t i n g  
communicat i ons  in a c t u a l  and p o t e n t i a l  
c l ass  a c t i on s ,  wi thout  any ev idence or  any 
f i n d i n g s  o f  n e e d .  H o w e v e r ,  t h e  b o a r d  
d e l e t e d  a l l  recommendations tha t  communica­
t i o n s  w i t h  a c t u a l  o r  p o t e n t i a l  c l a s s  
members be r e s t r i c t e d  by l o c a l  r u l e ,  and 
the board removed Suggested Local  Rule No. 
7 from the Manual ' s appendix.  Manual f o r  
Complex L i t i g a t i o n , T e n t a t i v e  Dra f t  o f  the 
F i f t h  R ev i s i on ,  wi th Amendments to  Feb. 4, 
1980 ,  a t  6 7 - 7 6 ,  504 -10  ( i s s u e d  by t h e  
Federa l  J u d i c i a l  Center ,  June 24, 1980).  
The f i n a l  d r a f t  o f  the r e v i s e d  Manual has 
not been issued.



4

e f f o r t s  by the p l a i n t i f f  and h i s  counsel  t o  

communicate with c la ss  members both be fo r e  

and a f t e r  c la ss  c e r t i f i c a t i o n .

1. In November 1975, approx imate l y  

one year  a f t e r  t h i s  a c t i on  was f i l e d  and 

be f o r e  any c la s s  was c e r t i f i e d ,  the p l a i n ­

t i f f  and members o f  h i s  p rop osed  c l a s s  

r e q u e s t e d  t h a t  p l a i n t i f f ' s  c ou n s e l  meet 

wi th a group o f  p o t e n t i a l  c l a s s  members to  

d i scuss  the case and to  answer quest i ons  

a b o u t  t h e  l i t i g a t i o n .  The d e f e n d a n t s  

opposed t h i s  meet ing and moved under the 

l o c a l  r u l e  f o r  an o r d e r  p r o h i b i t i n g  any 

such c o m m u n i c a t i o n  w i t h o u t  t h e  p r i o r  

a p p r o v a l  o f  t h e  c o u r t .  The d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t  g r a n t e d  t h e  d e f e n d a n t s '  m o t i o n ,  

p e rm i t t in g  p l a i n t i f f ' s  counsel  to  at tend 

the meet ing but i n s t r u c t i n g  them to speak 

o n l y  w i t h  t h o s e  p e r s o n s  who a n s w e r e d  

" yes "  t o  one o f  two ques t i ons :  (1 )  Have



5

you eve r  asked f o r  a j ob in the Southern 

R a i l w a y  System o r  any o f  i t s  components 

and been denied the j ob because you were 

black? (2)  I f  you are b lack and working 

f o r  S o u t h e r n ,  have  you n o t  s o u g h t  a 

b e t t e r  j o b  because  you would l o s e  your  

s e n i o r i t y  by t a k i n g  such a j o b ?  P l a i n ­

t i f f ' s  counsel  compl ied wi th the d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t ' s  o rde r .  (App. 4a -5a ) .

2. The l o c a l  ru l e  was app l i ed  again

in 1977 in a manner which prevented c lass

members f r om  r e c e i v i n g  t h e  a d v i c e  and

assistance of plaintiff's counsel. After
2/

c e r t i f y i n g  the case as a c la ss  a c t i on ,  

the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  d i r e c t e d  t h a t  c l a s s  

members be sen t  a n o t i c e  and a tw o-pa ge

3/ In iMarch 1 977, the court  c e r t i f i e d  two 
c la ss e s  o f  black present  and former employ­
e e s  p u r s u a n t  t o  R u l e  2 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ,  Fed .  
R. C i v .  P. (App. 2a) .



6

q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  to  be re turned to  the c l e r k
1/

o f  the  c o u r t  w i t h i n  15 days .  P r i o r  t o  

m a i l i n g  the  n o t i c e  and q u e s t i o n n a i r e  t o  

c la ss  members, p l a i n t i f f ' s  counsel  moved the 

court  f o r  an o rder  p e r m i t t i n g  them to  o f f e r  

adv i c e  and l e g a l  ass i s tance  to  the c la ss  

members in responding to  the qu es t i on n a i r e .

4/ The ques t i onna i r e  asked, i n t e r  a l i a , 
the  f o l l o w i n g  q u e s t i o n s  ( s e e  App. 5 a ) :

Do you consent to  Mze l l  W i l l i ams  and 
h i s  a t t o r n e y s  r e p r e s e n t i n g  y o u r  
i n t e r e s t s  in t h i s  l awsu i t?

Do you w i s h  t o  i n t e r v e n e  and be 
represented  by an a t t o rn ey  o f  your own 
choosing?

Have the  d e f e n d a n t s  d i s c r i m i n a t e d  
aga ins t  you p e r s o n a l l y  because o f  your 
race in the s e l e c t i o n  o f  employees f o r  
t r a i n i n g  t o  become l o c o m o t i v e  e n g i ­
n e e r s ?  I f  y o u r  a n s w e r  i s  " y e s , "  
p l ea se  exp l a in  how they have done so.

Have the  d e f e n d a n t s  d i s c r i m i n a t e d  
a g a i n s t  you p e r s o n a l l y  because  o f  
your  ra c e  in  the  o p e r a t i o n  o f  the 
s e n i o r i t y  system? I f  your answer i s  
" y e s , "  p l ease  e xp la in  how they have 
done so.



7

This  motion was denied.  A f t e r  the n o t i c e  

and ques t i onna i r e  had been ma i l ed ,  p l a i n ­

t i f f ' s  c ou n s e l  r e c e i v e d  a number o f  r e ­

quests  from c la ss  members f o r  such a s s i s ­

tance and adv i ce ,  in c lud ing  a reques t  that  

counsel  meet wi th a group o f  20 to  25 c la ss  

members f o r  t h i s  purpose.  The defendants 

opposed these r eques ts ,  and the court  ruled 

t h a t  i t  would not  be " a p p r o p r i a t e "  f o r  

p l a i n t i f f ' s  counsel  t o  at tend the proposed 

m e e t i n g .  P l a i n t i f f ' s  c o u n s e l  a b i d e d  

by the c o u r t ' s  i n s t ru c t i o n s .  (App. 5a -6a ) .

4/ cont inued

Has the  U n i t ed  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  Union 
f a i l e d  t o  r e p r e s e n t  your  i n t e r e s t s  
wi th regard to  the sub jec ts  o f  s e l e c ­
t i o n  o f  e m p l o y e e s  f o r  e n g i n e e r  
t r a i n i n g  o r  t h e  o p e r a t i o n  o f  t h e  
s e n i o r i t y  system? I f  the  answer i s  
" y e s , "  p l ease  exp l a in  how the United 
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  U n io n  has f a i l e d  
to r epresent  your i n t e r e s t s .



3

3. In  t h e i r  most r e c e n t  e f f o r t  t o  

communicate w i th  c l a s s  members,  p l a i n ­

t i f f ' s  c o u n s e l  moved in  J a n u a r y  1979 

f o r  p e r m i s s i o n  t o  c o n t a c t  and i n t e r v i e w  

c la s s  members f o r  purposes o f  d i s c o v e r y  and 

t r i a l  p r ep a ra t i on .  The defendants opposed

t h i s  mo t i on  and f i l e d  a mo t ion  t o  l i m i t
5/

such c o m m u n i c a t i o n s .  In  J u l y  1979 ,  

the d i s t r i c t  court  denied the p l a i n t i f f ' s  

mot ion.  The court  held that  the l o c a l  ru l e  

was v a l i d  and t h a t  i t  a p p l i e d  t o  t h e  

p r oposed  comm un ica t i on s ,  and the  c o u r t  

en jo ined  the p l a i n t i f f  and h i s  counsel  from 

communicating wi th c la ss  members except  in

5/ The de f endants '  motion reques ted that  
the d i s t r i c t  court  e n j o in  the p l a i n t i f f  and 
h i s  counsel  from communicating wi th c la ss  
members excep t  under s p e c i f i e d  c ond i t i on s .  
(See App. 6a ) .  The court  r e j e c t e d  these 
co nd i t i o ns  as too pe rm is s i v e ,  " a c c e p t [ i n g ]  
d e f e n d a n t s '  p r o p o s e d  l i m i t a t i o n s  o n l y  
i n s o f a r  as they are c o ns i s t en t  w i th ,  and do 
not expand, the l o c a l  r u l e . "  (App. 15a) .



9

compl iance wi th the c o u r t ' s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  

o f  the  r u l e .  P l a i n t i f f  and h i s  co unse l  

were  r e q u i r e d  t o  submit  t o  the  c o u r t  a 

w r i t t e n  sample o f  each proposed communica­

t i o n  and a des i gna t i on  or d e s c r i p t i o n  o f  

a l l  addressees ,  and they were f o rb idden  to 

communicate with the c la ss  members unless 

and u n t i l  the court  approved the t e x t  o f  

each communication. (App. 6a -7a ) .

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  memorandum 

op inion  (App. 14a-23a) made i t  c l e a r  tha t ,  

l i k e  the e a r l i e r  r e s t r a i n t s  on communica­

t i o n s ,  the 1979 gag o rder  was not j u s t i f i e d  

by any f a c t s  or ci rcumstances p e c u l i a r  to  

t h i s  case.  There was no ev idence  that  the 

p l a i n t i f f  o r  h i s  c ou n s e l  had engaged  o r

were eve r  l i k e l y  t o  engage in any improper
1/

or une th ica l  conduct,  nor was there  any

6/ Since February 1978, the p l a i n t i f f  and 
the c e r t i f i e d  c la ss e s  have been represented



ev idence  that  the proposed communications 

posed any th r ea t  to  the f a i r  adm in is t ra t i on  

o f  j u s t i c e .  R a t h e r ,  the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  

here ,  l i k e  the d i s t r i c t  court  in Gul f  O i l  

v .  B e r n a r d , found the  j u s t i f i c a t i o n  f o r  

these r e s t r i c t i o n s  in the gene ra l  recommen­

dat i ons  o f  § 1.41 o f  the Manual f o r  Complex 

L i t i g a t i o n . (See App. 18a) .  As the d i s ­

t r i c t  court  s t a t ed :

I t  was the concern o f  the judges 
o f  t h i s  d i s t r i c t  court  in promulgat ­
ing Rule 3 . 9 .4 ,  that  the c l a s s  ac t i on  
l ends i t s e l f  more e a s i l y  than the non-

6/ cont inued

not on ly  by a major C in c inna t i  law f i rm  but 
a l s o  by a t t o r n e y s  f rom the  NAACP L e g a l  
Defense and Educat i onal  Fund, Inc.  This 
Court observed in Gul f  O i l  v .  Bernard tha t  
" t r a d i t i o n a l  concerns about ' s t i r r i n g  up' 
l i t i g a t i o n  . . .  [ a r e ]  p a r t i c u l a r l y  m i s ­
p l a c e d "  where ,  as h e r e ,  the  p l a i n t i f f s  
are " r ep resen ted  by l awyers from the NAACP 
Lega l  Defense and Education [ a l ]  Fund - -  a 
n o n p r o f i t  o r g a n i z a t i o n  d e d i c a t e d  t o  the  
v i n d i c a t i o n  o f  the l e g a l  r i g h t s  o f  blacks 
and o ther  c i t i z e n s . "  101 S. Ct.  at 2199 
n . l l .



- 1 1 -

c l a s s  a c t i o n  s u i t  t o  b a r r a t r y  and 
o t h e r  abuses o f  e t h i c a l  norms, in 
g e n e r a l . . . .

. . .  T h i s  Cour t  must r e j e c t  the  
T h i r d  C i r c u i t ' s  r a t i o n a l e  [ i n  C o l e s  
v .  Marsh , 560 F .2d 186 (3d C i r . ) ,
c e r t . d e n i e d , 434 U.S. 985 (1977) ]  in 
r e q u i r i n g  a p a r t y  m o v i n g  f o r  a 
p r o t e c t i v e  o r d e r  under Ru le  3 . 9 . 4  
to  show s p e c i f i c  need. The Rule was 
adopt ed  in t h i s  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  t o  
thwart  p o t e n t i a l  problems and abuses. 
. . . 7/

K i l l i a n  v .  Kroger  Co. ,  No. C-1-76-470,  s l i p

op. at  4-5 (S.D.  Ohio,  Feb. 13, 1978) ( em-
8/

p h a s i s  in o r i g i n a l ;  f o o t n o t e  a d d e d ) .

!_/ In Gul f  O i l  v .  Bernard, t h i s  Court ex ­
p r e s s l y  approved both the reasoning and the 
r e s u l t  o f  the Thi rd C i r c u i t ' s  d e c i s i o n  in 
Coles  v .  Marsh. See 101 S. Ct.  at 2201.

8/ The quoted language i s  from one o f  two 
o rders  in K i l l i a n  v .  Kroger  Co. which the 
d i s t r i c t  court  appended to  i t s  op in ion o f  
Ju ly  2, 1979, in the present  case.  L ike 
the case at  bar,  K i l l i a n  was an employment 
d i s c r im in a t i o n  c l ass  ac t i on  in which the 
d i s t r i c t  court  app l i ed  i t s  l o c a l  ru l e  to  
r e s t r i c t  communications by the p l a i n t i f f  
and her counsel  wi th c la ss  members f o r  the 
purpose o f  d i s c o v e r y  and t r i a l  p r epa ra t i on .  
Although the d i s t r i c t  court  s t a ted  in i t s  
op in ion  in the present  case tha t  i t s  ap-



12

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  s u b s e q u e n t l y  d e ­

c l i n e d  to  r e cons ider  i t s  1979 o rd er ,  and 

the p l a i n t i f f  f i l e d  both a n o t i c e  o f  appeal  

and a p e t i t i o n  f o r  a w r i t  o f  mandamus. 

(App. 7a -8a ) .  The S ixth C i r c u i t  dismissed 

the appeal  but issued a w r i t  o f  mandamus 

d i r e c t i n g  the d i s t r i c t  court  to  vaca te  the 

o r d e r  and t o  r e f r a i n  f rom e n f o r c i n g  the  

l o c a l  ru l e .  (App. 12a, 30a) .  The Sixth 

C i r c u i t  h e l d  t h a t ,  und er  t h i s  C o u r t ' s  

d e c i s i o n  in Gul f  O i l  y.  Bernard, both the 

l o c a l  ru l e  and the gag o rder  were " i n v a l i d  

because they unduly and unnecessar i l y  f r u s -

8/ continued

pended o r d e r s  in K i l l i a n  " d i s p o s e d  o f "  
p l a i n t i f f  W i l l i a m s ’ c h a l l e n g e  t o  t h e  
v a l i d i t y  and a p p l i c a b i l i t y  o f  the  l o c a l  
ru l e  (App. 17a) ,  the p e t i t i o n e r s  f a i l e d  to  
inc lude the K i l l i a n  o rders in the appendix 
to  t h e i r  p e t i t i o n  f o r  a w r i t  o f  c e r t i o r a r i .  
Those o rders are reproduced in the j o i n t  
append ix  f i l e d  in the  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s .
( J .A . 83-92) .



t r a t e  the  p o l i c i e s  u n d e r l y i n g  the  c l a s s  

a c t i o n  r u l e  and, t h e r e f o r e ,  exce ed  the  

r u l e - m a k i n g  a u t h o r i t y  o f  t h e  d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t . "  (App. 8a) ( f o o t n o t e  om i t t e d ) .  The 

c o u r t  o f  app ea l s  has s t a y e d  i t s  mandate 

pending d i s p o s i t i o n  o f  the p e t i t i o n  f o r  a 

w r i t  o f  c e r t i o r a r i .  (App. 28a-29a ) .

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

In i t s  unanimous d ec i s i on  l a s t  Term in 

Gul f  O i l  v .  Bernard, t h i s  Court i n v a l i d a t e d  

u n j u s t i f i e d  r e s t r a i n t s  on communications by 

p l a i n t i f f s  and t h e i r  counsel  wi th p o t e n t i a l  

c l a s s  members. In  the  p r e s e n t  c a s e ,  the  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  l o c a l  ru l e  and orders  im­

posed u n j u s t i f i e d  blanket  r e s t r i c t i o n s  on 

such communications both be fo r e  and a f t e r  

c lass  c e r t i f i c a t i o n .  The court  o f  appeals 

c o r r e c t l y  appl i ed  Gul f  O i l  in hold ing the

- 13 -

l o c a l  ru l e  and o rders  i n v a l i d .  Ther e fo re ,



t h e  p e t i t i o n  f o r  a w r i t  o f  c e r t i o r a r i  

should be denied o r ,  in the a l t e r n a t i v e ,  

the  Cour t  shou ld  g r a n t  the  p e t i t i o n  and 

s u m m a r i l y  a f f i r m  t h e  S i x t h  C i r c u i t ' s  

o r d e r .

ARGUMENT

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY APPLIED THIS 
COURT'S DECISION IN GULF OIL v.  BERNARD 

TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE

Both be fo r e  and a f t e r  t h i s  employment 

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  case  was c e r t i f i e d  as a 

c la ss  a c t i on ,  the d i s t r i c t  court  app l i ed  

i t s  Local  Rule 3.9 .4 to  l i m i t  communica­

t i ons  by the p l a i n t i f f  and h i s counsel  wi th 

c la ss  members. These r e s t r i c t i o n s  imposed 

a c r i p p l i n g  burden on the a b i l i t y  o f  p l a i n ­

t i f f ' s  counsel  to d i s c o v e r  the f a c t s  and 

prepare f o r  t r i a l ,  and they prevented c lass  

members f r om  r e c e i v i n g  t h e  a d v i c e  and 

ass i s t ance  o f  the a t to rneys  represent ing

- 14 -



1 5

t h e i r  i n t e r e s t s  in th i s  l i t i g a t i o n -  As 

the court  o f  appeals s t a t ed ,  the l o c a l  ru l e  

" r e s u l t s  in a broad ban on communication 

w i t h  a b s e n t  c l a s s  members and c r e a t e s  

s e v e r e  o b s t a c l e s  t o  c l a s s  l i t i g a t i o n . "  

(App. 1 0 a ) .

Last  Term, t h i s  Court held tha t  such 

sweeping r e s t r a i n t s  on communications with 

p o t e n t i a l  c lass  members, when imposed in 

the absence o f  a c l e a r  r ecord and s p e c i f i c

1/

9/ The record contains  an a f f i d a v i t  o f  
p l a i n t i f f ' s  counsel  e s t a b l i s h i n g  the need 
f o r  c o m m u n i c a t i o n  w i t h  c l a s s  members 
and des cr i b ing  how the l o c a l  ru l e  and the 
gag o rders i n t e r f e r e d  wi th the e f f e c t i v e  
l i t i g a t i o n  o f  t h e  c l a s s  a c t i o n .  T h i s  
a f f i d a v i t  i s  r e p r o d u c e d  i n  th e  j o i n t  
append ix  f i l e d  in the  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s .  
( J . A . 1 1 8 -2 2 ) .  The d e f e n d a n t s  d i d  not
s u b m i t  a f f i d a v i t s  o r  o f f e r  any o t h e r  
ev idence in d i c a t i n g  any need whatsoever f o r  
a l i m i t a t i o n  on communications with c lass  
members.



1 6

f i n d i n g s  o f  n e e d ,  and when b a sed  upon 

n o th in g  more than the  g e n e r a l  recommen­

dat i ons  o f  the Manual f o r  Complex L i t i g a ­

t i o n  , c o n s t i t u t e  an abuse o f  d i s c r e t i o n  

and exceed the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  authority- 

under the Federa l  Rules o f  C i v i l  Procedure.  

Gul f  O i l  Co. v .  Bernard, 101 S. Ct. 2193 

(1 98 1 ) . — ^ P e t i t i o n e r s  have suggested on ly  

one ma te r ia l  d i f f e r e n c e  between Gul f  O i l  and

10/ The F i f t h  C i r c u i t  h e l d  in  G u l f  O i l  
that  such r e s t r a i n t s  v i o l a t e  both Rule 23, 
Fed. R. C i v .  P. , and the F i r s t  Amendment. 
Bernard v .  Gul f  O i l  Co. ,  619 F.2d 459 (5th 
C i r .  1980) (en banc) .  Whi le t h i s  Court did 
not reach the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  ques t i on ,  i t  
r ecogni zed

t h a t  the  o r d e r  i n v o l v e d  s e r i o u s  r e ­
s t r a i n t s  on e x p r e s s i o n .  T h i s  f a c t ,  
a t  a minimum, c o u n s e l s  c a u t i o n  on 
the part  o f  a D i s t r i c t  Court in d r a f t ­
ing  such an o r d e r ,  and a t t e n t i o n  t o  
whether the r e s t r a i n t  i s  j u s t i f i e d  by a 
l i k e l i h o o d  o f  ser i ous  abuses.

101 S. Ct.  at 2202.

Respondent submits that  the l o c a l  ru l e  
and the o rders  in the present  case v i o l a t e d  
b o th  R u l e  23 and t h e  F i r s t  Amendment.



17

t h e  p r e s e n t  c a s e :  The o r d e r  l i m i t i n g

communicat ions in G u l f  O i l  was e n t e r e d  

b e f o r e  any c l a s s  was c e r t i f i e d ,  whereas 

here the d i s t r i c t  court  r e s t ra ine d  communi­

cat i ons  with c lass  members both be f o r e  and 

a f t e r  c l a s s  c e r t i f i c a t i o n .  H o w e v e r ,  

p e t i t i o n e r s  o f f e r e d  no ev idence ,  and the 

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  made no f i n d i n g ,  o f  any 

a c t u a l  o r  t h r e a t e n e d  abuse  o r  m i s c o n ­

duct by the respondent or  h is  counsel  which 

might j u s t i f y  such r e s t r a i n t s  at any stage 

o f  the  l i t i g a t i o n .  The d i s t r i c t  c ou r t  

here ,  l i k e  the d i s t r i c t  court  in Gul f  O i l , 

did not "weigh . . . the need f o r  a l i m i t a ­

t i on  and the p o t e n t i a l  i n t e r f e r e n c e  with 

the  r i g h t s  o f  the p a r t i e s , "  101 S. Ct .  

at 2200 , but simply "adopted _in t o t o  the 

[ l o c a l  ru l e ]  suggested by the Manual f o r  

Complex  L i t i g a t i o n  - -  on t h e  a p p a r e n t

assumption that  no p a r t i c u l a r i z e d  weighing



18

o f  t h e  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  o f  t h e  c a s e  was
11/

n e c e s s a r y .  " _I d . a t  2201.  As t h i s

Court concluded in Gul f  O i l :

[T]he mere p o s s i b i l i t y  o f  abuses 
does not  j u s t i f y  r o u t i n e  a d o p t i o n  
o f  a communica t i ons ban t h a t  i n t e r ­
f e r e s  w i t h  t h e  f o r m a t i o n  o f  a 
c l a s s  or_ the  p r o s e c u t i o n  o f  a c l a s s  
a c t i o n  in a c co rd ance  w i th  the  Ru les  
[ o f  C i v i l  P r o c e d u r e ] .  There  c e r ­
t a i n l y  i s  no j u s t i f i c a t i o n  f o r  adopt­
ing verbat im the form o f  o rder  recom­
mended by t h e  Manual  f o r  Complex  
L i t i g a t i o n  in the absence o f  a c l e a r  
r e c o r d  and s p e c i f i c  f i n d i n g s  o f  
need.

101 S. C t .  a t  2202 ( e m p h a s i s  a d d e d ) .

Nothing in the Co ur t ' s  op in ion  in Gul f  

O i l  s u g g e s t s  t h a t  an u n j u s t i f i e d  ban on 

communications may be imposed a f t e r  a c lass

1 1/ The ban on communications in Gul f  O i l  
took the form o f  a p r e t r i a l  o rder  ra ther  
than a l o c a l  ru l e .  As the F i f t h  C i r c u i t  
noted in i t s  eri banc op in ion  in tha t  case,  
the  same b a s i c  a n a l y s i s  a p p l i e s  t o  both 
the  o r d e r s  and the  r u l e s  recommended by 
§ 1.41 o f  the Manual f o r  Complex L i t i g a ­
t i o n . See 619 F.2d at 466 & nn.5-6,  467 & 
n . 9, 471 n . 22.



19

11/ t h ehas been c e r t i f i e d . I n d e e d  ,

need fo r communication by p l a i n t i f f s and

t h e i r  a t to rneys  wi th c la ss  members i s  o f t en  

g r e a t e r ,  and t h e  bu rd en  o f  j u s t i f y i n g  

r e s t r a i n t s  i s  t h e r e f o r e  h e a v i e r ,  a f t e rIV
c l a s s  c e r t i f i c a t i o n  than b e f o r e .  At

any stage  o f  c l ass  l i t i g a t i o n ,  under Gul f

12/ The F i f t h  C i r c u i t  observed in i t s  en 
banc op in ion in Gul f  O i l  tha t  " the  presence 
or  absence o f  c e r t i f i c a t i o n  does not ma­
t e r i a l l y  a f f e c t  the  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  t h a t  
we v iew as c o n t r o l l i n g . "  619 F . 2d at 475 
n . 29.

13/ In the present  case,  f o r  example, the 
d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  e x e r c i s e d  i ts_  a u t h o r i t y  
under  R u l e  2 3 ( d ) ,  F ed .  R. C i v .  P . ,  t o  
r e qu i r e  tha t  c lass  members be n o t i f i e d  o f  
the  pendency o f  the  a c t i o n .  The n o t i c e  
informed c lass  members that  "Mze l l  Wi l l iams 
and the  a t t o r n e y s  r e p r e s e n t i n g  him w i l l  
r e p r e s e n t  your  i n t e r e s t s  in the  l a w s u i t  
unless you d ispute Mr. W i l l i am s '  r epresen­
t a t i o n  o f  your i n t e r e s t s . "  ( J .A .  59-60) .  
The ques t i onna i re  which accompanied th i s  
n o t i c e  i n c lu d e d  an i t em by which c l a s s  
members could in d i ca t e  whether they wished 
to be represented  by the p l a i n t i f f  and h i s  
a t to rneys ,  or  whether they wished instead 
to- in te rvene  and be represented  by separate  
counsel .  (App. 5a ) .  Not a s i n g l e  c lass  
member chose to  be r epresented  by separate



20

Oi l  even the narrowest  l i m i t a t i o n  on com­

municat ions by a p l a i n t i f f  or  h i s  counsel  

wi th c la ss  members must be supported by a

c l e a r  r e c o r d  and s p e c i f i c  f i n d i n g s  o f
11/

n e e d .  T h e r e  was no such r e c o r d  and

13/ continued

counse l .  Thus, p a r t i c u l a r l y  in the circum­
s t a n c e s  o f  t h i s  c a s e ,  c e r t i f i c a t i o n  o f  
a c l a s s  " n o t  o n l y  c o n f e r s  upon a b s e n t  
p er so ns  the  s t a t u s  o f  l i t i g a n t s ,  but in 
a d d i t i o n  i t  c r e a t e s  an a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t  
r e l a t i o n s h i p  between those persons and a 
lawyer or  group o f  l a w y e r s . "  Amos v .  Board 
o f  School  D i r e c t o r s , 408 F. Supp. 765, 774 
(E.D. W i s . ) ,  a f f ' d , 539 F.2d 625 (7th C i r .  
1976),  vacated on o the r  grounds, 433 U.S. 
672 (1977) .  See a l so  G re e n f i e l d  v .  V i l ­
l a g e r  I n d u s t r i e s ,  I n c . ,  483 F.2d 824 , 832
(3d C i r .  1973).  The impos i t i on  o f  u n ju s t i ­
f i e d  p o s t - c e r t i f i c a t  i o n  r e s t r a i n t s  on 
communica t i ons  i m p e r m i s s i b l y  i n t e r f e r e d  
wi th t h i s  a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t  r e l a t i o n s h i p  in 
the present  case.

14/ There i s  no c o n f l i c t  among the c i r ­
cu i t s  on th i s  i ssue.  The on ly  p e r t in en t  
c i r c u i t  court  d e c i s i on  c i t e d  by p e t i t i o n e r s  

Erhardt v .  P rudent ia l  Group, I n c . , 629
F . 2 d 843 (2d C i r .  1 98 0 ) - -  c o r r e c t l y
a n t i c i p a t e d  th i s  Cour t ' s  d e c i s i on  in Gul f  
O i l . Contrary to  p e t i t i o n e r s '  suggest ion 
( see  Pet .  at 12) ,  in Erhardt n e i th e r  the 
p l a i n t i f f  nor h i s  co unse l  was g u i l t y  o f



21

t h e r e  were  no such f i n d i n g s  h e r e .  The 

court  o f  appeals t h e r e f o r e  c o r r e c t l y  held 

that  Local  Rule 3 .9 .4  and i t s  a p p l i c a t i o n  

in t h i s  case exceeded the au th o r i t y  o f  the 

d i s t r i c t  court .

For the f o r e go in g  reasons,  the p e t i ­

t i o n  f o r  a w r i t  o f  c e r t i o r a r i  shou ld  be 

denied.  In the a l t e r n a t i v e ,  the p e t i t i o n

14/ continued

making any erroneous or mis leading  s t a t e ­
ments  t o  c l a s s  members .  R a t h e r ,  t h e  
pr es id en t  o f  the corpora te  defendant had 
s e n t  m i s l e a d i n g  l e t t e r s  u r g i n g  c l a s s  
members t o  o p t  o u t  o f  t h e  p l a i n t i f f ' s  
c l a s s .  Based upon t h i s  c l e a r  r e c o r d  o f  
abuse, and in v iew o f  the s p e c i f i c  need to 
remedy confusion r e s u l t i n g  from the mis­
l e a d i n g  l e t t e r s ,  the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  r e ­
quired the defendants to send c o r r e c t i v e  
no t i c e s  to  the c lass  members and en jo ined 
the defendants from fu r t he r  communications 
w i t h  c l a s s  members e x c e p t  upon p r i o r  
a p r o v a l  o f  the  c o u r t .  629 F.2d at  845. 
The Second  C i r c u i t  a p p r o v e d  o f  t h e s e  
remedial  measures but vacated the d i s t r i c t  
c o u r t ' s  f i nd ing  o f  c i v i l  contempt on the 
ground that  the misconduct o f  the de f en­
da n t ' s  p r es i den t  had not v i o l a t e d  a spe­
c i f i c  o rder  o f  the cour t .  Id .  at 846-47.



22

should be granted and the S ix th  C i r c u i t ' s  

o rder  should be summarily a f f i rmed  pursuant 

to  Rule 23.1 o f  the Rules o f  t h i s  Court.  

Summary a f f i rmance would prov ide  courts  and 

c o u n s e l  w i t h  a p p r o p r i a t e  g u i d a n c e  in  

apply ing  th i s  Cour t ' s  d e c i s i on  in Gul f  O i l  

v.  Bernard. See Chardon v ,  Fernandez, 50 

U.S.L.W. 3341 (Nov. 2, 1981); Sword L i n e , 

Inc ,  v .  United S t a t e s , 351 U.S. 976 (1956) .

CONCLUSION

The p e t i t i o n  f o r  a w r i t  o f  c e r t i o r a r i  

should be denied.  In the a l t e r n a t i v e ,  the 

p e t i t i o n  should be granted and the Sixth



23

C i r c u i t ' s  o r d e r  s h o u l d  be s u mma r i l y  

a f f i rmed  in l i g h t  o f  t h i s  Cour t ' s  d ec i s i on  

in Gul f  O i l  v .  Bernard.

R e s p e c t f u l l y  submitted,

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, I I I  
PATRICK 0. PATTERSON*
Sui te  2030 
10 Columbus C i r c l e  
New York,  New York 10019 
(212) 586-8397

BARRY L. GOLDSTEIN 
Sui te  940
806 15th S t r e e t ,  N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

STRAUSS, TROY & RUEHLMANN CO., L .P .A .  
ALAN C. ROSSER 
2100 Cent ra l  Trust  Center 
C inc inna t i ,  Ohio 45202

EWEN, MACKENZIE & PEDEN, P.S.C.
JAMES C. HICKEY 
650 Starks Bu i ld ing  
L o u i s v i l l e ,  Kentucky 40202

Attorneys f o r  Respondent Wi l l iams

’ Counsel o f  Record



MEJLEN PRESS IN C .— JsL-Y. C. •-§!>• 219