Southern Railway Company v Williams Brief in Opposition
Public Court Documents
October 1, 1981

29 pages
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Southern Railway Company v Williams Brief in Opposition, 1981. d17a36e0-c49a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/92cab1ac-ce89-491c-86ed-f6bc4e5f9c25/southern-railway-company-v-williams-brief-in-opposition. Accessed May 17, 2025.
Copied!
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