Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Argument

Public Court Documents
June 25, 1963

Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Argument preview

11 pages

Date is approximate.

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

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top