Document: 452 U.S. 89 101 S.Ct. 2193 68 L.Ed.2d 693 GULF OIL COMPANY et al., Petitioners,v.Wesley P. BERNARD al. No. 80-441. Argued March 30, 1981. Decided June 1, Syllabus Petitioner Gulf Oil Co. and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission entered into a conciliation agreement involving alleged discrimination against black female employees at one of Gulf's refineries. Under this agreement, undertook to offer backpay victims began send notices eligible for backpay, stating amount available in return execution full release all claims. Respondents then filed class action Federal District Court petitioner labor union, on behalf present former rejected applicants employment, alleging racial employment seeking injunctive, declaratory, monetary relief. motion an order limiting communications from named plaintiffs (respondents) their counsel members. Ultimately, over respondents' objections, issued order, based form Manual Complex Litigation, imposing complete ban concerning between parties or any actual potential member who was not formal party, without court's prior approval. The stated that if party asserted constitutional right communicate restraint did so communicate, he must file copy communication with court. court made no findings fact write explanatory opinion. Appeals reversed, holding unconstitutional expression accorded First Amendment protection. Held : question abused its discretion under Rules Civil Procedure. Pp. 99-104. (a) is inconsistent general policies embodied Rule Procedure 23, which governs actions federal district courts. It interfered efforts inform members existence lawsuit, may have been particularly injurious only respondents but as whole—because time were being pressed decide whether accept offers. In addition, it more difficult obtain information about merits case persons they sought represent. 99-101. (b) Because these problems, such should be clear record specific reflecting weighing need limitation interference parties' rights. Only determination can ensure furthering, rather than hindering, Rules, especially 23. Moreover, result carefully drawn limits speech little possible, consistent 101-103. (c) Here, there indication careful competing factors, discloses grounds could determined necessary appropriate impose order. involved serious restraints expression, minimum, counsels caution Court's part drafting attention justified by likelihood abuses. 102-104. (d) mere possibility abuses class-action litigation does justify routine adoption interferes formation prosecution accordance Rules. And certainly justification adopting recommended absence need. 104. 5 Cir., 619 F.2d 459, affirmed. William G. Duck, Houston, Tex., petitioners. Jack Greenberg, New York City, respondents. Lawrence Wallace, Washington, D. C., U. S. amici curiae, special leave Court. Justice POWELL delivered opinion 1 This allegations petitioners, (Gulf) unions Port Arthur, refinery. We granted writ certiorari determine scope authority limit prospective members, during pendency action. hold circumstances exceeded 2 * April 1976, (EEOC) Arthur agreed cease various allegedly discriminatory practices, undertake affirmative program covering hiring promotion, set formula. 643 exact each person within 30 days claims dating relevant period.1 3 Approximately month after signing May 18, United States Eastern Texas, employees, refinery.2 They relief, Title VII Rights Act 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e seq., 1866, defendants Local 4-23 Oil, Chemical, Atomic Workers International Union. Plaintiffs' included three lawyers NAACP Legal Defense Education Fund.3 Through vindicate rights many receiving settlement offers agreement. 4 On 27, An accompanying brief described EEOC asserting entitled had signed releases paid filed. served case, ceased sending forms lawyer respond ents, Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, attended meeting 75 22, where discussed sign sent added Thibodeaux reportedly advised checks already received, since receive least double amounts through temporary prohibiting listed several examples covered, limited examples. fact. 6 8, moved modification would allow continue mailings soliciting exchange established opposition, arguing violated Amendment. 11, heard oral argument, took evidence. supplemental memorandum proposing adopt language "Sample Pretrial Order 15" Litigation App. 1.41.4 replied another memorandum, accompanied sworn affidavits lawyers. important needed Two 22 issues neither accepting nor represented suit produce twice 7 Judge modified proposal.5 imposed approval gave forbidden communications, including solicitation legal representation statements "which tend misrepresent status, purposes effects action" "create impressions tending cause, reflect adversely counsel, Court, administration justice." exempted attorney-client initiated client, regular course business. further "assert[ed] . restraint," summary five days. finally, process. 8 offered statement final paragraph order: 9 "It Plaintiff's [sic ] contention provisions hereinbefore are constitutionally invalid, citing Rodgers v. Steel Corporation, 508 152 (3rd Cir.1975), cert. denied, 420 969 [95 1386, 43 649] (1975). finds inapplicable, comports requisites out specifically exempts protected when substance Court." 10 July 6, pursuant submitted proposed leaflet members.6 notice urged talk before Gulf. contained names addresses referred case. argued conduct lawsuit. opposed motion. waited until August rule date, expiration 45-day deadline acceptance members,7 denied one-sentence containing explanation. As result, prevented undertaking deadline. 11 appeal subsequent order,8 limitations beyond power 23(d) A divided panel Fifth Circuit affirmed 596 1249 (1979). 12 majority reasoned orders extensive powers courts managing litigation. held easily concluded outweighed interests respondents, merely required them altogether. Id., 1259-1261. Turning because unapproved whenever privilege good faith. also found "chill" speech. 1261-1262. 13 Godbold wrote dissenting "appropriate" meaning make finding imminent abuse. He unsworn misconduct routinely actions. 1267-1268. improper context encourage compliance 1269-1270. 1270-1275. 14 rehearing en banc, reversed decision communications. 459 (1980). joined judges protection.9 sufficient particularized showing restraint, overbroad, requisite procedural safeguards. 466-478. Eight concurred specially theory unnecessary reach adequate therefore 23(d). 478, 481. One judge 15 review permissible. 449 1033, 607, 66 495 II 16 provides: "(d) ORDERS IN CONDUCT OF ACTIONS. applied, orders: (3) conditions representative intervenors [and] (5) dealing similar matters."10 concurring below recognized, F.2d, 481, reaching questions, consider nonconstitutional decision. See Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 347, 56 466, 483, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). we first sweeping 17 More specifically, Class serve function our system civil justice.11 present, how ever, opportunities abuse well problems management cases.12 abuse, has both duty broad exercise control enter governing parties. But unlimited, indeed bounded Eisen Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 156, 94 2140, 40 732 (1974). petitioners concede, must, exercises subject appellate review. Brief Petitioners 21, n. 15; see Eisen, supra; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. Sanders, 437 340, 359, 98 2380, 2393, 57 253 (1978). 18 faced unquestionable assertion created difficulties employees.13 injurious—not liability acts.14 representatives, 19 parties.15 Procedure, 23.16 weighing—identifying addressed—should circumstances. Coles Marsh, 560 186, 189 (CA3), 434 985, 611, 54 479 (1977): 20 "[T]o extent empowered restrict certain prevent frustration moving particular threatened. find provides satisfactory basis relief 23 giving explicit consideration narrowest possible protect respective parties." III 21 looks vain factors. Indeed, respect, failed provide useful factual arguments supporting Instead, adopted toto suggested Litigation—on apparent assumption necessary. requiring judicial exception cases chose assert right. Even then, preserve submission days.17 perhaps best illustrated refused permit mailing supra, 96-97. intended rely offer. identified nothing thought reasons negative ruling. conclude imposition discretion. reveals order.18 Although do what standards mandated kind observe expression. fact, 24 recognize litigation, agree implicate members.19 There verbatim Other, less burdensome remedies appropriate.20 will problem all. 25 above, discretion.21 Accordingly, judgment 26 ordered. letter "[b]ecause personal nature, asks you discuss others." added, however, those understand request company official arrange interview Government representative. Amici Curiae 1a. Three plaintiffs, Bernard, Brown, Johnson, individual charges 1967. pursued February 1975 received letters union longer wished entertain discussions. "right sue" time, 90 receipt VII. Bernard Brown sue 1976. premised separate charge itself 1968. other attorneys assisted representation. Manual, compilation procedures handling complex cases, published supervision distinguished group judges. printed Part J. Moore, Lucas, H. Fink, Weckstein, Wicker, Moore's Practice allowing paying obtaining Clerk informing 45 stated, part: "In action, hereto directly indirectly, orally writing, consent Any shall presented writing designation description communication. include, to, indirectly action; fees expenses agreements pay requests opt subparagraph (b)(3) F.R.Civ.P.; therein create tending, justice. obligations prohibitions exclusive. All ethical, equitable unaffected "This forbid (1) attorney his client initiative consulted with, employed employ attorney, (2) occurring business performance duties public office agency (such Attorney General) effect misrepresenting therein. "If asserts right, communication, accurate substantially oral." section word-for-word 1.41. went authorize process terms direct 4, supra. near end reiterated proscription communications: "(8) [It ordered that] either indirect, (other permitted above) parties, representatives forbidden." stated: "ATTENTION BLACK WORKERS "The Company asked release. If do, up very fully getting IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU TALK TO LAWYER BEFORE SIGN. These FOR FREE [names counsel]. "These represent six your fellow workers lawsuit titled Co., Beaumont you. seeks correct practices "Even release, lawyer. You consult attorney. necessary, him contact above-named details. discussions kept strictly confidential. "AGAIN, LAWYER. Whatever might be, vigorously prosecute Oil." effected substantial change procedure provided "failure thirty interpreted back pay" (emphasis added). 59. January 1977, dismissing complaint untimely. appeal, timely fashion. Both panel, 1249, 1254-1258 (1979), banc court, 463 (1980), issue remand proceedings. restricted speech, relied essentially political Button, 371 415, 83 328, 405 (1963); re Primus, 436 412, 1893, (1978), closer collective gain economic benefits law, Transportation Union Michigan Bar, 401 576, 91 1076, 28 339 (1971); Mine Illinois Bar Assn., 389 217, 88 353, 426 (1967); Railroad Trainmen Virginia State 377 84 1113, (1964). authorization courts, "all rule, regulate practice manner rules." performing customary role seek "vindicat[e] individuals otherwise worth candle embark optimum consumed cost." Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank Roper, 445 326, 338, 100 1166, 1174, 63 427 expresses "a policy favor having common interests, questions law prevail, disposed feasible single lawsuit." Corp., 152, 163 423 832, 96 54, 46 50 traditional concerns "stirring up" remain context, 12, infra, misplaced here. Fund—a nonprofit organization dedicated vindication blacks citizens. 422, 426-431, S.Ct., 1899, 1901-1904 (distinguishing, respect protections, clients advance objectives pecuniary gain). emerged 1966 provoked considerable comment discussion. See, e. g., Complete Litigation; Developments Law: Actions, Harv.L.Rev. 1318 (1976); Miller, Problems Administering Judicial Relief Actions 23(b)(3), F.R.D. 501 (1972). associated Waldo Lakeshore Estates, Inc., 433 F.Supp. 782 (E.D.La.1977). That referred, inter alia, "heightened susceptibilities nonparty amounting barratry increased 'drum up' participation proceeding." 790. "[u]napproved status pending obvious confusion and/or affecting 790-791. generally Comment, Screening Action Communications, 55 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 671, 699-704 (1980); Note, 1911, 1917-1920 VII, Congress expressed preference voluntary settlements disputes E. Alexander Gardner-Denver 415 36, 44, 1011, 1017, 39 147 But, promote restricting employee's choice: choice employee make. him, freighted across-the-board access advice choice." 477. noted requirements context. Full await developed device. Cf. Halkin, 194 U.S.App.D.C. 257, 274, 598 176, 193 (1979) ("To establish 'good cause' protective [Federal Procedure] 26(c), '[t]he insisted demonstration stereotyped conclusory statements. .' ") (quoting C. Wright A. 2035, p. 265 (1970)). contains ambiguity response merit Arguably, "constitutional" realistic option exposed risk contempt citation after-the-fact protected. 471 (referring "the omissions ambiguities differing constructions when, all, contempt"). At least, defend faith, citation. practical filing requirement, id., 470-471, narrow Appeals' refusal give weight attorneys: "We assume ground conclusion true. Nothing indicates did, and, procedurally evidentiary support. Rather appears acted upon rationale prophylactic measure envisioned Manual." 466 (footnote omitted). For example, copies nonprivileged some often free participants, witnesses, jurors. Our regarding analysis situation us—involving note rules ethics properly ABA Code Professional Responsibility, DR 7-104

Category: 8