Snitzer v. The Board of Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians and…

Background

The court received emails and letters from Martin Stoner, who described himself as a putative class member and objected to preliminary approval of a proposed class-action settlement. The submitted materials also included a preliminary motion asking to intervene in the case, meaning to become a participant for a limited purpose. Stoner said he was not represented by a lawyer and sought to object to the settlement, participate in a fairness hearing, and address issues involving the pension plan’s benefit-reduction application, sealed discovery, alleged conflicts of interest, and attorney fees.

Stoner’s communications argued that the proposed settlement was not fair, reasonable, or adequate. He also asked the court to consider releasing relevant sealed discovery, delaying or withholding preliminary approval, appointing additional counsel for objecting class members, or—if preliminary approval were granted—using independent experts to evaluate the settlement’s governance provisions and counsel’s fees and expenses. These were Stoner’s positions, not findings by the court.

Court’s Action

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the attached communications be filed on the docket. The stated reason was to preserve the public’s right to access judicial documents.

Scope of the Order

The order does not state that the court granted or denied preliminary approval of the settlement. It also does not state that the court granted or denied Stoner’s request to intervene, his requests concerning sealed discovery, or his other objections. The order is limited to filing the communications on the public docket.