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

Background

Andrew Snitzer and Paul Livant brought this class action on behalf of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Plan. The order concerns Martin Stoner, a class member representing himself who had previously objected to the proposed class settlement and sought additional discovery materials.

The court had previously ordered disclosure of some of the documents Stoner requested. Stoner then asked for a conference, additional time or opportunities to respond to filings, disclosure of privileged attorney notes concerning the settlement, information about negotiations over Class Counsel’s proposed fees, reconsideration of the court’s disclosure rulings, and copies of all filings and communications between the court and the parties.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied Stoner’s requests. It emphasized that Stoner had not appeared as a party and could not take over the role of the class representatives. Like other objecting class members, he could submit timely objections and be heard at the fairness hearing.

The court stated that there were more than 100,000 class members and that it had to balance some members’ interest in additional documents against the entire class’s interest in a prompt decision about the proposed settlement. The court had set a deadline for requests for additional evidence, ordered responses, and ruled on the disclosure requests. It said it would order additional submissions only if they would be helpful and would not unduly delay the proceedings. No timely request for additional papers had been made, and the court had not invited reply submissions.

Regarding reconsideration of the decision to disclose deposition transcripts but not counsel’s notes, the court stated that Stoner had not provided new information that could not have been submitted earlier. It therefore said reconsideration was not a means to relitigate the issue. The court did not decide here whether Stoner could file such a motion without first appearing in the case.

As to the proposed attorney fees, the court directed Stoner to review Class Counsel’s fee motion, which had not yet been approved. The court stated that it would independently assess the request, consider timely objections, and ensure that the fee was not unreasonable. It also stated that the extent of fee negotiations between Class Counsel and counsel for the defendants was largely, if not entirely, irrelevant to that assessment.

For access to case documents, the court said Stoner could monitor the public docket through the federal court’s electronic records system. Documents most relevant to evaluating the settlement had also been placed on the settlement website. The court said Stoner was not entitled to more individualized notice than any other unnamed class member. He would receive individualized notice if the court specifically requested a response; otherwise, he would receive notice through the ordinary docket or settlement-website process.

Finally, the court denied Stoner’s request for a conference. It said his opportunity to present his views was at the fairness hearing, where all class members were entitled to be heard. A copy of the order was emailed to him as a courtesy.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that Martin Stoner’s requests be denied. The order did not decide whether the proposed class settlement should ultimately be approved, and the court noted that the fee request had not yet been approved.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it addressed case management, document access, notice, reconsideration, and participation by an unnamed class member rather than deciding the underlying ERISA claims or approving the settlement.