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

Background

The order concerns communications submitted by class members during proceedings about a proposed class-action settlement. The court said it had received additional objections and other communications since July 20, 2020. It ordered the attached communications filed on the electronic docket to maintain an accurate public record.

One communication came from Martin Stoner, whom the court described as an unnamed and non-appearing class member. Stoner asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision concerning disclosure of counsel’s meeting notes. He argued that new information—including deposition material, alleged attorney conflicts, concerns about the conduct of the trustees and attorneys, and objections to the proposed settlement—supported releasing additional materials and investigating those issues before the settlement was approved.

Requests and Arguments

Stoner acknowledged that, as a non-party objector, he could not file a motion for reconsideration. He nevertheless asked the court to reconsider the issue on its own authority. His filing also sought disclosure of privileged documents and raised matters involving alleged ethics violations, possible conflicts of interest, the trustees’ conduct, the settlement, and attorney-fee negotiations.

The parties asked the court to bar Stoner from submitting further objections and letters unless the court solicited them. The order states that the objections deadline was July 27, 2020.

Rulings

The court denied Stoner’s second request for reconsideration. Although Stoner disclaimed making a reconsideration motion, the court concluded that his letter invited the court to reconsider its prior decision and was an attempt to avoid the fact that he had not appeared in the action. The court also stated that it saw no basis to sanction class counsel because counsel had complied with the court’s deadlines and orders.

The court further held that Stoner’s requests for information about ethics complaints and other claims not raised in the case did not justify disclosing privileged documents. The court noted that disclosure would make those documents available not only to class members but also to the broader public.

The court denied the parties’ request to bar Stoner from further submissions at that time. It stated that, after the July 27 deadline, any unsolicited objection filed by any class member, including Stoner, would be rejected as untimely and would not require a further response. The court warned that additional attempts to relitigate issues already decided could result in sanctions, including a bar against further submissions. Because the request to bar Stoner was denied, the court did not request another response from him and stated that any such response would be disregarded as moot.