procedures for complying with the Consent Decree, or modified some
procedural mechanisms — such as funding or the filing of
Applications — for efficiency and expediency. See, e.g.,
723 F. Supp. 203, 205. To devise a process which resolves disputes over
the content of communications with the membership seems a reasonable
exercise of this Court's authority.
The current anarchic confrontations that now surrounds dispute
involving the Independent Administrator's obligations to report to the
membership under ¶ 12.(E) shall be supplanted by the following
1.(a) Should the IBT object to the content of any communication from
the Court Officers to be published in the monthly issue of the
International Teamster, the IBT shall contact the Independent
Administrator within twenty four hours after they receive the piece, note
their objection, and attempt to resolve the conflict. From the date of
the IBT's receipt of the piece in question, (the "publication receipt
day"), the IBT and the Independent Administrator shall have two (2)
business days to resolve the conflict (the "notification of publication
(b) If the parties cannot settle the matter, the Independent
Administrator shall file a letter with the Court, styled a "Notification
of Publication Dispute Letter," indicating the existence of the dispute.
This letter shall also be served by hand upon my chambers, the IBT's
outside counsel, and the Government, and by hand or by telefax upon the
IBT, all by no later than 5:00 on the day of the notification of
publication dispute deadline.
2.(a) Should they still object, the IBT may file an Application to this
Court submitting the question for judicial resolution, and that month's
issue of the International Teamster shall be held in abeyance until this
Court rules on the Application. This Application shall be on notice to
the Court, the Independent Administrator, and the Government, and must be
fully submitted within two (2) business days after the Independent
Administrator files the Notification of Publication Dispute Letter.
(b) The Independent Administrator and Government shall have two (2)
business days to respond from the date of full submission of the
3. Absent an Application by the IBT as provided in 2.(a), the report
shall be published as submitted by the Independent Administrator.
4. The timing provisions shall be calculated using the formula provided
in Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This formal procedure should guarantee that disputes over the
International Teamster be resolved in an expedient and fair manner.
Further, the IBT must now shoulder the burden of demonstrating the
inappropriateness of material for publication. All parties should
remember this Court's view that the IBT membership must be kept fully
appraised of the developments in this litigation.
As a final note, if significant disagreements over other forms of
communication arise between the Court Officers to the IBT membership, the
Independent Administrator may ask this Court to expand this procedure to
include those correspondences.
C. Request for Modification of Earlier Rulings
The IBT requests that this Court clarify three points concerning its
earlier rulings interpreting ¶ 12.(E). Specifically, the IBT asks
this Court to alter (1) its order which requires all orders to be
published in the International Teamster to eliminate some, (2) its order
that all opinions must be published unedited but in full, and (3) the
Court's supposed ban on any IBT commentary on this Court's opinions.
This Court's rulings with respect to the publication of its orders in
the International Teamster are crystalline. All orders are to be
published in full. It would seem impossible to further clarify such a
The IBT requests that this Court identify which of its rulings should
be published. The IBT points out that while this Court ordered all
rulings of this Court to
be published in the International Teamster, they feel some orders involve
trivial or minor matters and are inappropriate for publication. This
Court will not determine which of its pronouncements are suitable for
publication since it would be impossible to choose to the satisfaction of
all parties. Therefore this request must be denied. In the interests of
completeness, the membership must be kept fully informed of all ongoings
in this case.
The IBT also asks whether the January 17, 1990 Opinion and Order of
this Court modifies the earlier November 16, 1989 Order to hold that the
IBT need only publish the actual rulings, rather than the entire
opinions. The January 17, 1990 Opinion in no way modifies the November
16, 1989 Order as the IBT asks.
Further, the IBT asks that this Court permit the IBT to edit out purely
legal discussions, so as not to bore the members with what it feels are
irrelevant discussions. While the Court understands that much of legal
opinions may not innervate the IBT rank and file, it does provide a basis
for understanding how the Court arrived at its decision. The many letters
my chamber receives daily indicate that the membership gleans some real
insight into what takes place in this case through these opinions. In
addition, editing in no way assures that the opinions will be any more
readable, understandable, or entertaining. Therefore, all orders of this
Court shall be reproduced in full.
Finally, the IBT asks this Court to state whether its ruling in the
November 16, 1989 Opinion precludes the IBT from commenting on this
Court's opinions. I will now firmly state that the IBT is in no way
barred from any commentary on any of my opinions in this case. As I said
to General Counsel Grady on this subject at the hearing of October 13,
1989, "You can speak to your heart's content. Nobody is gagging you,"
October 13, 1989 Hearing, Transcript at 59, and that remains true now.
The only limitation on the IBT's ability to comment on my rulings is my
order that in reprinting the opinion, the IBT not intersperse the full
republication with commentary. This in no way means the IBT cannot, in
another section, reprint small segments of the opinions and comment in
any way they like, but that in one section the opinions continue to be
provided in full.*fn1
In response to Application VIII of the Independent Administrator,
¶ 12.(E) of the Consent Decree is hereby interpreted in accordance
with the above rulings.