Cir.) (“[T]he mechanics of the notice process are left to the discretion of the court subject only to the broad reasonableness standards imposed by due process.”), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S.Ct. 124, 46 L.Ed.2d 93 (1975). Rule 23(e) notice is designed to be only “a summary of the litigation and the settlement [and] it is crucial to apprise class members of the right and opportunity to inspect the complete settlement documents, papers, and pleadings filed in the litigation.” See 2 Newberg § 8.32, at 8-109; see also Grunin, 513 F.2d at 122 (“Class members are not expected to rely upon the notices as a complete source of settlement information”). The notice need not be unduly specific. See 2 Newberg § 11.53, at 11-130 (citing In re “Agent Orange” Prod. Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d at 170 (<HOLDING>)). The notice need not include the entire
holding that settlement notice that failed to detail a distribution plan was not inadequate holding that inadequate notice did not trigger plans time bar for administrative review holding a complaint failed to satisfy rule 9b where the allegations were lacking in detail holding that our liberal rules of notice pleading do not require that specific evidentiary detail be alleged in the complaint holding that the notice of abandonment contained in the notice of commencement of case was inadequate because it was vague as to what property would be abandoned