With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ... that the government’s representatives ... acted in bad faith. To the contrary, its filing an intent to publish before actually publishing notice is evidence of good faith.” Id. This Court agrees that Plaintiff is not abusing the judicial process. Rather, by filing a notice of intention to publish, Plaintiff evidences its good faith. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise any inherent authority to prohibit publication of notice of the lawsuit. Both parties acknowledge trial court rulings finding that the court does not have the authority to prohibit the Government from publishing such a notice. See id. at *6 (concluding that the court does not have the power to prohibit the Government from publishing a similar notice); United States v. McLimore, CA No. IP94-1244-C (S.D.Ind.1994) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, other courts have apparently

A: holding that the discretionary function does not apply where the decisionmaker lacks authority
B: holding without memorandum that the court lacks authority to restrain the government from publishing notice
C: holding failure to investigate before publishing is not sufficient to prove actual malice
D: holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner
B.