Rule 65(d) provides in pertinent part: Every order granting an injunction . . . shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts sought to be restrained . . . . These provisions require specificity and are designed to prevent uncertainty and confusion on the part of those to whom the injunction is directed and to avoid the possible founding of a contempt citation on a decree too vague to be understood. They require that those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed. Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476, 38 L. Ed. 2d 661, 94 S. Ct. 713 (1974).
Rule 65(d) requires that any injunction or restraining order be 'specific in terms' and describe 'in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.' Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d). 'If an injunction does not clearly describe prohibited or required conduct, it is not enforceable by contempt.' Gates v. Shinn, 98 F.3d 463, 468 (9th Cir.1996). As the Supreme Court explained in Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n. v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n, 389 U.S. 64, 88 ...