Opinion ID: 655375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: justification for mandamus

Text: 6 This case comes to us on a petition for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is used sparingly because it entails interference with the district court's control of the litigation before it. In order to assist our analysis in the appropriate use of mandamus, we identified certain guideline principles in Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977). They are 7 (1) The party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires. 8 (2) The petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal. (This guideline is closely related to the first.) 9 (3) The district court's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. 10 (4) The district court's order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules. 11 (5) The district court's order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression. 12 Id., at 654-55 (citations omitted). As we noted in Bauman, these guidelines are cumulative and may not all point to the same conclusion; in fact, it is unlikely that all of the guidelines will be met in any one case, and the decision often requires balancing of conflicting factors. Id., at 655. The guidelines are not susceptible to mechanical application, but are a useful analytic framework regarding propriety of mandamus relief. In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 688 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir.1982). 13 Based upon the Bauman guidelines, the Star has not justified the issuance of a writ. The Star satisfied the first two Bauman factors. First, this writ is the only available means to obtain the desired result, that is, to prevent compelled disclosure. Second, if the district court erred in compelling disclosure, any damage the Star suffered would not be correctable on appeal. However, we conclude that the district court's order is not clearly erroneous as a matter of law, nor an oft-repeated error.