eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2019-09

The Geo Group, Inc. v. Usdc-Wawta ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 3 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: THE GEO GROUP, INC.,                     No.   19-70014
______________________________
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05806-RJB
THE GEO GROUP, INC.,
Petitioner,                     MEMORANDUM*
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON, TACOMA,
Respondent,
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Real Party in Interest.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Argued and Submitted August 26, 2019
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”) petitions for a writ of mandamus ordering the
district court to vacate its discovery order compelling production of GEO’s financial
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
information. GEO contends this information is irrelevant to the State of
Washington’s (the “State”) claims. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1651
    and deny the petition.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and “only exceptional circumstances
amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion will justify
the invocation of this remedy.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
    542 U.S. 367
    , 380 (2004)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To determine whether mandamus
is warranted, this court weighs the five nonexhaustive factors set forth in Bauman v.
U.S. Dist. Ct.,
    557 F.2d 650
     (9th Cir. 1977). Even if the petitioner satisfies all five
factors, it is within the court’s discretion to grant or deny the petition. San Jose
Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court,
    187 F.3d 1096
    , 1099 (9th Cir. 1999).
Here, the district court denied GEO’s motion to dismiss and GEO did not seek
to certify the court’s order for interlocutory review. However, GEO’s petition
amounts to just such an interlocutory challenge to that order. Further, although GEO
fears production may lead to public disclosure of its proprietary financial
information under the Washington Public Records Act,
    Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56
     et
seq., the State represented at oral argument that it would oppose any such disclosure
as falling within the Act’s controversy exception, see Oral Argument at 19:15–
20:00, The GEO Group, Inc. v. USDC-WAWTA, No. 19-70014 (9th Cir. Aug. 26,
2
2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mJ79crWT0 (citing
    Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.290
    ).
GEO’s Motion to Supplement the Addendum [Dkt. # 33] is granted.
DENIED.
3