Usedu v. Usdc-Casf, 25 F.4th 692

Background:

Plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of Education under the APA, alleging an unlawful 18‑month delay in deciding borrower‑defense claims during Secretary DeVos’s tenure; a class of ~160,000 was certified.
Parties negotiated a settlement; before final approval the Department issued ~118,000 form denial letters with little explanation, prompting further discovery and depositions.
Plaintiffs subpoenaed former Secretary Elisabeth DeVos for a 3‑hour deposition after she resigned; the subpoena was served in the Southern District of Florida and then transferred to the Northern District of California amid a dispute over the magistrate judge’s transfer authority.
The Northern District of California denied motions to quash and authorized a limited deposition, applying a three‑part test for deposing a cabinet secretary (bad faith; unique relevant knowledge; no less intrusive alternative).
The Ninth Circuit granted mandamus in part: it denied relief on the transfer/jurisdiction issue but granted mandamus to quash DeVos’s subpoena, adopting a three‑part “extraordinary circumstances” test (bad faith; information is essential; information unobtainable elsewhere).

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Ninth Circuit should order the district court to transfer the FL motion to SD Fla	Plaintiffs (class) argued transfer to N.D. Cal. was proper for case management	DeVos argued the FL magistrate lacked authority and transfer was premature; asked for mandamus to return motion	Denied: Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review transfer merits across circuits; it reviewed only whether FL court had jurisdiction and found no basis to grant mandamus on transfer
Whether a magistrate judge in FL had authority to transfer before district‑judge review under Rule 72	Plaintiffs supported magistrate transfer	DeVos said magistrate exceeded authority and Rule 72 objections were deprived	Magistrate had authority: transfer was nondispositive; Rule 72 timing did not affect jurisdiction; mandamus denied on this ground
Standard for compelling testimony from a (former) cabinet secretary	Plaintiffs argued extraordinary circumstances existed under a relevance/necessity + bad‑faith framework used by the district court	Defendants argued secretaries are protected (Morgan) and depositions require a strict, demanding test	Adopted a three‑part test: (1) a showing of agency bad faith; (2) the information sought is essential to the case; (3) the information cannot be obtained by other means; all three required
Application: whether DeVos’s deposition met the three‑part test	Plaintiffs argued DeVos had unique, necessary knowledge about the backlog, form denials, and policy decisions	Defendants argued plaintiffs already had evidence, alternate witnesses, and that the deposition would intrude on executive function; DeVos could assert privilege	Denied: District court clearly erred—bad faith was found, but plaintiffs failed to show DeVos possessed information essential to their claims or that that information was unobtainable by other reasonable discovery; Ninth Circuit quashed the subpoena

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941) (courts should not probe administrative decisionmakers’ mental processes; depositions of high officials are disfavored)
Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (bad‑faith exception permits extra‑record inquiry when necessary for meaningful APA review)
Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (judicial review generally limited to the administrative record; exceptions narrow)
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; set standards for relief)
Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977) (factors for granting writs of mandamus)
Kyle Eng’g Co. v. Kleppe, 600 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1979) (heads of agencies are not normally subject to deposition)
In re United States, 985 F.2d 510 (11th Cir. 1993) (protections for high‑ranking officials; require special need for testimony)
In re United States, 197 F.3d 310 (8th Cir. 1999) (deposition of high officials requires showing that they possess information essential and not obtainable elsewhere)
Posnanski v. Gibney, 421 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005) (appellate courts generally may not review transfer orders from a district court in another circuit)
In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891 (9th Cir. 2021) (recent Ninth Circuit guidance applying Bauman factors)
In re Walsh, 15 F.4th 1005 (9th Cir. 2021) (clear‑error standard is ordinarily necessary for mandamus relief in discovery context)