## Facts

- California state prisoners brought a federal class action on behalf of themselves and other adult male felons in California prisons or on parole, alleging constitutional violations in how officials— including members and employees of the California Adult Authority—determined the length and conditions of confinement and parole.
- During discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the prisoners sought two categories of documents: (1) Adult Authority files, including personnel files of members and employees, and (2) prisoner files, consisting of the file of every twentieth inmate in each state institution.
- State prison officials objected that the Adult Authority materials were irrelevant and that both sets of materials were confidential and privileged; they urged that production should not be ordered without prior in camera inspection by the district court.
- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered production without in camera review, but imposed restrictions limiting how many people associated with plaintiffs could examine the documents.
- The officials sought extraordinary relief in the Ninth Circuit by petitioning for a writ of mandamus to vacate the discovery order(s).
- The Ninth Circuit denied mandamus. It recognized a qualified governmental “official or state secrecy privilege,” but indicated that such a privilege had not been asserted with the needed specificity by responsible high-level officials; it also left room for renewed, more specific assertions and reconsideration of in camera review.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether mandamus was an appropriate means to overturn the challenged discovery orders in these circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether a writ of mandamus was an appropriate vehicle to set aside district court discovery orders requiring production of allegedly confidential or privileged Adult Authority and inmate files.
2. Whether the prison officials satisfied mandamus requirements by showing (a) no other adequate means to obtain relief and (b) a clear and indisputable right to the writ.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s denial of mandamus.
- Mandamus was inappropriate because the officials had adequate, less extreme options in the lower courts to seek modification of the discovery orders.
- The Court emphasized that the court of appeals’ decision did not bar in camera review; it effectively left open the opportunity for officials, through responsible authorities, to assert privilege more specifically and request reconsideration, providing a route short of mandamus.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is a drastic, extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional situations.
- A petitioner seeking mandamus generally must show: (1) no other adequate means to secure the requested relief; and (2) a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ; even then, issuance is largely discretionary.
- Interlocutory correction of discovery orders by mandamus is disfavored where trial-court tools remain available to manage claimed confidentiality and privilege.
- Claims of governmental secrecy or official-information protection should be presented through specific, formal assertions by responsible officials, rather than general claims of confidentiality.
- Trial courts may address sensitive government and prisoner records through narrower discovery, protective restrictions, and, where appropriate, in camera inspection, instead of appellate intervention by extraordinary writ.

## Conclusion

*Kerr* holds that mandamus should not be used to overturn discovery orders compelling production of prison and parole-related files when officials have practical, ordinary means in the district court to protect confidentiality and privilege—especially by making a specific privilege claim through responsible officials and seeking reconsideration, including possible in camera review and tailored limits on access.


Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976)