Hestia Education Group, LLC et al v. John King

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01463

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying {{78}} Motion for Hearing. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 HESTIA EDUCATION GROUP, LLC, et 6 al., Case No. 15-cv-01463-DMR 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY 8 v. HEARING ON APA CLAIM 9 JOHN KING, Re: Dkt. No. 78 10 Defendant. 11 Plaintiffs Hestia Education Group, LLC d/b/a Blush School of Makeup and Manhal 12 Mansour ("Plaintiffs") filed a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on their APA appeal from an Northern District of California United States District Court 13 administrative decision. [Docket Nos. 78, 79]. Defendant John King ("Defendant") opposed the 14 motion. [Docket No. 84]. Plaintiffs filed their reply. [Docket No. 85]. The court finds this 15 matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following 16 reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. 17 At the outset, it is unclear what relief Plaintiffs seek and what legal authority they rely on. 18 Plaintiffs appear to request an evidentiary hearing with DOE employee Donna Wittman to focus 19 on her "bias. . . coupled with her dishonesty and the animosity she outwardly displayed toward 20 Mr. Mansour," which they argue "will enable the Court to better assess whether DOE acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and/or abused its discretion in denying the Blush application and 21 permanently excluding Mr. Mansour from controlling ownership of institutions participating in 22 Title IV federal student aid programs." Mot. at 11:1-6. Ms. Wittman, however, is not the decision 23 maker. 24 To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to augment the administrative record by asking questions 25 of Ms. Wittman related to her alleged bias, it amounts to a discovery request, which this court 26 denies. Discovery closed on July 29, 2016. [Docket No. 65]. 27 To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that this court needs to see Ms. Wittman live to assess 28 1 her credibility, the court would not find it useful to conduct an evidentiary hearing for that 2 purpose, and denies Plaintiffs' request. 3 If Plaintiffs want to argue that Defendant and the DOE employees were biased in the 4 decision making process, they can do so on summary judgment by relying on evidence already in the record. 5 ISTRIC TES D TC 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. TA O S U ED 7 Dated: October 19, 2016 RT DERED UNIT O O R ______________________________________ 8 IT IS SDonna M. Ryu R NIA United States Magistrate Judge 9 u a M. Ry NO onn Judge D 10 FO RT LI 11 ER H A N C F 12 D IS T IC T O Northern District of California R United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2