The opinion
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ANONYMOUS ONLINE
SPEAKERS,
ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT No. 09-71265
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF D.C. No.
NEVADA RENO,
Respondent, 3:07-cv-00505-
ECR-RAM
QUIXTAR, INC.; SIGNATURE OPINION
MANAGEMENT TEAM, LLC; APOLLO
WORKS HOLDINGS, INC.; GREEN
GEMINI ENTERPRISES, INC.; NORTH
STAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; NORTHERN
LIGHTS SERVICES, INC.; SUNSET
RESOURCES, INC.; SKY SCOPE TEAM,
INC.,
Real Parties in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Edward C. Reed, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
March 2, 2010—Las Vegas, Nevada
Filed July 12, 2010
Before: Sidney R. Thomas, M. Margaret McKeown, and
Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.
9907
9908 IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
Opinion by Judge McKeown
9910 IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
COUNSEL
John P. Desmond, Jones Vargas, Reno, Nevada, for the peti-
tioner.
Cedric C. Chao, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco,
California, for the real party in interest and cross-petitioner.
OPINION
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
The proceeding before us is but a short chapter in an acri-
monious and long-running business dispute between Quixtar,
Inc. (“Quixtar”), successor to the well-known Amway Corpo-
ration, and Signature Management TEAM, LLC (“TEAM”).
Quixtar sued TEAM, claiming that TEAM orchestrated an
Internet smear campaign via anonymous postings and videos
disparaging Quixtar and its business practices. As part of the
discovery process, Quixtar sought testimony from Benjamin
Dickie, a TEAM employee, regarding the identity of five
anonymous online speakers who allegedly made defamatory
comments about Quixtar. Dickie refused to identify the anon-
ymous speakers on First Amendment grounds. The district
court ordered Dickie to disclose the identity of three of the
five speakers.
The Anonymous Online Speakers seek a writ of mandamus
directing the district court to vacate its order regarding the
identity of the three speakers. Quixtar cross-petitions for a
writ of mandamus directing the district court to order Dickie
to testify regarding the identity of the anonymous speakers
from the remaining two sources. Because neither party has
established that it is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of
mandamus, we deny both petitions.
IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS 9911
BACKGROUND
Quixtar is a multilevel marketing business that distributes
consumer products such as cosmetics and nutritional supple-
ments through Independent Business Owners (“IBOs”).
TEAM provides business training and support materials and
has sold its products, including motivational literature and
educational seminars, to Quixtar IBOs. TEAM was founded
by two Quixtar IBOs, Orrin Woodward and Chris Brady. As
IBOs, their contracts with Quixtar included post-termination
non-competition and non-solicitation provisions. Disagree-
ment regarding contract compliance and enforceability came
to an impasse in August 2007, when both Woodward and
Brady were terminated as IBOs, and they joined a class action
against Quixtar.
TEAM and Quixtar became embroiled in several lawsuits
across the country. In this suit, Quixtar asserts claims against
TEAM for tortious interference with existing contracts and
with advantageous business relations, among other claims.
The tortious interference claims are premised on Quixtar’s
contention that TEAM used the Internet to carry out a “smear
campaign” with the objective and effect of inducing Quixtar
IBOs to terminate their contracts at Quixtar and join a com-
peting multilevel marketing company affiliated with TEAM.
During discovery in this suit, Quixtar took the deposition
of Dickie, TEAM’s Online Content Manager. Dickie refused
to answer questions regarding the identity of certain anony-
mous online speakers. In response, Quixtar brought a motion
to compel Dickie to testify regarding his knowledge of the
authors of statements from five different online sources: the
“Save Us Dick DeVos” blog, the “Hooded Angry Man”
video, the “Q’Reilly” blog, the “Integrity is TEAM” blog, and
the “IBO Rebellion” blog. According to Quixtar, statements
contained in these five fora support its claims of tortious inter-
ference, including comments such as: “Quixtar has regularly,
but secretly, acknowledged that its products are overpriced
9912 IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
and not sellable”; “Quixtar refused to pay bonuses to IBOs in
good standing”; Quixtar “terminated IBOs without due pro-
cess”; “Quixtar currently suffers from systemic dishonesty”;
and “Quixtar is aware of, approves, promotes, and facilitates
the systematic noncompliance with the FTC’s Amway rules.”
Quixtar believes that the anonymous speakers of these state-
ments are actually TEAM officers, employees, or agents.
After reviewing the specific statements from each source,
the district court ordered Dickie to testify regarding his
knowledge of the identity of the anonymous online speakers
from three of the sources: “Save Us Dick DeVos,” the
“Hooded Angry Man” video, and the “Q’Reilly” blog. The
Anonymous Online Speakers from those sources filed this
petition for a writ of mandamus in an effort to block Dickie’s
testimony. Quixtar opposes the petition and cross-petitions for
a writ of mandamus directing the district court to order Dickie
to reveal the speakers from the remaining two sources—
“Integrity is TEAM” blog and the “IBO Rebellion” blog.
ANALYSIS
I. ANONYMOUS SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
First Amendment protection for anonymous speech was
first articulated a half-century ago in the context of political
speech, Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64-65 (1960), but
as the Supreme Court later observed, the Talley decision hark-
ened back to “a respected tradition of anonymity in the advo-
cacy of political causes.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 343 (1995). Undoubtedly the most
famous pieces of anonymous American political advocacy are
The Federalist Papers, penned by James Madison, Alexander
Hamilton, and John Jay, but published under the pseudonym
“Publius.” Id. at 344 n.6. Their opponents, the Anti-
Federalists, also published anonymously, cloaking their real
identities with pseudonyms such as “Brutus,” “Centinel,” and
“The Federal Farmer.” Id.
IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS 9913
[1] Although the Internet is the latest platform for anony-
mous speech, online speech stands on the same footing as
other speech—there is “no basis for qualifying the level of
First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied” to online
speech. Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870
(1997). As with other forms of expression, the ability to speak
anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust exchange of
ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely
without “fear of economic or official retaliation . . . [or] con-
cern about social ostracism.” McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-42.
[2] The right to speak, whether anonymously or otherwise,
is not unlimited, however, and the degree of scrutiny varies
depending on the circumstances and the type of speech at issue.1
Given the importance of political speech in the history of this
country, it is not surprising that courts afford political speech
the highest level of protection. Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414,
422, 425 (1988) (describing the First Amendment protection
of “core political speech” to be “at its zenith”). Commercial
speech, on the other hand, enjoys “a limited measure of pro-
tection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the
scale of First Amendment values,” Bd. of Trustees of SUNY
v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 477 (1989), as long as “the communica-
tion is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity.”
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n
of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 564 (1980).
[3] The Internet postings and video at issue in the petition
and cross-petition are best described as types of “expression
related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its
1
For example, some speech, such as fighting words and obscenity, is not
protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., Chaplinsky v. New Hamp-
shire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1942) (“There are certain well-defined and
narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of
which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These
include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting
or ‘fighting’ words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or
tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”) (footnote omitted).
9914 IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
audience” and are thus properly categorized as commercial
speech. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 447 U.S. at 561.
The claimed disparagement goes to the heart of Quixtar’s
commercial practices and its business operations. However,
this characterization alone does not determine the First
Amendment protections for the anonymous commercial
speech central to this case. The Supreme Court has under-
scored that “an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like
other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the con-
tent of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech
protected by the First Amendment.” McIntyre, 514 U.S. at
342.
II. PETITION BY ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
We have repeatedly emphasized that “[t]he writ of manda-
mus is an ‘extraordinary’ remedy limited to ‘extraordinary’
causes.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist.
Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)). This limit on
our mandamus power is particularly salient in the discovery
context because “the courts of appeals cannot afford to
become involved with the daily details of discovery,”
although “we have exercised mandamus jurisdiction to review
discovery orders raising particularly important questions of
first impression, especially when called upon to define the
scope of an important privilege.”2 Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
591 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
2
Not only is the mandamus standard difficult to meet as a practical mat-
ter, only in the rare case will we consider interlocutory review of discov-
ery disputes under the collateral order doctrine. See Mohawk Industries,
Inc. v. Carpenter, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 599, 606 (2009) (noting that
courts have generally denied pre-trial review of discovery disputes). In
Perry, we reserved as a close question “whether Mohawk should be
extended to the First Amendment privilege.” 591 F.3d at 1156. As in
Mohawk, we need not decide that question here because in both petitions,
the parties rely on mandamus jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a).
IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS 9915
In evaluating mandamus petitions, we are guided by the
practically enshrined Bauman factors:
(1) whether the petitioner has no other means, such
as a direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2)
whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced
in any way not correctable on appeal; (3) whether
the district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a
matter of law; (4) whether the district court’s order
is an oft repeated error or manifests a persistent dis-
regard of the federal rules; and (5) whether the dis-
trict court’s order raises new and important problems
or issues of first impression.
Id. at 1156 (citing Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650,
654-55 (9th Cir. 1977)). We do not require every factor to be
satisfied, and “the absence of the third factor, clear error, is
dispositive.” Burlington, 408 F.3d at 1146. Ultimately, man-
damus is discretionary and “even where the Bauman factors
are satisfied, the court may deny the petition.” San Jose Mer-
cury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th
Cir. 1999).
A. Standards Guiding Courts in Balancing Discovery
and the Right to Anonymous Speech
This case is not the first time we have considered the rela-
tionship between the First Amendment and compelled discov-
ery in the context of a petition for mandamus. See, e.g., Perry,
591 F.3d at 1165 (granting a petition for mandamus regarding
a discovery order compelling disclosure of political campaign
information). Perry involved the efforts of a party in the
same-sex marriage suit in California to obtain internal cam-
paign communications relating to the campaign strategy and
advertising of the proponents of a ballot proposition. Focusing
on First Amendment associational rights, we held that the dis-
trict court erred in determining that “the First Amendment
privilege, as a categorical matter, does not apply to the disclo-
9916 IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
sure of internal campaign communications.” Id. at 1161. We
concluded that permitting discovery “would likely have a
chilling effect on political association,” and that plaintiffs had
“not shown a sufficient need for the information.” Id. at 1165.
Although we emphasized that our holding was “limited to
private internal campaign communications concerning the
formulation of campaign strategies and messages,” id. at
1165 n.12, the structure of the analysis is instructive. We first
considered whether the proponents—the opponents of
disclosure—made a prima facie case of arguable First
Amendment infringement and then shifted the burden to
plaintiffs to “demonstrate a sufficient need for the discovery
to counterbalance that infringement.” Id. at 1164.
[4] The Perry decision rested on the importance of politi-
cal association and expression. It involved neither anonymous
speakers nor commercial speech. Indeed, we have not previ-
ously considered First Amendment claims of an anonymous,
non-party speaker on the Internet in a circumstance involving
commercial speech.
Anonymous online speech is an increasingly important
issue in the commercial context, particularly in light of the
ubiquity of the Internet. Although only two circuit courts have
addressed analogous situations in published opinions, the
issue has been raised in a number of state and federal trial
courts, and more cases are percolating through the system. In
1998, the Sixth Circuit considered a government agency’s
motion to compel a newspaper to answer a subpoena identify-
ing an anonymous advertiser. NLRB v. Midland Daily News,
151 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 1998). Just last year, the Fourth Circuit
considered whether to uphold an order allowing a deposition
of an anonymous speaker in a securities fraud class action.
Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 577 F.3d 240 (4th Cir.
2009).
In both of these cases, the courts explicitly recognized that
the anonymous speech at issue was commercial speech, but
IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS 9917
declined to establish or follow any particular standard, other
than the general and long-standing precepts governing com-
mercial speech. The Sixth Circuit, in Midland Daily News,
noted that as long as commercial speech is about lawful activ-
ity and is not misleading, it is protected. 151 F.3d at 475 (cit-
ing Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 447 U.S. at 566). The
court affirmed the district court’s denial of the National Labor
Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) motion to compel the identifica-
tion of the anonymous advertiser, because it was not the “least
extensive means” the NLRB could use. Id. In Lefkoe, the
Fourth Circuit reiterated that commercial speech enjoys only
limited First Amendment protection and held that “the Doe
Client’s claimed First Amendment right to anonymity [wa]s
subject to a substantial governmental interest in disclosure so
long as disclosure advance[d] that interest and [went] no fur-
ther than reasonably necessary.” Id. at 248-49. The court
highlighted the balance between discovery under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure Rule 26 and protection of anonymous
speech: “the substantial governmental interest in providing
Jos. A. Bank a fair opportunity to defend itself in court is
served by requiring the Doe Client to reveal its identity and
provide the relevant information. Rule 26 explicitly expresses
this interest.” Id.
This issue has arisen not infrequently in trial courts; the
paucity of appellate precedent is not surprising because dis-
covery disputes are not generally appealable on an interlocu-
tory basis and mandamus review is very limited. The many
federal district and state courts that have dealt with this issue
have employed a variety of standards to benchmark whether
an anonymous speaker’s identity should be revealed.
To begin, a few courts have declined to adopt a new or dif-
ferent standard to accommodate anonymous speech. See e.g.,
Klehr Harrison Harvey Brazburg & Ellers v. JPA Dev., No.
0425, 2006 WL 37020, at *8 (C.P. Phila. Jan. 4, 2006) (noting
that “the grafting of new tests onto existing rules threatens to
compromise the values protected by other constitutional pro-
9918 IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
visions, including due process, equal protection, and the right
to a trial by jury”).
A number of courts have required plaintiffs to make at least
a prima facie showing of the claim for which the plaintiff
seeks the disclosure of the anonymous speaker’s identity. See,
e.g., Doe I v. Individuals, 561 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D. Conn.
2008); Highfields Capital Mgmt., LP v. Doe, 385 F. Supp. 2d
969 (N.D. Cal. 2005); Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Does 1-40,
326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). The lowest bar that
courts have used is the motion to dismiss or good faith stan-
dard. See, e.g., Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.Com, 185
F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to
America Online, Inc., No. 40570, 2000 WL 1210372 (Va. Cir.
Ct. Jan. 31, 2000) (reversed on other grounds, America
Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 542 S.E. 2d
377 (Va. 2001).
A few courts have relied on a standard that falls somewhere
between the motion to dismiss and the prima facie standards.
In Doe v. 2TheMart.Com, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash.
2001), the court drew from Seescandy.Com and America
Online, but recognized that a higher standard should apply
when a subpoena seeks the identity of an anonymous Internet
user who is not a party to the underlying litigation. See id. at
1095 (noting that identification is only appropriate where the
compelling need for discovery outweighs the First Amend-
ment right of the speakers because litigation may continue
without disclosure of the speakers’ identities); accord Seders-
ten v. Taylor, No. 09-3031-CV-S-GAF, 2009 WL 4802567
(W.D. Mo. Dec. 9, 2009); Enterline v. Pocono Med. Ctr.,
3:08-CV-1934, 2008 WL 5192386 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2008).
The district court in this case applied the most exacting
standard, established by the Delaware Supreme Court in Doe
v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005). The Cahill standard
requires plaintiffs to be able to survive a hypothetical motion
for summary judgment and give, or attempt to give, notice to
IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS 9919
the speaker before discovering the anonymous speaker’s iden-
tity. Id. at 461. The court in Cahill therefore required that the
city councilman plaintiff “ ‘submit sufficient evidence to
establish a prima facie case for each essential element’ ” of
his defamation claim. Id. at 463 (quoting Colgain v. Oy
Partek Ab (In re Asbestos Litig.), 799 A.2d 1151, 1152 (Del.
2002)). The court pointed to its “concern[ ] that setting the
standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising
their First Amendment right to speak anonymously,” id. at
457, and reasoned that “the summary judgment standard more
appropriately balances a defamation plaintiff’s right to protect
his reputation and a defendant’s right to speak anonymously.”
Id. at 462.
Interestingly, in each of these commercial cases, the initial
burden rests on the party seeking discovery and requires vary-
ing degrees of proof of the underlying claim. In Perry, how-
ever, we evaluated the First Amendment political
associational rights separately from the underlying claims and
adopted a “heightened relevance standard” requiring plaintiffs
to “ ‘demonstrate[ ] an interest in obtaining the disclosures . . .
which is sufficient to justify the deterrent effect . . . on the
free exercise . . . of [the] constitutionally protected right of
association.’ ” 591 F.3d at 1164 (quoting NAACP v. Alabama,
357 U.S. 449, 463 (1958) (omissions and alterations in
Perry)).
With this broad array of standards in mind, we consider
Anonymous Online Speakers’ petition for mandamus.
B. No Clear Error
We begin with the premise that a district court “has wide
latitude in controlling discovery” and that decisions governing
discovery are highly fact-intensive. White v. City of San
Diego, 605 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir. 1979).
[5] The district court here appropriately considered the
important value of anonymous speech balanced against a
9920 IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
party’s need for relevant discovery in a civil action. It also
recognized the “great potential for irresponsible, malicious,
and harmful communication” and that particularly in the age
of the Internet, the “speed and power of internet technology
makes it difficult for the truth to ‘catch up’ to the lie.”
Against this backdrop, the district court applied Cahill,
which elevates the bar to disclosure to the highest level.
Because Cahill involved political speech, that court’s imposi-
tion of a heightened standard is understandable. In the context
of commercial speech balanced against a discretionary dis-
covery order under Rule 26, however, Cahill’s bar extends
too far.
[6] As in Perry and as recently illustrated by the Supreme
Court in Doe v. Reed, we suggest that the nature of the speech
should be a driving force in choosing a standard by which to
balance the rights of anonymous speakers in discovery dis-
putes. See Perry, 591 F.3d at 1160-61; Doe v. Reed, No. 09-
559, slip op. at 6-7 (June 24, 2010). For example, in discovery
disputes involving the identity of anonymous speakers, the
notion that commercial speech should be afforded less protec-
tion than political, religious, or literary speech is hardly a
novel principle. See Lefkoe, 577 F.3d at 248 (inasmuch as the
speech in question is of a commercial nature it “enjoys less
First Amendment protection”). The specific circumstances
surrounding the speech serve to give context to the balancing
exercise.
[7] Nonetheless, the district court did not clearly err in its
order imposing a high hurdle for disclosure. The clear error
standard is highly deferential and is only met when “the
reviewing court is left with a ‘definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Cohen v. U.S. Dist.
Court, 586 F.3d 703, 708 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
The district court weighed appropriate considerations and,
given the decision to disclose the speakers’ identities even
under the strictest test outlines in Cahill, there was no clear
IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS 9921
error. If there was error, it was an error with no consequence.
Cf. Sinclair v. TubeSockTedD, 596 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C.
2009) (declining to adopt a standard because plaintiff’s claim
would fail under either the Cahill or Dendrite standard).
[8] We decline to consider the other four Bauman factors,
because we conclude that the third factor, whether the district
court’s order was clearly erroneous, is dispositive. Burlington,
408 F.3d at 1146. We deny the anonymous speakers’ petition
for writ of mandamus. We leave to the district court the
details of fashioning the appropriate scope and procedures for
disclosure of the identity of the anonymous speakers. On this
point, we note that the parties have a protective order in place
that provides different levels of disclosure for different cate-
gories of documents to various recipients, such as disclosure
for “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”3 Second Amended Protective
Order at 3, Quixtar v. Signature Management Team, 566
F.Supp.2d 1205 (D.Nev. 2009) (No. 437). A protective order
is just one of the tools available to the district court to oversee
discovery of sensitive matters that implicate First Amendment
rights. See Perry, 591 F.3d at 1164 (noting that a protective
order can ameliorate the harms of disclosure).
3
A similar issue arose in a related case pending in the Circuit Court for
the County of Kent in Michigan. On May 11, 2010, that court issued an
opinion denying the Anonymous Online Speakers’ motion to quash Dic-
kie’s deposition, during which he would presumably reveal the names of
the persons who made anonymous Internet postings about Quixtar. In
allowing the deposition to proceed, the court directed that only counsel
may be present at the deposition, and the deposition transcript will be “for
attorney eyes only.” If either party believes the presence of a non-attorney
is necessary, the court noted that it would entertain such a motion. The
court also noted that in the absence of a decision from this court, it would
consider a motion by either party to strike portions of the transcript and/or
remove the “for attorney eyes only” condition. Indep. Bus. Owners Ass’n
Int’l v. Woodward, No. 07-08513-CZ (Kent County Cir. Ct. (Mich.) May
11, 2010).
9922 IN RE ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS
III. CROSS-PETITION BY QUIXTAR
[9] In its cross-petition, Quixtar seeks reversal of the dis-
trict court’s order denying the motion to compel testimony
from Dickie regarding the identity of the anonymous authors
of the “Integrity is TEAM” and the “IBO Rebellion” blogs.
The cross-petition suffers from a fundamental error—Quixtar
fails to present any foundation for its request for mandamus
relief. Quixtar’s cross-petition lacks even a citation to our
opinion in Bauman, which established the factors we consider
to evaluate a writ of mandamus. Quixtar’s cross-petition falls
into the category of a garden variety discovery dispute: it
offers no extraordinary circumstance that merits exercising
our mandamus power.
CONCLUSION
Neither party has shown that it is entitled to relief. We deny
both the Anonymous Online Speakers’ petition and Quixtar’s
cross-petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION AND CROSS-PETITION DENIED.