Hestia Education Group, LLC et al v. Arne Duncan

Filing 89

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 78 Motion for Hearing. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

HESTIA EDUCATION GROUP, LLC, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

7
v.

8
9

Case No. 15-cv-01463-DMR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON APA CLAIM
Re: Dkt. No. 78

JOHN KING,
Defendant.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

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.
At the outset, it is unclear what relief Plaintiffs seek and what legal authority they rely on.

17
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

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

arbitrarily, capriciously, and/or abused its discretion in denying the Blush application and
permanently excluding Mr. Mansour from controlling ownership of institutions participating in
Title IV federal student aid programs.” Mot. at 11:1-6. Ms. Wittman, however, is not the decision
maker.
To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to augment the administrative record by asking questions
of Ms. Wittman related to her alleged bias, it amounts to a discovery request, which this court
denies. Discovery closed on July 29, 2016. [Docket No. 65].
To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that this court needs to see Ms. Wittman live to assess

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

5

the record.

S

ER

H

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

R NIA

onn
Judge D

FO

RT

11

u

a M. Ry

NO

10

LI

9

ERED
______________________________________
O ORD
IT IS S
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

A

8

Dated: October 19, 2016

UNIT
ED

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

6

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C