
    In re PA CHILD CARE, LLC; Western PA Child Care, LLC; Mid-Atlantic Youth Services, Petitioners.
    No. 12^4452.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R.App. Pro. 21 Dec. 19, 2012.
    Opinion Filed: Jan. 18, 2013.
    Bernard M. Schneider, Esq., Brucker, Schneider & Porter, Pittsburgh, PA, for Petitioners.
    Michael J. Cefalo, Esq., Cefalo & Associates, West Pittston, PA, Richard C. De-Francesco, Esq., Lauren C. Fantini, Esq., David S. Senoff, Esq., Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy, Sol H. Weiss, Esq., Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley, Marsha L. Levick, Esq., Lourdes M. Rosado, Esq., Juvenile Law Center of Philadelphia, Daniel Segal, Esq., Hangley, Aronchick, Segal, Pudlin & Schiller, Arnold Levin, Esq., Daniel C. Levin, Esq., Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Timothy R. Hough, Esq., Jaffe & Hough, Richard G. Freeman, Esq., Jeffrey S. Feldman, Esq., Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Joseph B.G. Fay, Esq., Eric Kraeutler, Esq., Alison Tanchyk, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, PA, Johanna L. Gelb, Esq., Scranton, PA, William R. Caroselli, Esq., Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy, Pittsburgh, PA, Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq., Amsterdam, NY, Michael P. O’Mullan, Esq., Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, Morristown, NJ, Bridget E. Montgomery, Esq., David J. Schertz, Esq., Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, Robert E. Slota, Jr., Esq., Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin, Lansdale, PA, Kimberly D. Borland, Esq., Ruth S. Bor-land, Esq., Borland & Borland, Barry H. Dyller, Esq., Dyller Law Firm, A. Richard Caputo, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Wilkes-Barre, PA, Demetrius W. Fannick, Esq., Kingston, PA, Suzanne McDonough, Esq., Holsten & Associates, Media, PA, Timothy T. Myers, Esq., Elliott Greenleaf & Siedikowski, Blue Bell, PA, Scott D. McCarrroll, Esq., Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, Harrisburg, PA, for Respondents.
    Michael T. Conahan, Coleman, FL, pro se.
    Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., Pekin, IL, pro se.
    Before: RENDELL, FISHER and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), directing the District Court to set aside its discovery order entered on October 31, 2012, and ordering certain discovery to be produced, namely expunged juvenile records. Further, they seek an order directing the District Court to permit their Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1977), defense.

Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary remed[y].... reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947). It is well established that mandamus may only issue where (1) petitioners have “no other adequate means” to attain the relief they seek; (2) their right to mandamus is “clear and indisputable;” and (3) exercising discretion, we are satisfied that the mandamus “is appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir.2006) (quoting Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459, (2004)).

Petitioners have failed to satisfy these requirements. Petitioners have another appropriate avenue for relief — direct appeal after the entry of a final judgment. Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 (3d Cir.1996). Mandamus may not be “used as a substitute for the regular appeals process.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576. Petitioners are seeking just such a substitute here.

For the foregoing reasons, we decline to employ one of “the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal,” id. at 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, to address the parties’ contentions, and will deny the petition. 
      
      . We express no opinion as to the seriousness of the deprivation of a defense and the denial of discovery deemed important to petitioners’ case. We note only that direct appeal of such issues is the proper course.
     