In Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34, 101 S.Ct. 188, 190, 66 L.Ed.2d 193, 196 (1980), the Supreme Court stated, "It is not disputed that the remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations." The Court stated: The writ of mandamus "has traditionally been used in the federal courts only 'to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.' " quoting Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 273, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). Only exceptional circumstances, amounting to a judicial usurpation of power, will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. (Id. at 35, 101 S.Ct. at 190, 66 L.Ed.2d at 196.) In Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflom, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980), the Supreme Court stated that "where a matter is committed to discretion, it cannot be said that a litigant's right to a particular result is 'clear and indisputable.' " Allied Chemical, 449 U.S. at 36. Further, Firestone can challenge the exercise of the district court's discretion through appeal after final judgment. That being so, it is difficult to say that Firestone has no other adequate means to attain the relief it desires. See Allied Chemical, 449 U.S. at 35.