United States v. Ballard, 2:16-cr-00102-KJM-CKD

Movant Matthew Gene Ballard filed a §2255 habeas petition; the respondent sought leave to serve interrogatories on Ballard's former counsel, Olaf Hedberg.
On January 7, 2022 the court denied respondent's request, reasoning that Rule 33 interrogatories under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be served only on parties and that the Rules Governing §2255 proceedings authorize discovery only as provided in the Federal Rules.
Respondent filed motions for reconsideration (Jan. 14 and Mar. 25, 2022) arguing that district courts routinely permit interrogatories to non-party former counsel and citing several district-court decisions.
The court examined the cited authorities and found most were unpublished or did not address the Rule 6/Rule 33 limitation; it identified Harris v. Nelson as authority that FRCP 33 is not applicable to habeas proceedings.
The court expressed practical concerns about remedies/enforcement if a non-party failed to answer interrogatories (no jurisdiction over a non-party absent subpoena under Rule 45); it noted respondent had previously been granted leave to depose Hedberg but failed to conduct the deposition or seek timely relief.
The court denied reconsideration, reiterated that respondent may pursue documents or an affidavit from Hedberg, and ordered respondent to file an answer within 45 days (petitioner may file a traverse within 30 days of service).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether interrogatories may be served on a movant's former counsel in a §2255 proceeding	Respondent: federal courts routinely permit interrogatories to non-party former counsel in §2255 cases; cited district decisions	Court/Movant: Rule 33 permits interrogatories only to parties; Rules Governing §2255 allow discovery only as provided in the Federal Rules; FRCP 33 is not applicable to habeas; enforcement/remedy issues for non-parties	Denied: interrogatories to non-party former counsel are not authorized here; court emphasized Rule limits and practical enforcement concerns and pointed to subpoena/deposition as appropriate avenues
Whether the court should reconsider/ reopen discovery and allow interrogatories after deadline passed	Respondent: asks reconsideration and relitigation of discovery parameters	Court: counsel failed to use previously granted discovery (failed to depose, file motion to compel, or seek extension); no good cause shown to reopen discovery	Denied: motion for reconsideration denied; discovery not reopened; respondent must file an answer within 45 days

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (standards for reconsideration motions)
Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969) (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 is not applicable to habeas proceedings)