United States v. Stone, 824 F. Supp. 2d 176

Stone pled guilty to transporting and shipping child pornography in interstate commerce on January 9, 2008.
Stone was sentenced on April 9, 2008 to 210 months' imprisonment, five years' supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
Stone appealed the sentence; the First Circuit affirmed the sentence in 2009.
On January 6, 2011, Stone filed a § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not obtaining mitigating evidence, including a psychological evaluation.
The Government sought to obtain Stone’s attorney Villa's records and to depose Villa to respond to the § 2255 petition; Stone objected and urged discovery under Rule 6.
Magistrate Judge Kravchuk ordered a deposition of Villa with Stone’s counsel present, limited to issues material to the § 2255 claim; the Government appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate properly ordered Villa's deposition under Rule 6	Stone: Rule 6 governs discovery; deposition appropriate and limited to § 2255 issues.	Government: Order errs; inappropriate scope and privilege issues not properly addressed.	Order proper; deposition within Rule 6 discretion
Whether the discovery order improperly expands attorney-client privilege	Stone: Waiver should be narrow to protect Sixth Amendment rights; information limited to § 2255 issues.	Government: Waiver extends to communications and materials regarding ineffective assistance; broader access permissible.	Waiver narrowly tailored; privilege appropriately bounded
Whether the order conflicts with Maine Rules of Professional Conduct	Stone: Maine rules govern voluntary disclosures; Rule 6 controls discovery in § 2255 cases.	Government: Maine rules authorize voluntary disclosures; conflict with Rule 6 should be resolved in favor of Maine rules.	No conflict; Rule 6 controls discovery
Whether the magistrate properly tailored discovery to the case facts	Stone: Discovery limited to areas central to ineffectiveness claim; avoids generalized intrusion.	Government: Formal deposition is onerous and inefficient; broader disclosure would aid defense.	Discovery appropriately tailored to Stone's § 2255 petition

Pinson, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009) (implied waiver of attorney-client privilege in § 2255 cases)
In re Lott, 424 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (limits on waivers in habeas proceedings)
Bittaker, 331 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2003) (narrow waiver to protect fairness and Sixth Amendment rights)
Johnson, 256 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2001) (waiver implications in ineffective assistance claims)
XYZ Corp., 348 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2003) (limits and scope of implied waivers in attorney communications)
United States v. Kinsella, 545 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D. Me. 2008) (district court approach to waivers and discovery in § 2255)