court will not issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioner “could readily have secured review of the ruling complained of and all objectives now sought, by direct appeal”). Thus, Platts is not entitled to mandamus relief. Further, the Court will issue a writ of mandamus only if Platts can show a “clear and undisputable” right to the discovery he seeks. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). He cannot make that showing. As an initial matter, because Platts does not have a pending § 2255 action in the District Court, it is far from clear that he is permitted under Rule 6 to obtain any discovery whatsoever. See Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the right to discovery in a § 2255
holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones