1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3679023.1 1 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice) 

 glincenberg@birdmarella.com 

Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice)

 aneuman@birdmarella.com 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice)

 gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561 

Telephone: (310) 201-2100 

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst 

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

 tbienert@bmkattorneys.com 

Whitney Z. Bernstein (admitted pro hac vice)

 wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com 

BIENERT KATZMAN, PLC 

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 

San Clemente, CA 92673 

Telephone: (949) 369-3700 

Facsimile: (949) 369-3701 

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin 

[Additional counsel listed on next page] 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

(EXPEDITED REVIEW REQUESTED) 

[Filed concurrently with [Proposed] 

Order] 

Assigned to Hon. Susan M. Brnovich 

Courtroom 506 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1083 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3679023.1 2 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

 pcambria@lglaw.com 

Erin McCampbell (admitted pro hac vice)

 emccampbell@lglaw.com 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832) 

 bf@federlawpa.com 

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A. 

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone: (602) 257-0135 

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear 

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218) 

 david@deisenbergplc.com 

DAVID EISENBERG PLC 

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Telephone: (602) 237-5076 

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273 

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla 

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181) 

 joy.bertrand@gmail.com 

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC 

P.O. Box 2734 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252 

Telephone: (602)374-5321 

Facsimile: (480)361-4694 

Attorney for Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1083 Filed 11/04/20 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3679023.1 3 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Defendants Larkin, Lacey, Spear, Brunst, Padilla and Vaught, by and through 

undersigned counsel, hereby apply pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) 

for an order authorizing the issuance of the attached subpoenas duces tecum. See Exhibit 

A. In light of the April 2021 trial date and the time it will take to serve the subpoena and 

obtain responses, Defendants respectfully request an expedited ruling on his Motion, as 

well as the outstanding Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas (Dkt. #1019). 

The subpoenas requested pursuant to this Motion are to be directed to the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) and the Office of the Attorney 

General of Arizona (“AZ AG”). 

II. BACKGROUND 

This case is set for trial on April 12, 2021. Through this Motion and the prior 

motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas, Defendants seek documents that are relevant, 

admissible and specific. The documents are believed to be critical to the defenses 

Defendants intend to raise at that trial. Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court 

grant the Motions with sufficient time for the subpoenas to be served on the respective 

recipients, and for the recipients to timely produce documents in response. 

III. ARGUMENT 

The documents Defendants seek meet the standards for issuance of a Rule 17(c) 

subpoena. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 (1974) (a party seeking 

subpoena must meet “three hurdles:” “(1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity”).1

 

1

 Several courts have held that where, as here, a defendant’s subpoena seeks materials 

from a third party (as opposed to the government or a party to the litigation), a defendant 

need only show that the request is (1) reasonable, construed as “material to the defense,” 

and (2) not unduly oppressive for the producing party to respond. See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 

700 at n. 12 (considering but not deciding the issue); Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 

341 U.S. 214 (1951); United States v. Tucker, 279 F.R.D. 58 (S.DN.Y. 2008); see also 

United States v. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 552, 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); United States v. 

Rajaratnam, 753 F. Supp. 2d 317 n.l (S.D.N.Y. 2011); United States v. Stein, 488 F. Supp. 

2d 350, 365, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Because the Nixon standard is satisfied for the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1083 Filed 11/04/20 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3679023.1 4 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

First, the government has indicated – through its statements, filings, exhibit list, and 

witness list – that it intends to argue that communications from various law enforcement 

agencies and third party advocacy groups, including NCMEC and Attorneys’ General 

offices in various states such as Arizona, put the Defendants on notice that they were 

facilitating business enterprises involved in prostitution through the operation of 

Backpage.com. Although Defendants do not believe such evidence is properly submitted 

to the jury in this case, and a relevant Motion in Limine to preclude much of the evidence 

about what third-parties thought and conveyed regarding the legality of the conduct of 

Backpage.com and certain individuals associated with it is still pending (Dkt. #907), the 

Court recently preliminarily indicated that it will allow at least some such evidence at trial, 

including relating to correspondence from Attorneys’ General offices (Dkt. #1079). 

Further, the Court recently denied Defendants’ Motion to Recuse which was based on 

public statements and publications made by the Arizona Attorney General and his office. 

Dkt. #1075. 

In light of both, Defendants must prepare to defend themselves against the 

allegations. Evidence of NCMEC and the AZ AG’s communications with the 

investigators in this case, and with each other, will be relevant to show that NCMEC’s and 

the AZ AG’s views of Backpage.com and the Defendants in this case were influenced by 

political concerns as much if not more than legal concerns, and that public statements by 

NCMEC, the NAAG and others (to which the AZ AG signed on) were not supported by 

legal analysis. Part of the defense in this case will focus on the fact that much of the 

publicity around Backpage.com, and the supposed notice received by Defendants, was not 

based in legal objections, but was instead based on moral or ethical concerns with the 

advertisements on Backpage.com and the related adult activity. Thus, the requested 

documents will be relevant to Defendants’ defense. 

Second, the documents will be admissible as business records (Fed. R. Evid. 

 

subpoenas requested here, the Court need not decide whether a lower standard governs. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1083 Filed 11/04/20 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3679023.1 5 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

803(6)) and/or public records (Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)). 

Third, the documents requested are specific. This is not a “fishing expedition” for 

discovery, of the type that is not permissible under Rule 17(c). Rather, the request is for 

specific communications/documents about a specific topic – the website at the heart of this 

case, and the Defendants – which the defense will use to counter the government’s 

narrative regarding this matter. The requests are also specifically tailored so that 

Defendants can present to the jury the political agenda that drove much of the 

communication that supposedly put them on notice of the allegedly illegal nature of their 

conduct, despite the fact that court after court ruled that Defendants were engaged in 

protected First Amendment activity. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For all of these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue the 

requested subpoena. 

DATED: November 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Gary S. Lincenberg 

Ariel A. Neuman 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, 

NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & 

RHOW, P.C. 

By: /s/ Ariel A. Neuman 

 Ariel A. Neuman 

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst 

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures 

Manual (August 2020) § II (C) (3), Ariel A. Neuman herby attests that all other signatories 

listed, and on whose behalf this filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have 

authorized its filing. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1083 Filed 11/04/20 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3679023.1 6 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

DATED: November 4, 2020 Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

Whitney Z. Bernstein 

BIENERT KATZMAN PC 

By: /s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

 Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin 

DATED: November 4, 2020 Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Erin McCampbell 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

 Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

DATED: November 4, 2020 FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A. 

By: /s/ Bruce Feder 

 Bruce Feder 

Attorneys for Defendant Scott Spear 

DATED: November 4, 2020 DAVID EISENBERG PLC 

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

 David Eisenberg 

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla 

DATED: November 4, 2020 JOY BERTRAND, ESQ. 

By: /s/ Joy Bertrand 

 Joy Bertrand 

Attorneys for Defendant Joyce Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1083 Filed 11/04/20 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3679023.1 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ SEALED EX PARTE MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on November 4, 2020, I served the attached document by email 

on the following, who are registered participants of the CM/ECF System: 

Whitney Z. Bernstein wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com

Andrew C. Stone andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Anthony Ray Bisconti tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com 

Bruce S. Feder bf@federlawpa.com

David S. Eisenberg david@deisenbergplc.com 

Erin E. McCampbell emccampbell@lglaw.com 

James C. Grant jimgrant@dwt.com

John Jacob Kucera john.kucera@usdoj.gov

John Lewis Littrell jlittrell@bmkattorneys.com 

Joy Malby Bertrand joyous@mailbag.com 

Kevin M. Rapp kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Margaret Wu Perlmeter margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov

Michael D. Kimerer mdk@kimerer.com 

Paul John Cambria, Jr. pcambria@lglaw.com 

Peter Shawn Kozinets peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

Reginald E. Jones reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov

Rhonda Elaine Neff rneff@kimerer.com 

Robert Corn-Revere bobcornrevere@dwt.com 

Ronald Gary London ronnielondon@dwt.com 

Seetha Ramachandran sramachandran@proskauer.com

Thomas Henry Bienert, Jr. tbienert@bienertkatzman.com

Ariel A. Neuman aneuman@birdmarella.com

/s/ Ariel A. Neuman 

 Ariel A. Neuman 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1083 Filed 11/04/20 Page 7 of 7