- 1 -

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

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov) MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov) PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov) Assistant U.S. Attorneys

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Telephone (602) 514-7500

DAN G. BOYLE (N.Y. Bar No. 5216825, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov) Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Telephone (213) 894-2426

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES (Miss. Bar No. 102806, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov) Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Room 2116

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone (202) 616-2807 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE IN 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

EXCESS PAGES FOR DEFENDANTS’ 

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 1354)

(REDACTED VERSION)

For two essential reasons, the Court should deny Defendants’ motion for leave to 

file the overlength motion to dismiss that they lodged on October 20, 2021 (Doc. 13551

):

1 The lodged motion was electronically submitted on behalf of Defendants Larkin, Lacey, 

Brunst, Spear, Padilla and Vaught. (See Doc. 1355, Mot. at 29-30.) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1361 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

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

1. The lodged motion contains excess pages that improperly attempt to 

circumvent the clear prohibitions of the Court’s January 28, 2019 Order. (Compare Doc. 

449-1 at 7 with Doc. 1355, Mot. at 20-21 & nn. 6-7.) The Order [REDACTED]

 (Doc. 449-1 at 7.) In brazen disregard of the 

Order, Defendants’ motion quotes excerpts of the materials that are subject to the Order, 

and includes hyperlinks to articles that include links to the same materials (replete with 

Bates-numbers from this litigation). (Doc. 1355, Mot. at 20-21 & nn. 6-7.) Defendants’ 

attempt to [REDACTED] 

 is inexplicable. If Defendants wanted to seek reconsideration of the Order, 

their time for doing so came and went in early 2019. See LRCrim 12.1; LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). 

The Order is law of the case. For this reason alone, Defendants’ motion for leave to file 

excess pages should be denied.

2. Separately, the lodged motion contains excess pages that rehash matters that 

are thoroughly covered in several previously-filed motions or other pleadings in this case. 

Parts IV-V of the motion (Doc. 1355, Mot. at 17-29) restate or repeat Defendants’ 

arguments from various discovery-related motions that have already been briefed or ruledupon. (Compare Doc. 1355, Mot. at 19-22, 28 (addressing alleged Brady violations), with

Doc. 1281; compare Doc. 1355, Mot. at 22-27, 28, with Docs. 1239 & 1321 (discussing 

alleged privilege “invasions,” and seeking to relitigate previously-decided issues).) Nearly 

all of the excess pages that come after page 17 of the lodged motion involve these 

separately-briefed issues. Parties ordinarily are not allowed to re-file previously filed court 

documents. See LRCiv 7.1(d)(1) & (2). Defendants’ request to file excess pages that repeat 

much of what Defendants have argued in separate, previously-filed briefs should be denied. 

///

///

///

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1361 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of October, 2021.

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/ Peter S. Kozinets

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

DAN G. BOYLE

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this same date, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance 

as counsel of record.

s/ Marjorie Dieckman U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1361 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 3