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

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (CA Bar No.135311, admitted pro hac vice)

Whitney Z. Bernstein (CA Bar No. 304917, admitted pro hac vice)

BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, California 92673

Telephone: (949) 369-3700

Facsimile: (949) 369-3701

tbienert@bklwlaw.com

wbernstein@bklwlaw.com

Attorneys for James Larkin

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY Bar No. 1430909, admitted pro hac vice)

Erin McCampbell (NY Bar. No 4480166, admitted pro hac vice)

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

pcambria@lglaw.com

emccampbell@lglaw.com

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

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-PHX-SMB

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

COMPEL GOVERNMENT TO 

COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND 

GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 1 of 14
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

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

Gary S. Lincenberg (CA Bar No. 123058, admitted pro hac vice)

Ariel A. Neuman (CA Bar No. 241594, admitted pro hac vice)

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (CA Bar No. 279856, admitted pro hac vice)

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW PC

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

glincenberg@birdmarella.com

aneuman@birdmarella.com

gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

Attorneys for John Brunst

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832)

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

Attorney for Scott Spear

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218)

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 237-5076

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273

david@deisenbergplc.com

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181)

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

Telephone: (602)374-5321

Facsimile: (480)361-4694

joy.bertrand@gmail.com

Attorney for Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 2 of 14
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

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

Apparently believing this Court will not revisit decisions made by Judge Logan, the 

government incorrectly and disingenuously frames Defendants’ Motion to Compel the 

Government To Comply With Its Brady and Giglio Obligations as a “relitigate[ion] of Judge 

Logan’s Order.” Dkt. 1328 at 9. But Judge Logan never ruled that the government could 

withhold the underlying factual investigation materials (interviews, memos, notes, emails, 

subpoenaed documents, deposition transcripts, grand jury testimony, etc.) supporting the 

2012/2013 Western District of Washington (“WDWA”) Department of Justice (“DOJ”) memos 

(the “Memos”) finding no evidence of criminality by Backpage.com. 

Not only was this issue never presented to Judge Logan, but such a ruling would have 

made no sense. First, the facts the facts underlying work product obtain no protections just 

because they are incorporated into work product. E.g., Owens v. Wesco Aircraft Hardware Corp., 

2020 WL 6114916, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2020) (“the work product doctrine does not protect 

the underlying facts from discovery”); S.E.C. v. Berry, 2011 WL 825742, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 

2011) (“it is hornbook law that underlying non-protectable facts cannot be clothed with the 

protections of the attorney work product doctrine”). Second, many of the underlying facts 

summarized or memorialized in the Memos are directly at odds with or otherwise undermine 

the government’s arguments at trial, and, therefore, are not only clearly material under Rule 16 

but also classic Brady and Giglio materials. 

Judge Logan held that the Memos were inadvertently produced work product and, as 

such, Defendants were obligated to return the Memos. Judge Logan’s ruling said nothing about 

the government’s obligation to produce the underlying material, exculpatory, and impeaching 

factual information summarized or memorialized in the Memos, as the Court can readily ascertain 

by reading his rulings. Dkt. 449-1.1 Id.

Defendants asked the Court to review the Memos in camera2 because they know the 

1 When Judge Logan made his ruling, he did not know the government would be taking 

positions at trial that both undermined and also contradicted by the factual statements in its 

Memos. Although Defendants may have grounds to seek reconsideration of Judge Logan’s order 

requiring Defendants to destroy the Memos, they are not seeking that remedy at this time. 2 The Memos are already lodged in the record. See Dkt. 537. Defendants cannot see sealed 

or in camera filings on the docket to be able to advise this Court where the Memos are located in 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 3 of 14
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

2

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

Memos summarize and memorialize exculpatory and impeaching evidence from DOJ’s

investigation, but Judge Logan’s Order requiring Defendants to destroy the Memos prevents 

Defendants from providing specifics. Defendants have not asked the Court to review the Memos 

to decide whether to produce the Memos to Defendants, but rather to identify the underlying factual 

information summarized and memorialized in the Memos that the government is obligated to 

produce to Defendants under Rule 16, Brady and Giglio.3 

The law does not permit the government to brand Defendants as criminals and refuse to 

produce material, exculpatory, and impeaching information in its possession that shows 

otherwise when it knows that DOJ previously found the opposite. Nor does the law permit 

the government to use the work product doctrine to shield from scrutiny its failure to produce 

the underlying factual information summarized and memorialized in the Memos. See, e.g., Moody 

v I.R.S., 654 F.2d 795, 800 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (in a case involving a government attorney’s attempts 

to shield production of work product documenting misconduct, the court held an “attorney 

should not be able to exploit the [work product] privilege for ends outside of and antithetical to 

the adversary system any more than a client who attempts to use the privilege to advance criminal 

or fraudulent ends”). Defendants have been asking for this information since 2018, but the 

government has repeatedly refused to provide it, making the specious arguments that the 

information is not relevant because it is dated. In light of the government’s position at trial, the 

underlying factual investigation materials (interviews, memos, notes, emails, subpoenaed 

documents, deposition transcripts, grand jury testimony, etc.) summarized or memorialized in 

the Memos are clearly material, exculpatory, or impeaching. 

The government’s response does not explain how interviews, memos, notes, emails, 

subpoenaed documents, deposition transcripts, grand jury testimony, and the like undermining 

its theories of the case can be legally or constitutionally withheld, when the prosecutors have 

been telling the jury that the facts are the opposite of what they were found to be in the WDWA 

compliance with Judge Logan’s order at Dkt. 537. 3 The Memos also may implicate Jencks, as undersigned counsel understands that statements 

from government witness FBI Supervisory Special Agent Steven Vienneau are included in the 

Memos. See also Dkt. 1281 at 1, fn. 1. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 4 of 14
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

3

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

DOJ investigation. Instead, the government’s response just sets up and knocks down various 

straw men, regurgitates its Superseding Indictment, and mischaracterizes Judge Logan’s Order in 

hopes that this Court won’t look further. 

The Court should compel the government to produce all the underlying evidence from 

the WDWA DOJ investigation that is potentially favorable4 to the defense, whether exculpatory, 

impeaching, or that could contradict any of the government’s theories of mens rea or liability—

including the evidence that directly contradicts the positions the government advanced at trial. 

Given the government’s failure to produce obvious Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio materials to the 

defense, Defendants also ask the Court to review the Memos in camera to identify and catalog all 

potentially favorable facts summarized or memorialized in the Memos and to then order the 

government to produce all evidence of those potentially favorable facts.

I. THE GOVERNMENT’S CASE IS ANCHORED IN THE 2004-2012 PERIOD, 

AND THE FACTS FROM WDWA DOJ’S INVESTIGATION ARE 

UNQUESTIONABLY RELEVANT.

The Court need not look past the government’s opening statement to reject the 

government’s claim that the factual findings from the 2012/2013 WDWA investigation are not 

relevant, material, exculpatory, and impeaching. The transcript of the government’s opening was 

53 pages long. Dkt. 1272-1 at 4-57. The first 42 pages and the last 1.5 pages are devoted to alleged 

proof of guilt from 2004-2012. Stated differently, the government spent only 9.5 pages—less than

20%—of its opening arguing that Defendants are guilty because of conduct after 2012/2013. 

Equity, reason, logic, and the law prevent the government from spending over 80% of its opening 

statement telling the jury that Defendants are guilty based on actions occurring from 2004 through 

2012, while simultaneously refusing to disclose material, exculpatory, and impeaching evidence 

DOJ gathered from this exact same timeframe evidencing the opposite. 

The government started its statement with a horror story of alleged child sex trafficking in 

2009. Dkt. 1272-1 at 4-5. DOJ Attorney Reginald Jones continued to catalogue purported proof 

of guilt citing to evidence and practices pre-2012/2013 and arguing that one can tell an ad is for 

prostitution on the face of the ad, in direct contradiction to findings in WDWA DOJ’s 

4 See infra at Section II(A).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 5 of 14
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

4

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

investigation. Id. at 5-46. He rhetorically asked the jury, “How could these defendants create 

and run this website for nearly 14 years [inclusive of 2010-2012] knowing that they were facilitating 

this illegal conduct?” Dkt. 1272-1 at 6. He showed various ads and read out the titles, described 

the pictures on the screen, and told the jury they were part of the “vast array of prostitution ads 

on Backpage.” Id. at 8-9. As one example, the government displayed ads and declared the women 

in them to be a prostitutes based on the face of the ads, without promising that the jury would 

hear any other evidence to demonstrate that any advertiser was in fact a prostitute. See, e.g., Dkt. 

1272-1 at 10 (“This image you’re looking at now, no GFE, just means this prostitute, this provider 

is only offering sex for money with no girlfriend experience.”). As another example, Mr. Jones

told the jury that throughout the course of Backpage.com’s operation from 2004-2018 its adult 

services section contained “nothing less than prostitution ads.” Id. at 11.

From its premise that one could tell just by looking at adult ads that they related to 

prostitution, the government called on the jury to hold Defendants accountable for 14 years (2004-

2008) of purported criminality in publishing adult ads. See, e.g., id. at 12 (“during this 14 years of 

existence”) (“Backpage generated hundreds of millions of dollars during its years of operation”) 

(“let’s talk about how Backpage was started and grew to be the internet’s leading forum for 

prostitution”); id. at 44 (“The lives of countless women and children have been forever changed 

by their running Backpage.com for 14 years.”); id. at 57 (“hold these defendants accountable for 

their criminal conduct in running this website for nearly 14 years”). The government did so despite 

DOJ’s investigation finding the opposite. 

The government’s opening primarily focused on the years before 2012/2013. Dkt. 1272-1 

at 13 (“In between 2004 and 2010 when Craigslist shut down its adult services section, Craigslist 

was Backpage’s biggest competition when it came to prostitution ads.”) (“you’ll hear from Dan 

Hyer that in the early years these defendants didn’t even contact customers and get their permission 

before taking the prostitution ads off Craigslist and recreating those same prostitution ads on 

Backpage”); id. at 15 (discussing an email from November 2008 about “creating prostitution ads 

on Backpage through the content aggregation process”). Mr. Jones also previewed the 

government’s evidence in chronological order, detailing Backpage.com’s purportedly illegal 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 6 of 14
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

5

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

business activities “[b]eginning in around 2007, and continuing until at least 2010,” id. at 16-20, 

specifically discussing evidence from “January 2009,” id. at 19-20, and from 2009 and 2011, Dkt. 

1272-2 at 27-28. Citing to evidence and practices from 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011, Mr. Jones 

catalogued purported proof that Backpage.com hosted prostitution ads. Dkt. 1272-1 at 20-27. He

emphasized the government’s position in this case that one can tell an ad is for prostitution just by 

looking at it, even though DOJ’s investigation found the opposite, and read out titles of ads that 

appeared on Backpage.com arguing that they were “prostitution ads.” Dkt. 1272-1 at 27-28. 

The government’s opening concluded with another horrific tale of child sex trafficking 

from 2010 in the WDWA, a case known to DOJ when it investigated Backpage.com and 

Defendants and found no evidence of criminality as of 2012/2013. Id. at 56-57. At trial, two of 

the government’s first three witnesses testified about that 2010 crime, which resulted in a highprofile criminal prosecution in Seattle in 2011—further underscoring how the government’s case 

is solidly anchored in the time frame it now claims to be irrelevant. Moreover, by arguing that one 

can tell an ad is for prostitution on its face and contradicting DOJ’s prior findings to the contrary, 

the government’s case puts directly at issue the facts underlying DOJ’s prior finding.

II. THE DOCUMENTS UNDERLYING DOJ’S INVESTIGATION INTO 

BACKPAGE.COM PRE-2012/2013 ARE MATERIAL, EXCLUPATORY, AND 

IMPEACHING INFORMATION TO COMBAT THE PROSECUTOR’S 

ARGUMENT THAT BACKPAGE.COM ACTED CRIMINALLY PRE- 2012/2013.

If the government based its current case on evidence after 2012/2013, Defendants may

not have such a strong argument that DOJ’s investigative materials from before then were

relevant. The government’s repeated claim that it uncovered evidence after 2012/2013 to 

support an argument for Defendants’ guilt just highlights the government’s failure to grasp the 

scope of its obligations under Brady and Giglio. Evidence does not have to prove innocence to 

qualify as Brady and Giglio materials; indeed, evidence does not even have to establish a defense 

to qualify as Brady and Giglio materials:

Whether a jury would ultimately find the evidence convincing and lead to 

an acquittal is not the measuring rod here.... “trial prosecutors must 

disclose favorable information without attempting to predict whether its 

disclosure might affect the outcome of the trial.” Id. n.3; see United States 

v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12, 16 (D.D.C. 2005) (“[T]he government must 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 7 of 14
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

6

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

always produce any potentially exculpatory or otherwise favorable 

evidence without regard to how the withholding of such evidence might 

be viewed ... as affecting the outcome of the trial. The question before 

trial is not whether the government thinks that disclosure of the 

information or evidence ... might change the outcome of the trial going 

forward, but whether the evidence is favorable and therefore must be 

disclosed.”).

United States v. Bundy, 968 F.3d 1019, 1033 (2020) (“The defendants were entitled to any evidence 

that could contradict this [scienter] theory, irrespective of whether they could or would muster 

an affirmative defense. Espousing the belief that evidence undercutting the government’s central 

theory of mens rea was somehow irrelevant and not Brady material was preposterous and 

reckless.”).

To justify withholding Brady and Giglio materials, the government argues much has 

changed since the conclusion of DOJ’s investigation in 2012/2013. This argument completely 

misses the point because, as discussed above, the government is obligated to produce the 

information regardless of whether it actually provides a defense, because it is favorable, 

whether it provides a defense or not. See, e.g., Bundy, 968 F.3d at 1042 (“doubt about the 

helpfulness of evidence should be resolved in favor of disclosure”). For purposes of Defendants’ 

motion, it does not matter that the government believes criminal acts happened after 2012/2013, 

as this does not change the government’s obligations to provide material, exculpatory, and 

impeaching information in its possession that contradicts its argument that Backpage.com and 

the Defendants engaged in criminality prior to 2012/2013. Even if the government did 

subsequently come into possession of inculpatory evidence that undermines the older favorable 

evidence, the favorable evidence nonetheless must be produced. Id. at 1033 (the government is 

free to argue “the significance of the evidence to the jury, but it is hard to see how the government 

could argue that the evidence was irrelevant, much less a ‘fantastical fishing expedition’”). 

Moreover, Defendants believe the factual materials underlying the Memos also will demonstrate 

that the government already knew much of the purportedly new information it now claims 

undermines the exculpatory value of the facts documented in the WDWA investigation.

The government is free to argue to the jury why it thinks the exculpatory and impeaching 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 8 of 14
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

7

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

information is unreliable or invalid. And, in fact, the government seems to have essentially 

prepared its redirect and closing argument as to these points, as laid out throughout its response. 

But redirect and closing are where the government can appropriately make these subjective 

arguments. The government does not get to assume a conclusion that it must prove and then 

withhold documents that would refute the conclusion based on the government’s untested

assumption. Regardless of how strongly the government here believes that Defendants are guilty 

of the charges in the Superseding Indictment, the Constitution nonetheless requires a trial to test 

the government’s theories—and Defendants are entitled to any evidence favorable to the defense 

to prepare for that trial. Similarly, the government cannot decide relevant interviews, documents, 

etc. are mistaken and therefore refuse to provide such documents. The Constitution, Rules, 

Brady, and Giglio require the government produce the exculpatory and impeaching information 

in its possession and permit the government to then test its theory as to why it thinks these 

documents are now irrelevant at trial. 

For example, the prosecutors here argue that though the WDWA DOJ investigation 

found that as of 2012/2013 Backpage.com worked with NCMEC to combat prostitution on its 

website, NCMEC changed its position in 2014. Dkt. 1328 at 11. The government never explains 

how NCMEC’s subsequent about-face absolves the government of disclosing exculpatory and 

impeaching information in its possession under Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio as to NCMEC’s 

position as of 2012/2013.5 Similarly, the prosecutors quote various snippets from the Senate’s 

2017 investigation into Backpage.com (a hearsay and non-adversarial process where 

Backpage.com received no due process or ability to present its case) to demonstrate that 

Defendants knowingly facilitated a business enterprise’s prostitution offenses. Id. at 11-12. It is 

incredible that the government thinks it can prove its point by selectively quoting from 

documents it has decided to disclose while withholding documents that Defendants know to 

contain quotes and information in direct contradiction. Again, the government’s view that 

5 Moreover, the government characterized Backpage as being deceitful with NCMEC over 

the years, Dkt. 1272-1 at 29-30, yet refuses to disclose material, exculpatory, and impeaching 

evidence it possesses from DOJ’s investigation demonstrating that Backpage went above and 

beyond assisting NCMEC and trying to prevent users’ illegal use of the website. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 9 of 14
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

8

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

evidence obtained after 2012/2013 renders favorable evidence contained in DOJ’s 2012/2013

investigative materials irrelevant is something the government is free to present to the jury, but 

does not permit the government to withhold material, exculpatory, and impeaching information 

at this stage. 

A. The requested information is material, exculpatory, and impeaching.

The government’s response confusingly asserts that Defendants have not “shown 

materiality under Rule 16 nor demonstrated that the United States has withheld favorable or 

impeaching evidence.” Dkt. 1328 at 13. The government fails to appreciate the low threshold 

required in the Ninth Circuit to demonstrate materiality under Rule 16. Information is material 

if it is relevant to a possible defense, United States v. Stever, 603 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2010), and 

includes both inculpatory and exculpatory information, United States v. Muniz-Jaquez, 718 F.3d 

1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Information that is not exculpatory or impeaching may still be 

relevant to developing a possible defense.”). Even information that merely “causes a defendant 

to completely abandon a planned defense and take an entirely different path” must be disclosed 

under Rule 16’s broad discovery right. United States v. Hernandez-Meza, 720 F.3d 760, 768 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Ninth Circuit explained, “[t]he test is not 

whether the discovery is admissible at trial, but whether the discovery may assist [the defendant] 

in formulating a defense.” United States v. Soto-Zuniga, 837 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2016). In SotoZuniga, the Ninth Circuit also reiterated that “it behooves the government to interpret the 

disclosure require broadly and turn over whatever evidence it has pertaining to the case.” Id. 

(quoting Hernandez-Meza, 720 F.3d at 768) (internal quotations omitted). Defendants have amply 

demonstrated the materiality of the requested interviews, memos, notes, emails, subpoenaed 

documents, deposition transcripts, grand jury testimony, and the like. 

Further, Defendants presented the controlling case law regarding Brady/Giglio violations 

in their motion and incorporate it by reference here. Dkt. 1281 at 2-3. The prosecutors here 

work for the same entity whose 2012/2013 investigation found no evidence of criminality and 

that one cannot tell whether an adult ad is for illegal prostitution on the face of the ad. 

Defendants have repeatedly asked for these underlying investigative materials evidencing these 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 10 of 14
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

9

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

findings. See Exhibits A through J to Dkt. 1281, many filed under seal. The government has 

cherry picked and produced some material from the investigation, but has repeatedly refused to 

provide the materials that include the key evidence that substantially undermines its case. 

Accordingly, Defendants have also demonstrated that “the government possesse[s] and kn[ows]

about material favorable to the defense and has failed and refused to disclose it,” and the 

government has utterly failed “to demonstrate that the prosecutor satisfied his duty to disclose 

all favorable evidence known to him or that he could have learned from others acting on the 

government’s behalf.” United States v. Price. 566 F.3d 900, 910 (9th Cir. 2009). 

B. The government’s obligations under Brady and Giglio are separate and 

distinct from its obligations under Rule 16 and Jencks. 

The government’s response also argues that it has complied with Jencks. Dkt. 1328 at 13. 

This also misses the mark. The government’s obligations to produce exculpatory and impeaching 

information in its possession exists separate and apart from its obligations to produce prior 

statements of its witnesses related to the same subject matter as the witness’ current testimony 

under Jencks. Throughout the past nearly four years of litigation when Defendants would demand 

the underlying materials from WDWA DOJ’s investigation related to various witnesses on the 

government’s then current witness lists, the government responded by removing the witness 

from its witness list. The government is absolutely correct that this gamesmanship absolved it 

of producing the exculpatory and impeaching materials under Jencks, but the government’s 

manipulation of its witness lists does not absolve it from complying with Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio. 

The government argues that it produced some document responsive to Defendants’ 

demands, Dkt. 1328 at 3, n. 2, and that is true. But it is also irrelevant. The government does 

not satisfy its obligations under Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio by producing some favorable evidence, 

but by producing all favorable evidence—and the government cannot plausibly claim it has 

produced all favorable evidence from the WDWA DOJ investigation. For instance, the 

government produced some grand jury testimony, but refused to produce the exhibits to that 

testimony. One of the exhibits to that testimony appears to be a legal opinion, from a major law 

firm, advising a third-party who was considering purchasing Backpage.com that he would face 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 11 of 14
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

10

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

no civil or criminal from adult ads on Backpage.com relating to prostitution. Defendants made 

a specific demand for that opinion letter (Exhibit H to Dkt. 1281 at 1, filed under seal), but the 

government has refused to produce it, arguing that the WDWA DOJ investigation did not “reveal 

exculpatory or impeaching information in this criminal case” (Exhibit I to Dkt. 1281 at 4, filed 

under seal)—a refusal and a contention that are both “preposterous and reckless.” Bundy, 968 

F.3d at 1033. The government also points to a handful of pages produced just three weeks before 

trial (and three years after Defendants’ first demand), but, tellingly, the government does not 

represent that those few pages are the entire universe of documents containing exculpatory and 

impeaching information from DOJ’s investigation. Its silence on that point is deafening. 

III. CONCLUSION

The Court should compel the government to produce all the underlying evidence from 

the WDWA DOJ investigation that is potentially favorable to the defense, whether material, 

exculpatory, impeaching, or that could contradict any of the government’s theories of mens rea or 

liability. Given the government’s failure to produce obvious Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio materials

to the defense, Defendants also ask the Court to review the Memos in camera to identify and 

catalog all potentially favorable facts summarized or memorialized in the Memos and to directly 

order the government to produce to the defense all evidence of those potentially favorable facts 

identified by the Court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of September 2021,

BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL 

WILLIAMS LLP

s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Whitney Z. Bernstein

Attorneys for James Larkin

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (Oct. 2020) § 

II(C)(3), Whitney Z. Bernstein hereby 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 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 12 of 14
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

11

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT 

TO COMPLY WITH ITS BRADY AND GIGLIO OBLIGATIONS

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr.

Paul J. Cambria, Jr.

Erin McCampbell Paris

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT 

NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG AND 

RHOW PC

s/ Gary S. Lincenberg

Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Attorneys for John Brunst

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

s/ Bruce Feder

Bruce Feder

Attorneys for Scott Spear

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

s/ Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorneys for Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 13 of 14
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

3739131.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 30, 2021, 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/ Toni Thomas 

Toni Thomas

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1332 Filed 09/30/21 Page 14 of 14