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

3553993.1 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-SPL

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DEFER DISCLOSURE OF 

CARL FERRER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF THE SAME 

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 

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-SPL 

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST’S 

OPPOSITION TO 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 

DEFER DISCLOSURE OF CARL 

FERRER’S JENCKS ACT 

STATEMENTS AND OBJECTION 

TO IN CAMERA FILING OF THE 

SAME, AND REQUEST FOR 

DISCLOSURE OF THE SAME

Assigned to Hon. Steven P. Logan, 

Defendant John Brunst hereby objects to and opposes the government’s in 

camera Motion to Defer Disclosure of Carl Ferrer’s Jencks Act Statements 

(believed to be Doc. 461). 

The government has refused to serve Mr. Brunst (or any other defendant) with 

the Motion to Defer Disclosure or the related Motion to Seal (Doc. 460). 

Declaration of Ariel A. Neuman, ¶ 2. Mr. Brunst is therefore unaware of the 

substance of the Motion to Defer Disclosure, or the government’s purported 

rationale for filing the Motion in camera without providing notice to, or serving the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 477 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 5
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

3553993.1 2 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-SPL

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DEFER DISCLOSURE OF 

CARL FERRER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF THE SAME 

Motion on, the defense. Mr. Brunst can only surmise that the filings are based on 

Ferrer’s status as a government cooperator. 

However, the government has publicly disclosed that Ferrer is a 

cooperating government witness. See, e.g., Government Response in Opposition to 

Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 476), p. 16, n. 23 (“ . . . Ferrer, a cooperating defendant . . 

.”); see also United States v. Carl Allen Ferrer, CR 18-464-SPL, Transcript of 

Proceedings (Doc. 21) at p. 7 (“Mr. Ferrer is also entering into a cooperation 

addendum.”). There is no basis to conceal his statements from the defense. 

Production of his statements is critical to Mr. Brunst’s ability to understand and 

analyze the government’s case. There is no reason for in camera filing as far as Mr. 

Brunst is aware, and there is no basis to defer disclosure of Ferrer’s Jencks Act 

statements.1

 

Ferrer is the former CEO of Backpage.com, and it is anticipated that his 

testimony will be central to the government’s case-in-chief. Access to his 

statements is necessary to analyze the government’s theory of the case. It appears 

Ferrer has reversed years of statements to defendants, courts, and the public, but the 

exact nature of Ferrer’s recent allegations about the defendants are unknown to the 

defense, beyond stray references in the three-paragraph “Factual Basis” section of 

his plea agreement. Mr. Brunst is entitled to understand exactly what Ferrer is now 

saying that supposedly incriminates Mr. Brunst so that he can evaluate the 

government’s case and prepare his defense. He also needs the statements to 

understand why documents that appear innocent on their face have been 

characterized by the government as “hot documents;” given the nature of the 

documents, they can only be “hot” because Ferrer is going to say something about 

what they mean as to a particular defendant. Declaration of Ariel A. Neuman, ¶ 3. 

 

1

 Even if the government asserts that it is using the statements to investigate 

others, that does not justify deferral of disclosure to Mr. Brunst who is willing to 

consider appropriate protective measures for the documents. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 477 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 5
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

3553993.1 3 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-SPL

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DEFER DISCLOSURE OF 

CARL FERRER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF THE SAME 

Mr. Brunst cannot meaningfully prepare his defense in this case without 

access to the statements of the government’s key witness. Nor can he meaningfully 

determine what documents, if any, he intends to use during his case-in-chief to rebut 

that witness’s anticipated testimony. The government’s last minute Motion to Defer 

Disclosure is but one of many failures by the government to timely meet its Rule 16 

obligations.2

Mr. Brunst requests that the Motion to Defer Disclosure (believed to be Doc. 

461) be disclosed to the defense so that Mr. Brunst can lodge further objections and 

briefing with the Court. In the interim, Mr. Brunst objects to the in camera filing of 

the Motion, and opposes the Motion itself. He further requests that Ferrer’s 

statements be immediately disclosed to the defense consistent with the Court’s 

scheduling order. 

DATED: February 27, 2019 Ariel A. Neuman 

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, 

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. 

By: 

 Ariel A. Neuman 

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst 

 

2

 The government was required to disclose all Jencks Act material on February 25, 

2019. It appears their Motion to Defer was filed on or about that date though of 

course Mr. Brunst cannot be sure given that he was not served. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 477 Filed 02/27/19 Page 3 of 5
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

3553993.1 1 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-SPL

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DEFER DISCLOSURE OF 

CARL FERRER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF THE SAME 

DECLARATION OF ARIEL A. NEUMAN 

I, Ariel A. Neuman, declare as follows: 

1. I am an active member of the Bar of the State of California and a 

Principal with Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, 

A Professional Corporation, attorneys of record for Defendant John Brunst in this 

matter, admitted pro hac vice to this Court. I make this declaration in support of 

Defendant John Brunst’s Opposition To Government’s Motion To Defer Disclosure 

Of Carl Ferrer (believed to be Doc. 461). Except for those matters stated on 

information and belief, I make this declaration based upon personal knowledge and, 

if called upon to do so, I could and would so testify.

2. Late on February 25, 2019, I received via U.S. Mail a Document No. 

470-1 in this matter, which is an Order granting the Government’s Motion to Seal its 

Ex Parte Motion to Defer Disclosure of Carl Ferrer’s Jencks Act Statements (Doc. 

461). I subsequently confirmed with other defense counsel that this was the first 

notice the defense received of any Motion to Defer Disclosure, or any Motion to 

Seal such a motion. On February 26, 2019, by email, I contacted the lead AUSA 

assigned to this matter for an explanation as to why the defense had not received 

notice of the motions and had not been served with them. He indicated that the 

motions were filed in camera and would not be provided to the defense, and that we 

had received Doc. 470-1 “in error.” He did not respond to my inquiry as to the 

rationale for in camera filing given that Ferrer’s status as a government 

“cooperator” is public knowledge. 

3. The government has previously identified certain documents to counsel 

as documents the government considers “hot.” I am informed that the lead AUSA 

has told counsel that Ferrer’s statements about these documents are critical to 

understand why they are “hot.” 

4. My colleagues and I do not believe we can meaningfully analyze the 

government’s case or prepare Mr. Brunst’s defense without access to the statements 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 477 Filed 02/27/19 Page 4 of 5
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

3553993.1 2 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-SPL

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DEFER DISCLOSURE OF 

CARL FERRER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF THE SAME 

of the government’s key witness. Nor can we meaningfully determine what 

documents, if any, we intend to use during the defense case-in-chief to rebut that 

witness’s anticipated testimony 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 

America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this declaration 

on February 27, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. 

 Ariel A. Neuman 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 477 Filed 02/27/19 Page 5 of 5