UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey,

James Larkin,

Scott Spear,

John Brunst,

Andrew Padilla,

Joye Vaught,

CR-18-0422-PHX-SPL

Phoenix, Arizona

October 5, 2018

10:50 a.m.

Defendants.

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN, JUDGE

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HEARING ON PENDING MOTIONS - VOLUME I

(Pages 1 through 60, inclusive.)

Official Court Reporter:

Linda Schroeder, RDR, CRR

Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 312

401 West Washington Street, Spc. 32

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151

(602) 322-7249

Proceedings Reported by Stenographic Court Reporter

Transcript Prepared by Computer-Aided Transcription

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 522-3 Filed 04/16/19 Page 1 of 5
Q

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

A P P E A R A N C E S

For the Government:

U.S. Attorney's Office

By: PETER SHAWN KOZINETS, E5Q.

ANDREW C. STONE, ESQ.

MARGARET WU PERLMETER, ESQ.

KEVIN M. RAPP, ESQ. (Telephonic)

40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200

Phoenix, AZ 85004

U.S. Attorney's Office

By: JOHN JACOB KUCERA, ESQ. (Telephonic)

312 North Spring Street, Suite 1200

Los Angeles, CA 90012

U.S. Department of Justice

By: REGINALD E. JONE5, ESQ. (Telephonic)

1400 New York Avenue NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20530

For the Defendant Lacey:

Liptsitz Green Scime Cambria

By: PAUL JOHN CAMBRIA, JR., ESQ.

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, NY 14202

For the Defendants Lacey and Larkin:

Davis Wright Tremaine

By: ROBERT CORN-REVERE, ESQ.

1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

Davis Wright Tremaine

By: JAMES C. GRANT, ESQ.

1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, WA 98101

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 522-3 Filed 04/16/19 Page 2 of 5
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

For the Defendant Larkin:

Bienert Miller & Katzman

By: THOMAS HENRY BIENERT, JR., ESQ.

WHITNEY Z. BERNSTEIN, ESQ.

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, CA 92673

Schulte Roth & Zabel

By: SEETHA RAMACHANDRAN, ESQ.

919 Third Avenue, Suite 2013

New York, NY 10022

For the Defendant Spear:

Feder Law Office

By: BRUCE 5. FEDER, ESQ.

2930 East Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, AZ 85016

For the Defendant Brunst:

Kimerer & Derrick

By: M=CHAEL D. KIMERER, ESQ.

1313 East Osborn Road, Suite 100

Phoenix, AZ 85014

Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim

Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow

By: ARIEL A. NEUMAN, ESQ.

1875 Century Park E, Suite 2300

Los Angeles, CA 90067

For the Defendant Padilla:

Piccarreta Davis Keenan Eidel

By: MICI~AEL L. PICCARRETA, ESQ.

2 East Congress Street, Suite 1000

Tucson, AZ 85701

For the Defendant Vaught:

Karp & Weiss

By: STEPHEN M. WEISS, ESQ.

3060 North Swan Road

Tucson, AZ 85712

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 522-3 Filed 04/16/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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

For Henze Cook Murphy, PLLC:

Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman

By: LEE DAVID STEIN, ESQ.

ANNE MICHELLE CHAPMAN, ESQ.

2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1450

Phoenix, AZ 85004

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 522-3 Filed 04/16/19 Page 4 of 5
102

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

received awards from various law enforcement officials. There

was some communications and some relationships with Backpage

and various other organizations in terms of the National Child

Exploitation Center, NCMEC. They responded to subpoenas when

subpoenas were provided and things like that. That's all -- I

don't think they need us to show them those documents. I mean,

that's something they're very familiar with. They cite them

back to us in a lot of the various pleadings.

Now, what's at issue in this case -- and let's set

aside this First Amendment issue that they have raised because

that's a legal issue that the Court will rule on at some

point -- is a factual issue. Did they know that the vast

majority of these advertisements that went up on this Web site

were for prostitution.

So that is what is clearly articulated in the

90-plus-page superseding indictment. And there's lots of

material that's given as support for that. And I think as

Mr. Piccarreta is going to get to, some of those documents have

already been turned over with respect to the superseding

indictment. And there are others that we were turning over,

and I think today there's a disclosure.

So there's a continuing disclosure from the government

to defense on all these particular issues. But with respect to

Brady or exculpatory, we're unsure what that would look like,

Your Honor.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 522-3 Filed 04/16/19 Page 5 of 5