- 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 TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

COMPEL BRADY (CR 1281) 

[REDACTED FOR PUBLIC 

DISCLOSURE]

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 1 of 15
- 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 

Preliminary Statement 

In a thirteenth-hour attempt to relitigate issues squarely decided by Judge Logan 

years ago, Defendants have filed a Motion to Compel Brady (CR 1281) that asks the Court 

to conduct a second in camera review of two inadvertently-disclosed work-product 

memoranda. [REDACTED THROUGH LINE 12]] 

In an effort to circumvent the Court’s ruling, Defendants now assert that the 

government’s case has “evolved.” As explained below, that assertion lacks merit. The 

92-page Superseding Indictment (Doc. 230, “SI”) lays out the basis for the United States’ 

case. The United States’ recent opening statement and pleadings are based on exactly the 

same factual allegations and legal theories set forth in the SI, and there is no reason to 

reconsider Judge Logan’s order, which remains law of the case.1

 

Defendants’ motion more broadly seeks “all materials” or “all evidence” that “the 

government obtained in the WDWA proceeding” (Mot. at 1, 4), notwithstanding Judge 

Logan’s finding that [REDACTED]. On 

1

 Moreover, Defendants’ characterization of the United States’ case is 

fundamentally incorrect. (Mot. at 1.) As the United States has stated elsewhere, the jury is entitled to consider both the text and context of Backpage’s ads in determining the nature of the services offered, including the use of coded prostitution terms (e.g., “incall,” 

“outcall,” “quickie,” “car service,” “roses,” “GFE,” and references to being “new in town” or “in town” only briefly), prices tied to short time increments, nude or semi-nude images, references to well-known prostitution review websites like The Erotic Review, and other 

evidence. (See, e.g., CR 1216-3 at 185-87.) The United States likewise does not advance a “strict liability” theory; rather, its legal theories are described in its proposed jury instructions, which are based on the allegations and charges contained in the SI, including the SI’s conspiracy, Travel Act and Money Laundering counts. (See generally CR 1216-

3; CR 230.) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 2 of 15
- 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 

July 22, 2021, Defendants asked the United States to produce those materials pursuant to 

Brady and Giglio, and the United States responded on August 2, 2021. (See Mot., Ex. I.) 

As explained by the United States, the WDWA Investigation materials are neither 

exculpatory nor material for numerous reasons—not the least because of significant 

evidentiary developments that have transpired in the nearly 10 years since that 

investigation concluded, and that form the basis of this case. (See Mot., Ex. I at 2-5.) 

Notwithstanding Defendants’ failure to establish the relevance and materiality of 

the WDWA Investigation, the United States previously provided Defendants with 

numerous factual materials from that investigation, including the documents identified in 

correspondence dated October 4, 2018 (Ex. A, filed herewith), and grand jury testimony 

(see Mot., Ex. I at 5 (referencing DOJ-BP-0004719710 - DOJ-BP-0004720536)). 

Moreover, after receiving Defendants’ July 22, 2021 letter, the United States searched its 

files for any additional factual material related to the WDWA Investigation that had not 

previously been disclosed, and located memoranda of interviews (“MOIs”) of witnesses, 

handwritten notes of moderator interviews, and additional reports or statements relating to 

that investigation. (See Mot., Ex. I at 4-5 and nn. 3-4; see also Ex. B, filed herewith.)2

 The 

United States does not believe that these materials reveal exculpatory or impeaching 

information in this criminal case. However, out of an abundance of caution, and in effort 

to exceed its discovery obligations, the United States provided all of these documents to 

the defense. For these and other reasons explained below, Defendants’ third Brady motion 

should be denied.3

2

 Bates-numbered versions of these documents were produced on August 6, 2021, at USAO-BP-0033331 - USAO-BP-0033340 (reports and statements of FBI Special Agent Steven Vienneau from 2012); USAO-BP-0033341 - USAO-BP-0033362 (handwritten notes of agent interviews with former Backpage moderators Ezekiel Finley, Brian Alstadt, LaTamara Barlow, Justin Dew, Brian Paterge, and David Roberts); and USAO-BP- 0033367 - USAO-BP-0033389 (MOIs of Ayesha Johnson, Bill Egan, David Schneiderman, and Scott Lebovitz). 

3

 On January 28, 2019, Judge Logan issued an Order (CR 339) denying Defendants’ attempt to compel the government to sift through voluminous, previously disclosed discovery, and furnish them with an itemized list of exculpatory documents pursuant to Brady. Further, on June 26, 2020, this Court issued an Order (CR 1028) denying 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 3 of 15
- 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 

26 

27 

28 

Argument 

I. Defendants’ Attempt to Re-Litigate Judge Logan’s Order (CR 449-1) Should 

Be Denied 

On the afternoon of Wednesday, September 8, 2021, this Court asked Defendants if 

Judge Logan had already resolved the issue of whether any alleged underlying facts 

contained in the inadvertently-disclosed WDWA memos contained Brady material 

concerning this case. In response, Defendants stated that this issue had not been litigated 

and decided by Judge Logan. That statement was incorrect. In fact, Defendants argued 

that exact issue in their Response to the United States’ Motion to Compel Destruction of 

Inadvertently Disclosed Documents. (See CR 407 at 2, Defendants’ Response 

[REDACTED] 

 ; CR 407 at 8 [REDACTED].) 

What’s more, after considering the parties’ briefs, the attached exhibits, and relevant 

case law (CR 352, 407, 432), Judge Logan rejected Defendants’ argument in his Order 

granting the United States’ Motion to Compel Destruction of Inadvertently Disclosed 

Documents, finding: 

[REDACTED THROUGH PAGE 5, LINE 3]. 

Defendants’ attempt to compel the government to produce approximately forty-two separate categories of alleged Brady material. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 4 of 15
- 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 

(CR 449-1 at 2-3.) 

 Defendants now attempt to walk back their September 8, 2021 statement to the 

Court by asserting this Court should redetermine the issue because the United States’ case 

has “evolved significantly” since Judge Logan issued CR 449-1. (Mot. at 1.) That’s simply 

not true—the government’s case today is based on exactly the same factual allegations and 

legal theories as its July 2018 Superseding Indictment. 

 The Superseding Indictment (CR 230, SI) alleged, inter alia, that Defendants “were 

aware that the vast majority of the ‘adult’ and ‘escort’ ads appearing on Backpage were 

actually ads for prostitution and took steps to intentionally facilitate that illegal activity.” 

(SI¶9; see also id ¶34.) These steps consisted of several highly-successful prostitutionmarketing strategies that Defendants deliberately authorized, oversaw and implemented, 

including: 

9. . . . . [D]uring Backpage’s early years of operation, the 

company’s employees were actually trained to—and paid bonuses for—

identifying prostitutes who were posting ads on rival websites, creating free 

ads on Backpage for them, and using the resulting Backpage ads (which 

would only remain free for a trial period) in an attempt to secure the 

prostitutes’ future business. These affirmative content-creation efforts, 

which were described internally as “content aggregation” or the “Dallas 

Plan,” were vital to Backpage’s early growth and success. 

10. Backpage also employed other business strategies that were 

specifically intended to promote and facilitate prostitution. For example, for 

several years, Backpage had a reciprocal link agreement with The Erotic 

Review (“TER”), a website that permitted customers to post explicit 

“reviews” of their encounters with prostitutes, including descriptions of 

prices charged for particular sex acts. Backpage paid tens of thousands of 

dollars to TER in return for assistance in getting TER’s customer base to start 

using Backpage. 

11. In addition to affirmatively creating prostitution-related 

content and intentionally soliciting prostitution-related business, Backpage 

also utilized a variety of strategies to conceal the true nature of the ads being 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 5 of 15
- 6 - 

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 

posted on its website. Most notably, Backpage periodically used 

computerized filters and human “moderators” to edit the wording of (or 

block) ads that explicitly offered sexual services in return for money. The 

BACKPAGE DEFENDANTS admitted—in internal company documents 

and during private meetings—that, despite these editing practices, they knew 

the overwhelming majority of the website’s ads still involved prostitution. 

 

(SI¶¶9-12; see also ¶¶34-176.) “Backpage also formed ‘affiliate’ partnerships with other 

organizations and individuals who were known to be involved in the prostitution industry. 

One such individual, known as ‘Dollar Bill,’ earned fees in return for arranging for 

prostitutes and pimps to post ads on Backpage.” (SI¶59.) 

 The SI also identifies scores of blatant or thinly-veiled Backpage prostitution ads. 

Counts 2-51 identify 50 specific prostitution ads that fall into three categories. First, 10 of 

the 50 ads were posted by P.R. (SI Counts 3, 6-11, 18, 25-26; SI¶132.) Between September 

2010 and October 2012, Ferrer became aware that P.R. was posting prostitution ads. 

(SI¶132.) Ferrer repeatedly restored her posting privileges and gave her advice on how to 

conform to Backpage’s publication standards. (SI¶132.) Defendants Padilla and Vaught 

were also aware of P.R.’s ads. (SI¶132.) From October 2012 to November 2015, P.R. was 

allowed to post over a dozen new prostitution ads. (SI¶132.) 

 Second, 15 of the 50 ads depict specific victims who were repeatedly sold for sex 

via Backpage. (See SI Counts 2, 4-5, 12-17, 19-24.) The narratives associated with these 

victims are included in ¶¶160-176 of the SI. In many instances, Backpage 

representatives—who were implementing policies that Defendants authorized, oversaw or 

executed—coached users on how to fix their ads so they could be published, or otherwise 

edited the ads before publication. (See, e.g., SI¶¶ 160, 163, 164, 166, 170, 172 and SI 

Counts 4-5, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20.) Third, the remaining 25 ads involve Backpage ads 

containing “GFE” (shorthand for “girlfriend experience”). (SI Counts 27-51.) Internal 

emails show that Defendants Spear, Padilla and Vaught, co-conspirators Ferrer and Hyer, 

and others at Backpage knew “GFE” is a “coded sex act for money” term or one of several 

“solid sex for money terms.” (SI¶149.) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 6 of 15
- 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 

 The ads highlighted in the SI include the following: 

 Victim 15 ad, “GORGEOUS ebony PLAYMATE Perfect Curves...Skills 

to make ur TOES CURL – 19”; “you agree . . . you are not affiliated with 

any law enforcement agency” and “Incalls & Outcall!!!” (Count 19); 

 Victim 13 ad, “Young SEXY PUERTO RICAN – 19”; “I do half hour 

sessions that vary in donation prices, 80 for head, 120 for hooking up 

without head and 150 for hooking up with head” (Count 23); 

 P.R. ad, “50 Red R*O*S*E*S S*P*E*C*I*A*L – DON’T MISS 

OUT!!!!!" (Count 26); 

 “Sometimes It’s All About The Journey, And The Destination.....Erectile 

Dysfunctional G F E Provider – 44”; “You can find a few current reviews 

at T3R [The Erotic Review] xxxxxx#” (Count 31); 

 “OMG Sexy Sensual 36DD-24-36 Stacked College Coed With The Best 

Mouth Ever! BOOK NOW! -24”; “I do ALL the things YOU Wish Your 

Wife Did!!” and “(G).(F).(E) 30 min/$180” (Count 35); 

 “WANNA HANG OUT NOW UpScale New In Town! Call ME now for 

an unforgettable visit – 20”; “100% GFE with 100% no Pimps” (Count 

39). 

(SI¶201.) The SI describes several other obvious prostitution ads featured on Backpage, 

including ads describing specific sex acts (e.g., “blow jobs”) with prices. (SI¶118.) 

Defendants were informed “New In Town” often indicates a trafficked victim shuttled to 

different locations; it appears in numerous ads in the SI. (SI¶¶13, 100, 169, 171, 201.) 

“Roses” is a common prostitution synonym for money. (SI¶¶132, 160-61, 164, 167, 201.) 

“Incalls” (customer goes to prostitution’s location), “outcalls” (prostitute goes to 

customer), and “100% no pimps” are also common prostitution terms. 

 More fundamentally, the SI describes Backpage’s entire “adult” section as a hub for 

prostitution ads. (See, e.g., SI¶1 (Backpage was “notorious for being the internet’s leading 

source of prostitution advertisements”), ¶11 (Defendants “admitted—in internal company 

documents and during private meetings—that, despite [moderation], they knew the 

overwhelming majority of the website’s ads still involved prostitution”); ¶11 (Lacey even 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 7 of 15
- 8 - 

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 

“bragged about the company’s contributions to the prostitution industry”).) The SI alleges 

“Backpage derived the overwhelming majority of its revenue” from prostitution ads. 

(SI¶¶1, 15, 177.) The SI also alleges the rest of the website served as a falsely-legitimate 

cover for Backpage’s “adult” ads. (SI¶112.) 

 The SI also contains a litany of allegations demonstrating that law enforcement, the 

national news media, anti-trafficking organizations, Senate investigators and others 

similarly concluded—and informed Defendants—that the vast majority of Backpage’s 

“adult” ads were for prostitution. (See SI¶¶74, 86, 97, 105,109, 111, 127, 131, 134, 140, 

141, 144, 146, 151.) Backpage and its principals were repeatedly notified that Backpage 

was the internet’s leading place to shop for prostitutes. (See, e.g., SI¶¶144). These 

notifications mirrored Backpage’s internal admissions. (See, e.g., SI¶¶11, 36, 54, 59, 68, 

69, 75, 81, 82, 85, 92, 94-96, 98, 107-108, 112, 114, 116, 118-119, 128, 132, 138, 139, 

143, 145, 148-149.) In short, the SI alleges Defendants intentionally operated (and 

aggressively expanded) a massive online marketplace for prostitution solicitations. 

 The United States’ September 3, 2021 opening statement, and its other trial 

pleadings, are entirely consistent with the SI. As the United States recently pointed out: 

[The opening statement detailed] several significant pieces of evidence 

against Defendants—including Defendants’ deliberate execution of several 

prostitution-marketing strategies purposefully designed to increase their 

website’s revenues and facilitate their customers’ prostitution businesses. 

These strategies . . . included content aggregation (publishing free 

prostitution ads in attempt to capture new business), reciprocal link 

agreements (including a longstanding relationship with the explicit 

prostitution review website The Erotic Review, which for years served as the 

number one source of outside referrals for Backpage), paying commissions 

or offering discounts to high-volume prostitution advertisers (super-posters 

or super-affiliates like Dollar Bill, New York Platinum, and Sean Kim), 

“moderation” (which sanitized overly-blatant prostitution ads without 

changing the true meaning of what they offered for sale), and money 

laundering schemes designed to conceal the true source of Backpage’s 

revenues and fool financial institutions. (See generally Tr. at 13-55.)[4

] 

4

 “Tr.” refers to the reporter’s transcript of the afternoon portion of the proceedings on September 3, 2021. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 8 of 15
- 9 - 

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 

(CR 1275 at 1; see also id. at 4-8.) The opening statement further discussed Backpage’s 

“moderation” practices, including that Backpage’s moderators were “instructed by these 

defendants to conceal the fact that prostitution ads were rampant on Backpage.” (Tr. at 20-

21.) It also explained that “the vast majority of these folks visiting Backpage.com weren’t 

looking to buy themselves a sofa. Backpage.com was the internet’s leading hub, leading 

website for prostitution.” (Tr. at 6.) The opening statement then discussed several of the 

specific ads that are also highlighted in the SI, including “Sometimes it’s all about the 

journey and the destination,” and “Stacked college co-ed with the best mouth ever” (Tr. at 

27-28), and discussed ads including known prostitution terms like “incall,” “outcall,” 

“GFE,” and “New in Town.” (Tr. at 8, 10, 30.) The opening statement also canvassed 

much of the notice that Defendants received from NCMEC, law enforcement, media 

organizations, various non-governmental organizations, law enforcement, and internet 

safety experts. (Tr. at 28-43.) The opening statement underscored that Defendants’ 

website generated the overwhelming majority of its revenue—some 94%—from selling 

prostitution solicitations. (Tr. at 24.) 

 The United States’ recent filings, including its proposed jury instructions and 

statement of the case (CR 1216-1, 1216-3), and its response to the mistrial motion regarding 

the opening statement (CR 1272), are likewise based on the same facts and legal theories 

contained in the SI. Defendants’ asserted defenses aren’t new either (see Mot. at 1)—

rather, Defendants have been asserting the same constitutional, statutory and mens rea

arguments since this case began. (See, e.g., CR 23 at 2-4, 7, 11-12, and n.2; CR 26 at 10-

11.) Simply put, the United States’ case has not “evolved”—and the Court should decline 

Defendants’ request to relitigate Judge Logan’s Order (CR 449-1). 

II. Materials from the WDWA Investigation Do Not Reveal Exculpatory or 

Impeaching Information in This Case 

As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, to “challenge the government’s representation 

that it lacks Brady information, [a defendant] must either make a showing of materiality 

under Rule 16 or otherwise demonstrate that the government improperly withheld 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 9 of 15
- 10 - 

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 

favorable evidence.” United States v. Lucas, 841 F.3d 796, 808 (9th Cir. 2016). The test 

for materiality is whether the requested evidence might affect the outcome of the trial. 

United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the Ninth 

Circuit has rejected the premise that a defendant may compel production of notes so that 

he could search through them for anything useful. United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186, 

1200 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Mere speculation about materials in the governments’ files’ [does] 

not require the district court to make those materials available, or mandate an in camera 

inspection.”); see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433 (1995) (“[w]e never held that 

the Constitution demands an open file policy”) (citing United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 

108 (1976)); United States v. Michaels, 796 F.2d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Brady does 

not “provide defense counsel with unlimited discovery of everything known by a 

prosecutor”). 

As the Supreme Court held in Whitley, 514 U.S. at 439, and the Court in this case 

noted in its Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material, 

“the prosecutor, not a defendant, ‘make[s] judgment calls about what would count as 

favorable evidence’ and that ‘the character of a piece of evidence as favorable will often 

turn on the context of the existing or potential evidentiary record.’” (CR 1028 at 20); see 

also Lucas, 841 F.3d at 807 (“It is the government, not the defendant or the trial court, that 

decides prospectively what information, if any, is material and must be disclosed under 

Brady.”). 

Here, context is key. As the government expressed in its reply in support of Motion 

to Compel Destruction of Inadvertently Disclosed Documents (CR 432) and in subsequent 

correspondence with Defendants (see, e.g., Mot., Ex. I), materials from the WDWA 

Investigation are not Brady or Giglio for purposes of this case. In the years since the 

WDWA Investigation, a tidal wave of evidence has emerged regarding Defendants’ 

knowledge and intent to facilitate business enterprises involved in prostitution. The 

government’s Motion in Limine to Admit Certain Evidence (CR 931) highlights a great 

deal of this evidence, which shows that Defendants were well-aware that prostitution ads 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 10 of 15
- 11 - 

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 

were rampant on Backpage and took numerous steps to facilitate prostitution through their 

operation of the website. A non-exhaustive list of this evidence includes the following: 

First, during the WDWA Investigation, Backpage was ostensibly working with the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) to combat prostitution 

on its website. However, in 2014 NCMEC publicly denounced Backpage and repudiated 

any suggestion that Backpage was somehow an ally. NCMEC joined several other nonprofits and the Washington State Attorney General’s Office by filing amicus briefs urging 

that state’s Supreme Court to allow civil claims against Backpage to proceed. (See 

SI¶140.) The Washington State Supreme Court subsequently ruled against Backpage and 

in favor of three victims who had been “bought and sold for sexual services online on 

Backpage.com.” J.S. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, Inc., 359 P.3d 714,715 (Wash. 

2015). The Court—in ruling that Backpage’s motion to dismiss should be denied—found 

that discovery should be conducted “to ascertain whether in fact Backpage designed its 

posting rules to induce sex trafficking.” Id. at718. 

Second, the WDWA Investigation occurred years before the United States Senate’s 

Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations Report issued its January 2017 report, 

BACKPAGE.COM’S KNOWING FACILITATION OF ONLINE SEX TRAFFICKING (“PSI 

Report”).5

 The PSI Report found, among other things, that Backpage knowingly facilitated 

prostitution and sex trafficking. The PSI also released an 840-page Appendix.6

 Many of 

these documents did not come to light until after the Senate successfully pursued legal 

action to enforce its subpoena for internal Backpage records in 2016—long after the 

WDWA’s 2012-13 Investigation. See Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

v. Ferrer, 199 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D.D.C. 2016). That litigation led to Backpage’s compelled 

disclosure of more than 550,000 documents, comprising 1,112,826 pages—materials that 

5

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.1

0%20FINAL.pdf. 6

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Final%20Appendix%202017.01.09

.pdf 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 11 of 15
- 12 - 

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 

Senate investigators analyzed in preparing the PSI Report. (PSI Report at 16.) The PSI 

also obtained testimony from current and former Backpage moderators who confirmed that 

Backpage was engaging in the facilitation of prostitution. One of the moderators testified 

that all of the Backpage employee-moderators knew that the ads they reviewed offered sex 

for money, and that moderators “‘went through the motions of putting lipstick on a pig, 

because when it came down to it, it was what the business was about.” (PSI Report at 36-

37.) Another testified “everyone” knew that Backpage’s adult advertisements were for 

prostitution, and “[a]nyone who says [they] w[ere]n’t, that’s bullshit.” (PSI Report at 37.) 

 Third, the WDWA Investigation predated compliance with still more subpoenas 

(including District of Arizona Grand Jury Subpoenas 108 and 359) that produced additional 

evidence demonstrating Backpage’s facilitation of prostitution on its website. 

Lastly and importantly, the WDWA did not have the benefit of two cooperating 

witnesses—Backpage’s CEO Carl Ferrer, and Backpage’s Sales and Marketing Director 

Daniel Hyer. Years after the WDWA Investigation concluded, several corporate entities 

that operated Backpage.com, and Backpage’s CEO, pleaded guilty in April 2018 in the 

District of Arizona and admitted that the “great majority” of Backpage’s revenuegenerating ads were “for prostitution services.” (See, e.g., 18-CR-464, CR 7-2 at 12-13; 

18-CR-465, CR 8-2 at 11.) Subsequently, Backpage’s Sales and Marketing Director 

pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the SI (conspiracy to violate the Travel Act/facilitate 

prostitution), and he admitted the majority of the “escort” ads he and others at Backpage 

had created as part of the “aggregation” process were actually offering illegal prostitution 

services. (CR 271 at 9.) As shown by these plea agreements and additional evidence, 

Backpage was facilitating prostitution and engaging in considerable content creation that 

included, among other things, domestically aggregating ads from competing websites, 

forming affiliated relationships with individuals who packaged thousands of prostitution 

ads for sale to Backpage, and forming a business relationship with the prostitution review 

site The Erotic Review. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 12 of 15
- 13 - 

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 

Based on these and other developments (summarized in CR 649 at 23-26), the 

WDWA Investigation occurred in an evidentiary context far different from that of the 

current case. Materials from the Western District of Washington’s 2012-2013 

investigation of Backpage do not reveal exculpatory or impeaching information pertinent 

to this criminal case, which charges 100 counts of conspiracy, Travel Act and money 

laundering offenses. (See generally SI.) 

III. The Government Has Fully Complied with Its Discovery Obligations Pursuant 

to Brady, Rule 16, and 18 U.S.C. § 3500 

While Defendants have neither shown materiality under Rule 16 nor demonstrated 

that the United States has withheld favorable or impeaching evidence, the United States 

previously produced grand jury testimony and numerous other materials from the WDWA 

Investigation to Defendants in this case. (See Ex. A, filed herewith; Mot., Ex. I at 5 

(referencing DOJ-BP-0004719710 - DOJ-BP-0004720536).) Moreover, after receiving 

Defendants’ July 22, 2021 letter, the United States searched its files for any additional 

factual material related to the WDWA Investigation that had not previously been disclosed, 

and located memoranda of interviews MOIs of witnesses, handwritten notes of moderator 

interviews, and additional reports or statements relating to that investigation. Those 

materials were promptly produced. (See supra at 3 and n.2; Mot., Ex. I at 4-5 and nn. 3-4; 

Ex. B, filed herewith.)

Defendants nevertheless assert that “the government conducted numerous 

interviews of Backpage personnel [in 2012-13] yet has produced no summaries or notes or 

any other records.” (Mot. at 3-4.) More specifically, they claim that they “are aware of at 

least four Backpage moderators (La Tamara Barlow, Justin Dew, Brian Paterge, and Brian 

Alstadt) who were interviewed by the IRS” and speculate that the government is 

withholding Brady and Giglio concerning these employees. (Mot. at 5.) On August 6, 

2021, the United States produced agents’ notes of their interviews with these moderators. 

(See Ex. B.)7

 

7

 The government responded to Defendants’ request for production of an attorney 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 13 of 15
- 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 

In sum, the United States has provided Defendants transcripts from grand jury 

testimony, reports of interviews, and—although not the prosecutors’ usual practice—out 

of an abundance of caution, even produced agents’ interview notes from the Western 

District of Washington’s nearly decade-old investigation into Backpage. (See supra at 3.) 

Defendants’ motion should be denied. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Compel Brady (CR 1281) should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of September, 2021. 

 

 KENNETH POLITE 

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

 Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

s/ Reginald E. Jones REGINALD E. JONES 

 Senior Trial Attorney 

 U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division 

 Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

 GLENN B. McCORMICK 

 Acting United States Attorney 

 District of Arizona 

 

 KEVIN M. RAPP 

 MARGARET PERLMETER 

 PETER S. KOZINETS 

 ANDREW C. STONE 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

DAN G. BOYLE 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

 

opinion that purported to advise a potential buyer of Backpage.com about possible criminal or civil exposure in an email attached to Defendants’ Motion. (Mot., Ex. J (“In the final analysis, you are demanding an email that was based on a flawed legal analysis due to incomplete information for a non-testifying witness.”).) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 14 of 15
- 15 - 

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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on September 23, 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/Marjorie Dieckman 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1326 Filed 09/23/21 Page 15 of 15