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

 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTIONS TO OVERSIZE BRIEF 

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 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO 

GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTIONS TO 

OVERSIZE BRIEF (DOC. NO. 1361)

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1364 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 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

 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTIONS TO OVERSIZE BRIEF 

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 1364 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 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

 1 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTIONS TO OVERSIZE BRIEF 

The government filed an opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 1355) 

to complain about the substance of the motion and lobe egregious, serious allegations of contempt 

at defense counsel. See Docs. 1361. The government is wrong, and Defendants are compelled to 

respond here. 

1. The government is wrong to allege that Defendants attempted to circumvent any 

Court order by quoting public press articles about the government’s withholding of Brady materials. 

Doc. 1361. Judge Logan’s Order, which the government cites, required defendants to (i) destroy 

the inadvertently produced documents and (ii) not use any information that may have been 

gathered from the review of those documents. Doc. 449-1. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss 

does not violate that Order as Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss does not in any way, shape, 

or form use any information learned from a review of the government’s clawed back memos.1 See 

Doc. 1355. Defendants merely quoted publicly available press reports. Judge Logan’s Order did not 

forbid Defendants from reading public press articles about the case (as this would be in clear 

violation of the First Amendment) (Doc. 449-1), and none of the articles that Defendants 

mentioned in the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 1355 at 20-21) contain the memos, despite the 

government’s misleading suggestions to the contrary (Doc. 1361 at 2: 5-8). The Court can view 

the public press articles itself. The government’s protests about the Joint Motion to Dismiss has 

nothing to do with Defendants Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. 1354) and instead 

underscores the extent to which the government is trying to keep the facts underlying the Brady 

materials away from this Court’s consideration. 

2. The government is wrong to argue Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss seeks to 

rehash other matters. Doc. 1361 at 2:14-15. Defendants argued that the case should be dismissed 

with prejudice because the cumulative effect of the government’s years-long, ongoing actions rises 

to the level of sanctionable conduct warranting dismissal. Doc. 1355 at 17-29. The government’s 

repeated privilege invasions and Brady violations, on top of the government’s many violations of 

1 Undersigned counsel, who filed the Motion to Dismiss, has never even seen the Western 

District of Washington memos that are the subject of Defendants’ pending Motion to Compel 

Government to Comply with Brady/Giglio (Doc. 1281). See, e.g., Trail Day 4 PM, Transcript at 

Doc. 1355-8, at 83. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1364 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 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

 2 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTIONS TO OVERSIZE BRIEF 

Court orders during trial, make it clear that the government must be sanctioned with dismissal of 

the case. Id. Defendants believe it is simplest for six Defendants to file one joint motion that is 

12 pages longer than the page limit, as opposed to six Defendants filing multiple separate 17-page 

motions and joinders, and thus sought as much from this Court. Doc. 1354. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21th day of October 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.

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 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1364 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 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

 3 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTIONS TO OVERSIZE BRIEF 

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC 

s/ Joy Bertrand 

Joy Bertrand 

Attorneys for Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1364 Filed 10/22/21 Page 5 of 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

 1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3754503.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 21, 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 1364 Filed 10/22/21 Page 6 of 6