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

Robert Corn-Revere (D.C. Bar No. 375415, admitted pro hac vice) 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20006-3401 

Telephone: (202) 973-4225 

Facsimile: (202) 973-4499 

Email: robertcornrevere@dwt.com 

James C. Grant (Wash. Bar No. 14358, admitted pro hac vice) 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

920 Fifth Ave, Suite 3300 

Seattle, WA 98104-1610 

Telephone: (206) 757-8096 

Facsimile: (206) 757-7096 

Email: jamesgrant@dwt.com 

Counsel for Michael Lacey and James Larkin 

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 

MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE 

AND PAGE-LIMIT FOR REPLY 

TO RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT

 (Second Request for Extension of Time) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 651 Filed 06/22/19 Page 1 of 6
1

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE AND PAGE-LIMIT FOR REPLY 

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 Michael Lacey, James Larkin, John Brunst, and Scott Spear, by and 

through their undersigned attorneys, respectfully move the Court to extend the deadline 

for replying to the Government’s Response to Motion to Dismiss Indictment for twoweeks, until July 17, 2019, and to expand the page-limit to allow a reply of no more than 

30 pages. 

On May 3, 2019, Defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, John Brunst, and 

Scott Spear filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 561). The Government moved 

to extend the time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss until June 12, 2019, which was 

granted. (Doc. 618). The reason for the government’s request was the anticipated filing 

of amicus briefs supporting Defendants. In its unopposed request, the government 

indicated it would not oppose a corresponding extension for Defendants’ reply. (Doc. 

612). At the time Defendants suggested their intention to seek a two-week extension, 

amici supporting the government had not yet made their presence known or contacted 

Defendants seeking consent to file. 

The Court granted the Government’s extension motion on May 28, 2019 (Doc. 

618), and the Government filed its response on June 12, 2019. On June 19, 2019, 

Defendants Lacey, Larkin, Brunst, and Spear filed an unopposed motion for a two-week 

extension of time to file their reply to the Government’s response. (Doc. 642). By the 

time of this filing, potential amici supporting the government had sought consent from 

the parties but it was unknown when a brief would be filed, and Defendants’ motion 

accordingly noted that once amici filed, further adjustment of the reply deadline, and 

possibly of the page limit, might become necessary. When Defendants filed that motion 

(Doc. 642), however, they had not yet seen the sixteen-page amicus brief supporting the 

Government submitted by Legal Momentum, Equality Now, National Coalition Against 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 651 Filed 06/22/19 Page 2 of 6
2

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE AND PAGE-LIMIT FOR REPLY 

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

Domestic Violence, Sanctuary for Families, and United Abolitionist Incorporated. 

(Doc. 641).1

Defendants hereby request a further extension of time, and expansion of the page 

limit, so that their reply to response to motion to dismiss can address the matters raised 

in the Amicus Curiae Brief. While an extension of one week might be in order in the 

ordinary course, a July 10, 2019 deadline is not feasible with the intervening July Fourth 

holiday and the July 9, 2019 argument date in the Ninth Circuit in Any and All Funds 

Held in Republic Bank Accounts, No. 18-56544, relating to the Government’s civil 

seizures of Defendants’ assets in connection with this criminal action. Accordingly, an 

additional week is requested, so that Defendants’ reply to the response to Motion to 

Dismiss Indictment will be due on July 17, 2019. Defendants also ask that the Court 

extend the page limit to allow Defendants no more than 30 pages for their reply. Counsel 

for Defendants Lacey, Larkin, Brunst, and Spear conferred with counsel for the 

Government and are informed that the Government does not consent to this request (see

Doc. 645).

The Government explains its opposition to this request in its motion for an 

extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to compel. (Doc. 645). It expressed 

“confusion” as to “why less than 24 hours after filing a request for a two-week extension, 

Defendants need another two weeks for their reply, especially when Defendants have 

long known about the Ninth Circuit argument, and Defendants had received the amici 

brief before filing their first extension request.” Id. at 2. There is no reason for the 

Government to be confused. 

As the Government is aware, Defendants arranged for prior consent for a 

reciprocal two-week extension before amici appeared, and the Motion acknowledged 

the potential need for further adjustment. Although the amicus brief was filed the same 

1

 Counsel for amicus represented that its brief would be on behalf of just two 

organizations, Legal Momentum and Equality Now. Contrary to that representation, 

upon reviewing the brief, Defendants learned it was filed on behalf of five organizations. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 651 Filed 06/22/19 Page 3 of 6
3

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE AND PAGE-LIMIT FOR REPLY 

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

day as Motion for extension of time, Defendants had not yet seen it. As noted above, 

Defendants normally would have requested a one-week extension to facilitate a response 

to the additional brief, but are seeking two weeks because of the intervening holiday and 

the Ninth Circuit argument. The Government correctly notes that the parties have been 

aware of the Ninth Circuit argument for some time, but Defendants did not anticipate 

how accommodating the Government’s successive extension requests would lead to the 

scheduling difficulty. The request to extend the page limit is self-explanatory—to 

enable Defendants to respond to an additional brief that was not contemplated when the 

original limit was established. Given the multiple proceedings and the complexity of 

the issues involved, providing some additional time and extra pages will not prejudice 

the Government and will facilitate sound deliberation. 

Therefore, Defendants request that the Court extend the time for their reply to the 

response to the Motion to Dismiss indictment until July 17, 2019, and to allow them no 

more than 30 pages for the reply. 

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2019. 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

s/ James C. Grant

s/ Robert L. Corn-Revere 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey and James Larkin 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 651 Filed 06/22/19 Page 4 of 6
4

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE AND PAGE-LIMIT FOR REPLY 

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

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and 

Procedures Manual (May 2018) § II(C)(3), James C. Grant 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. 

s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

BIENERT | KATZMAN PC 

Attorneys for James Larkin 

s/ Ariel A. Neuman 

BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM 

DROOKS LINCENBERG AND RHOW 

Attorneys for John Brunst 

s/ Bruce Feder 

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA 

Attorney for Scott Spear 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 651 Filed 06/22/19 Page 5 of 6
5

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE AND PAGE-LIMIT FOR REPLY 

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 June 22, 2019, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court of 

the District of Arizona by using the CM/Doc. system, and that service will be 

accomplished by the CM/Doc. system to all counsel of record. 

s/ James C. Grant 

Attorney for Michael Lacey and James Larkin 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 651 Filed 06/22/19 Page 6 of 6