MOTION FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION RE ORDER ALLOWING THE 

GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS 

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

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (Cal. Bar No. 177957) (admitted pro hac vice) 

Erin McCampell (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

Email: pcambria@lglaw.com 

emccampbell@lglaw.com 

Counsel for Defendant Michael Lacey

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (Cal. Bar No. 135311) (admitted pro hac vice) 

Whitney Z. Bernstein (Cal. Bar No. 304917) (admitted pro hac vice) 

BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC 

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 

San Clemente, California 92673 

Telephone: (949) 369-3700

Facsimile: (949) 369-3701

Email: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com 

wbernsteinr@bmkattorneys.com 

Counsel for Defendant 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-SPL

MOTION FOR FURTHER 

CLARIFICATION RE ORDER 

ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT 

TO CONTINUE REVIEW OF 

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

The Court denied the government’s motion seeking unrestricted access to 

privileged and work product communications within the trove of defendants’ emails the 

government seized in connection with its prosecution. (Doc. 345). The government 

moved for “clarification,” indicating that it was going to continue this review through 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 452 Filed 02/05/19 Page 1 of 4
2

MOTION FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION RE ORDER ALLOWING THE 

GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

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 “filter team” it previously used. (Doc. 355). The Court granted the government’s 

motion. (Doc. 445). Defendants now seek clarification in their own right. 

As explained before, Defendants have ample grounds for concern that the 

government has repeatedly demonstrated it does not understand the relationships and 

agreements protecting and precluding waiver of privileges entered into by Carl Ferrer, 

Defendants James Larkin and Michael Lacey, and their respective companies. (See 

Docs. 226, 324, 409.) For this reason, Defendants requested discovery of the 

government’s review process and protocols for making privilege calls. (See Doc. 235 at 

20-24; Doc. 409 at 3-5). The Court denied this request in its original order precluding

the government from accessing privileged communications (Doc. 345 at 8), but did not

address Defendants’ concerns and further request in its order granting the government’s

requested clarification (Doc. 445).

Allowing the government to make privilege determinations on its own – with no 

disclosure of what it has done and no oversight or review by this Court – would be 

fundamentally unfair and prejudicial of Defendants’ rights and privileges. Thus, 

acknowledging and respecting the prior rulings, Defendants ask that the Court further 

clarify the process for the government’s review process and filter team as follows. 

First, the Court should clarify that any and all privilege calls made by the 

government’s filter team must respect this Court’s rulings that communications among 

or involving Ferrer, Larkin, Lacey, their companies, and counsel are privileged, and 

Ferrer cannot waive these privileges. (See, e.g., Doc. 345 at 4.) This may seem selfevident, but several times already the government has urged claims of waiver when none 

exist under the law. 

Second, the Court should direct the government to segregate attorney-client 

communications the filter team believes are not privileged before turning those materials 

over to the government’s prosecution team. 

Third, the Court should direct that the government produce these purportedly 

not-privileged documents to Defendants for review and to permit objections. Given the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 452 Filed 02/05/19 Page 2 of 4
3

MOTION FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION RE ORDER ALLOWING THE 

GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

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

Court’s rulings rejecting the government’s waiver arguments, there should be few 

documents the filter team would propose to release, and allowing Defendants a fair 

opportunity to object should not delay or interrupt the progress of this case. 

Fourth, if Defendants take exception about documents the filter team proposes to 

disclose to the prosecution team, Defendants should be allowed to present the objections 

to this Court (or a magistrate or master assigned by the Court). 

Defendants respectively urge that the Court should implement this process, and 

Defendants accordingly ask for a clarifying order to this effect. 

DATED this 5th day of February, 2019. 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

By: s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Erin McCampell 

Counsel for Defendant Michael Lacey 

BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC 

By: s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

Whitney Z. Bernstein 

Counsel for Defendant James Larkin

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 452 Filed 02/05/19 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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 February 5, 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/ECF system, and that service will be 

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

s/ Toni Thomas 

Toni Thomas 

Erin E. McCampbell, Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, emccampbell@lglaw.com 

Daniel James Quigley, Daniel J Quigley PLC, quigley@djqplc.com 

Michael L. Piccarreta, Piccarreta Davis Keenan Fidel PC, mlp@pd-law.com Thomas 

H. Bienert, Jr., Bienert Miller & Katzman PLC, tbienert@bmkattorneys.com Whitney

Z. Bernstein, Bienert Miller & Katzman PLC,wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com Stephen

M. Weiss, Karp & Weiss PC, sweiss@karpweiss.com

Ariel A. Neuman, Bird Marella, aan@birdmarella.com

Gary S. Lincenberg, Bird Marella, gsl@birdmarella.com

Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Bird Marella, gkp@birdmarella.com

Michael D. Kimerer, Kimerer & Derrick PC, MDK@kimerer.com

Rhonda Elaine Neff, Kimerer & Derrick PC, rneff@kimerer.com

Bruce S. Feder, Feder Law Office PA, bf@federlawpa.com

Andrew C. Stone, Assistant U.S. Attorney, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

John Jacob Kucera, Assistant U.S. Attorney, john.kucera@usdoj.gov

Kevin M. Rapp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Margaret Wu Perlmeter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov

Reginald E. Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, reginald.jones@usdoj.gov

Peter Shawn Kozinets, Assistant U.S. Attorney, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 452 Filed 02/05/19 Page 4 of 4