1 CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH 

NOTICE RE: WITNESS’S ASSERTION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE 

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

Jonathan M. Baum (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower Ste 1070 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Tel: (415) 365-6700 

Fax: (415) 365-6700 

jbaum@steptoe.com 

Tahir L. Boykins (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Tel: (213) 439-9437 

Fax: (213) 439-9599 

tboykins@steptoe.com 

Attorneys for Movant 

CARL FERRER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH 

NOTICE RE: WITNESS’S ASSERTION 

OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1844 Filed 10/06/23 Page 1 of 4
2 CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH 

NOTICE RE: WITNESS’S ASSERTION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE 

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

Having reviewed the trial brief recently filed by Defendants’ in this matter (Dkt. 

No. 1840), Mr. Ferrer submits this response in order to specifically assert the attorneyclient privilege over the May 18, 2017 email that Defendants seek to use in crossexamining him. 

The May 18, 2017 document is a privileged email message that Mr. Ferrer sent to 

two of his lawyers at the time, James Grant of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Dan 

Quigley of Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, PLLC. The subject line of Mr. Ferrer’s email is 

“Comments on California – Attorney Client Privileged.” The email contains two 

attachments, one with Mr. Ferrer’s comments on the transcript of an April 28, 2017 hearing 

in the Sacramento criminal case, and the other with Mr. Ferrer’s comments on the First 

Amended Criminal Complaint in that case. 

At the time Mr. Ferrer sent that email, Mr. Grant personally represented Mr. Ferrer 

in that criminal case in California (see Dkt. No. 1827, at 5), and Mr. Quigley personally 

represented Mr. Ferrer in a civil case in this court, Sojourner Center v. Backpage.com LLC, 

et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00399-GMS. (Although Mr. Quigley represented many defendants 

in that case, he appeared for Mr. Ferrer personally and Mr. Ferrer considered him to be his 

lawyer.) 

It is unclear how the Defendants obtained this privileged email, but it certainly was 

not pursuant to the Joint Defense Agreement they reference in their brief, which did not 

exist at the time this email was sent. Dkt. No. 1840, at 15. As Defendants indicate, Mr. 

Ferrer signed that JDA in June 2017, but the email at issue was sent a month earlier, in 

May 2017. Additionally, Mr. Quigley was never a party to that JDA, so even if the JDA 

had been operative in May (which it was not), the JDA would not have applied to 

communications with Mr. Quigley. 

Like all people, Mr. Ferrer is owed a duty of confidentiality and a duty of loyalty 

from his lawyers, including Mr. Grant and Mr. Quigley. Judge Logan carefully reviewed 

the unredacted JDA and other related documents in this case, and on October 12, 2018, 

Judge Logan held that Mr. Ferrer’s former lawyers remain bound by the duties of loyalty 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1844 Filed 10/06/23 Page 2 of 4
3 CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH 

NOTICE RE: WITNESS’S ASSERTION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE 

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

and confidentiality to him. Specifically, Judge Logan held: “Moving forward, the Court 

will rely on the representations of HCM, DWT, and their respective counsel that the firms 

will continue to preserve the confidences of Ferrer as a former client, create ethical walls 

where necessary, refrain from engaging in trial preparation or participating as trial counsel, 

and only participate in the limited capacity set forth in the pleadings, without an order from 

the Court.” Dkt. No. 338, at 10. Although Judge Logan’s Oct. 12, 2018 order only directly 

named one of the law firms listed in the May 18, 2017 email (Mr. Grant of DWT), Judge 

Logan’s ruling was clear: the JDA and related documents do not permit Mr. Ferrer’s prior 

lawyers to violate their ethical duties and hand over his privileged communications to the 

Defendants in this case so they can use them against Mr. Ferrer. 

Lastly, the Defendants’ argument that Mr. Ferrer’s proffer agreement waived his 

personal privilege over the May 17, 2017 email is incorrect. See Dkt. No. 193-9, at ¶ 45 

(Ferrer: “On April 5, 2018, I signed a Proffer/Interview agreement. My intent in that 

agreement was to waive Backpage.com’s corporate attorney-client privilege, not any 

personal privilege.”). Additionally, throughout this case, Defendants have argued that Mr. 

Ferrer’s privilege waiver should not be given effect, and the Court has agreed with them. 

See Dkt. No. 345. Defendants should not now be permitted to use Mr. Ferrer’s privileged 

materials for impeachment purposes when they have been successful for years in blocking 

Mr. Ferrer from providing the government with a number of highly incriminating 

documents involving them, all of which are ostensibly covered by Backpage.com’s 

corporate attorney-client privilege. 

Dated: October 6, 2023 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP

 By: /s/ Jonathan Baum 

Jonathan Baum (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Tahir L. Boykins (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Attorneys for Movant Carl Ferrer 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1844 Filed 10/06/23 Page 3 of 4
4 CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH 

NOTICE RE: WITNESS’S ASSERTION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE 

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 October 6, 2023, 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/ Debbie DeRivero 

 Debbie DeRivero 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1844 Filed 10/06/23 Page 4 of 4