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

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 14249, 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

JOHN J. KUCERA (Cal. Bar No. 274184,john.kucera@usdoj.gov)

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1200

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Telephone (213) 894-3391

JOHN P. CRONAN

Acting 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.

CR-18-422-PHX-SPL (BSB) 

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

Defendants Michael Lacey and James Larkin have filed a motion seeking a twoweek extension of time to file a response to the United States’ motion to disqualify the law 

firm of Davis Wright Tremaine (“DWT”) from this case. See CR 149. Upon further 

reflection, the United States withdraws its opposition to the extension request. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 162 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Nevertheless, the United States asks that the Court make clear, in any order granting the 

current request, that no future extension requests from the defense will be granted.

As background, the disqualification motion concerning the DWT firm (see CR 118) 

has been pending for a month. Moreover, before filing the motion, the United States 

engaged in extensive efforts to meet and confer with defense counsel. Among other things, 

the United States outlined its concerns during an initial teleconference with defense 

counsel, sent an email to defense counsel on April 24 identifying an array of case citations 

and ethical rules supporting the United States’ position, and participated in another 

teleconference with defense counsel on April 25. During the April 25 call, defense counsel 

suggested they had already evaluated the conflict-of-interest issues raised by DWT’s 

participation and assured themselves that DWT’s continued participation was permissible. 

(Defense counsel conspicuously declined, however, to share this supposed analysis with 

the United States, either during the April 25 call or at any point thereafter.) Given this 

backdrop, it is surprising that the defendants, who have already obtained a prior two-week 

extension, contend they are still unable to respond to the United States’ conflict-of-interest 

concerns and need more time to formulate a response.1

 

The extensions are particularly concerning due to the nature of the underlying 

motion. As explained in CR 118, the relevant case law and ethical rules suggest the DWT 

firm should not be participating in the litigation of this case. Nevertheless, the multiple 

extension requests have effectively created a six-week window for the DWT firm to 

continue litigating on the defendants’ behalf. 

 

1 In contrast, the other law firm subject to disqualification (Henze Cook Murphy, or 

“HCM”) has engaged in meaningful efforts to meet-and-confer with the United States. 

Soon after the disqualification motion was filed, the HCM firm hired independent counsel

to address the conflict issues, and the HCM firm’s counsel has had several meetings and 

phone calls with undersigned counsel in an attempt to reach a resolution. For those reasons, 

the United States had no problem with the HCM firm’s recent request for two-week 

extension.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 162 Filed 05/23/18 Page 2 of 3
- 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

For all of these reasons, the Court should make clear, to the extent it is inclined to 

grant the current extension request, that no future requests from the defense will be 

considered.

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of May, 2018.

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney

District of Arizona

/s Kevin Rapp

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

JOHN J. KUCERA

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

JOHN P. CRONAN

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this date, 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 following CM/ECF registrants: Anne Chapman, Erin McCampbell, Gregory 

Zamora, James Grant, Larry Debus, Lawrence Kazan, Lee Stein, Paul Cambria, Robert 

Corn-Revere, Ronald London, Janey Henze Cook, John Littrell, Kenneth Miller, Thomas 

Bienart, Jr., Bruce Feder, Michael Kimerer, Rhonda Neff, KC Maxwell, David Wakukawa, 

Michael Piccarreta, Stephen Weiss. 

s/Zachry Stoebe

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 162 Filed 05/23/18 Page 3 of 3