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

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. (NY Bar No.1430909, admitted pro hac vice) 

Erin McCampbell Paris (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 

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 

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. 

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH 

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 

WITNESSES FOR DEFENSE CASE 

AND RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1859 Filed 10/14/23 Page 1 of 6
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

Eric Kessler (AZ Bar No. 009158) 

KESSLER LAW GROUP 

6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210 

Scottsdale, AZ 85253 

Telephone: (480) 644-0093 

eric@kesslerlawgroup.com 

Attorney for Scott Spear

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 1859 Filed 10/14/23 Page 2 of 6
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

 Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, submit the instant Notice of 

Witnesses for the Defense Case and Response to the Court’s Order. 

At the conclusion of trial on October 13, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to meet 

and confer to determine if any witnesses from the Defendants’ Witness List could be removed. 

Government counsel indicated that by October 18, 2023, they would have a better sense as to 

when their case would conclude. Following the October 13th proceedings, the defense asked 

the government if they could have until October 16th to trim down their witness list. The 

government objected. The Court then sua sponte ordered the defense to disclose by today at 

5 pm their first five witnesses. Then, hours later, the government provided Defendants with 

notice of the fourteen witnesses it intends to call next week, including its other cooperating 

defendant, Daniel Hyer. In light of this disclosure, it is reasonable to assume that the 

Government’s case will take all of next week, and may even bleed into the following week. 

The defense is now occupied preparing for the cross-examinations of fourteen witnesses. The 

government did not provide the defense with the precise order in which it seeks to call those 

witnesses, which further complicates the preparation of these cross examinations because the 

defense must be ready with all crosses by next Tuesday. 

 As the government’s case continues to shift, and in light of the fact that the government 

is calling fourteen witnesses next week on a wide range of topics and has not yet rested its case 

(or indicated when it intends to rest), Defendants have been placed in the impossible position 

of identifying the first five witnesses it intends to call in its case without knowing the full scope 

of the government’s evidence against Defendants. Indeed, to require the defense to do so 

now would require the disclosure of attorney work product and mental impressions. 

That said, Defendants no longer intend to call the witnesses listed in Exhibit A. 

Defendants also anticipate calling the following witnesses toward the outset of their case: (1) 

Witness No. 118, Rep. of City of Flagstaff, Licensing Div.; (2) Witness No. 119, Rep. of City 

of Mesa, Licensing Div.; (3) Witness No. 120, Rep. of Scottsdale, Licensing Div.; and (4) 

Witness No. 121, Rep. of City of Tempe, Licensing Div. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1859 Filed 10/14/23 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Further, based on the Court’s prior rulings, it seems clear that the Court will not allow 

the defense to put on witnesses who would testify to attorney advice (even non-privileged 

advice) and prior court opinions regarding the legality of Backpage’s operations, all of which 

is relevant to the Defendants’ state of mind during the alleged time period of the conspiracy 

(2004 to 2018). Early next week, Defendants intend to file a motion seeking clarification 

regarding the scope of any remaining good faith defense they will be permitted to put on 

during the defense case. A ruling on that motion will inform the scope of any defense case 

and the witnesses the defense will call. 

Moreover, because the Court has only required the government to provide 72 hours of 

notice to the Defendants of their witnesses, and, in fact, the government has provided no 

more than 24 hours of notice with respect to numerous witnesses, coupled with the fact that 

the defense case is unlikely to begin any earlier than October 24, 2023, any disclosure of the 

Defendants’ first five witnesses would be a far more onerous disclosure requirement than the 

Court has required of the government since the inception of the trial. Indeed, despite multiple 

requests from the defense and the Court, it was not until October 6, over a month into the 

government’s case, when they informed the Court and defense of certain of the witnesses they 

intended to cut from their case. In fairness, the defense should not be required to do the same 

before their case even starts, and, the government should be directed to disclose the order of 

their upcoming witnesses. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of October, 2023, 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Erin McCampbell Paris 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

 By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1859 Filed 10/14/23 Page 4 of 6
5

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 (Jan. 

2020) § II (C) (3), Paul J. Cambria 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.

Gary S. Lincenberg 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 

By: /s/ Gary Lincenberg 

Gary Lincenberg 

Attorneys for John Brunst 

Eric W. Kessler 

KESSLER LAW OFFICE 

By: /s/ Eric W. Kessler 

 Eric W. Kessler 

 Attorneys for Scott Spear 

Bruce Feder 

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A. 

By: /s/ Bruce Feder 

Bruce Feder 

Attorneys for Scott Spear 

David Eisenberg 

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C. 

By: /s/ David Eisenberg 

David Eisenberg 

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla 

 Joy Bertrand 

JOY BERTRAND, ESQ. 

By: /s/ Joy Bertrand 

Joy Bertrand 

Attorneys for Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1859 Filed 10/14/23 Page 5 of 6
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

On October 14, 2023, a PDF version of this document was 

filed with Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System 

for filing and for Transmittal of a Notice of Electronic 

Filing to the to the CM/ECF registrants who have 

entered their appearance as counsel of record 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1859 Filed 10/14/23 Page 6 of 6