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)

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)

Kenneth M. Miller (Cal. Bar No. 151874)

Anthony R. Bisconti (Cal. Bar No. 269230)

Whitney Z. Bernstein (Cal. Bar No. 304917)

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

kmiller@bmkattorneys.com

tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com

wbernstein@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, James Larkin, Scott 

Spear, John Brunst, Dan Hyer, Andrew 

Padilla, and Joye Vaught,

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB)

DECLARATION OF JAMES C. GRANT 

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ 

SUPPLEMENT TO THE OPPOSITION 

TO THE UNITED STATES’ MOTION 

TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

Oral argument scheduled October 5, 2018

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 331-1 Filed 10/04/18 Page 1 of 6
1

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

James C. Grant declares and states as follows:

1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

(“DWT”). I am submitting this declaration in connection with the Supplement of 

Defendants Lacey and Larkin to the Opposition to the Government’s Motion to 

Disqualify Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (“DWT”) (“Disqualification Motion”). I 

provide the declaration based on personal knowledge and records and files in various 

actions in which I have been counsel. I am competent to testify to the matters stated 

here.

2. Ruling in R.O. v. Medalist Holdings, Inc. In its Reply on the 

Disqualification Motion, the government points to a ruling of a Pierce County, 

Washington superior court that entered an order disqualifying DWT from representing 

Messrs. Lacey and Larkin in a civil cases pending in that court, R.O. v. Medalist 

Holdings, Inc., No. 17-2-04897-1. The trial court’s order was issued sua sponte. No 

party sought disqualification nor brought any motion to disqualify counsel. The court 

permitted no briefing, hearing, argument, or any opportunity for Defendants to contest 

the ruling, except by lodging an objection afterwards. Based on its comments and order, 

the court did not consider the parties’ joint representation agreements or Mr. Ferrer’s 

express waivers of conflicts. 

3. Also in the R.O. case, counsel for Backpage.com and Mr. Ferrer 

acknowledged that they did not seek or support disqualification of DWT from further 

representation of the Medalist parties. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy 

of a portion of a transcript from a June 28, 2018 hearing in the R.O. case containing 

these comments of counsel for Backpage.com and Ferrer. 

4. Stay of Trial Court Order in R.O. The Medalist parties filed motions in 

the Washington Court of Appeals for review and a stay of the trial court’s order, 

challenging, among other things, the sua sponte disqualification ruling. On the same 

day the stay motion was filed, the court of appeals entered a preliminary stay of all 

proceedings in the trial court. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 331-1 Filed 10/04/18 Page 2 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

letter from the Washington Court of Appeals dated August 15, 2018, entering the 

preliminary stay. Three weeks later, on September 5, 2018, the court affirmed the stay 

in formal order, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C. 

5. Declarations of Mr. Ferrer. The governments’ Reply alludes to 

declarations of Mr. Ferrer which he submitted in prior cases. In numerous cases dating 

back to 2012, Ferrer provided six declarations averring that Backpage.com enforced 

rules and screened ads to prevent improper content and regularly worked with law 

enforcement to identify and pursue persons who misused the website. Attached as 

Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of one of these declarations, filed in Backpage.com, 

LLC v. Dart, No. l:15-cv-06340 (N.D. Ill.). 

6. The Government’s Seizures of Defendants’ Assets. The government has 

obtained scores of civil seizure warrants in the Central District of California for bank 

and financial accounts of Defendants and their families, instituted overlapping 

administrative forfeiture proceedings, and encumbered Defendants’ homes and other 

real property by filing lis pendens. Defendants have filed a motion in the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of California challenging the seizures and seeking to 

vacate them on the grounds that they violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. 

In re Seizure of Funds Held in Republic Bank of Arizona Account(s) xxxx1889, etc., No. 

CV18-6742-RGK. That motion is fully briefed and Defendants anticipate a decision 

from the court shortly. 

7. The Government’s Seizure of DWT Retainer. The government also 

seized a retainer held by DWT, thus depriving Messrs. Larkin and Lacey and the other 

Medalist parties of funds expressly intended to cover defense costs in this action, as well 

as more than a dozen pending civil cases. The government has also threatened to seize 

retainer funds held by other Defendants’ counsel. 

8. The Government’s Apparent Coordination with Backpage.com and 

Ferrer. By all appearances, the government has been coordinating with Ferrer (and 

Backpage.com) to attack Defendants and their counsel not only here but in the pending 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 331-1 Filed 10/04/18 Page 3 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

civil cases. For example, shortly after DWT indicated it would withdraw from 

representing Backpage.com and related parties in the civil cases, Ferrer’s counsel (Ms. 

Clarence) sent unsolicited letters to fifteen courts handling the cases, vaguely objecting 

to DWT’s continued representation of the Medalist parties. However, Backpage.com 

and Ferrer did not object to DWT’s withdrawal in these cases and did not move to 

disqualify DWT. The courts largely ignored the unsolicited letters and permitted 

DWT’s withdrawal from representation of the Backpage.com parties. 

9. In one civil case in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Massachusetts, the court considered the putative conflict issues and, after reviewing the 

joint representation agreements, permitted DWT’s continued representation of the 

Medalist parties. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the June 29, 2018 

order of the court in Jane Doe No. 1v. Backpage.com, LLC, No. 17-11069-LTS. 

10. Additionally, before the government’s seizure of DWT’s retainer account, 

the Backpage.com parties pressed DWT to return all retainer funds, notwithstanding that 

the funds were meant for the use of all parties to the joint representation agreements. 

The Backpage.com parties acknowledged they were pursuing DWT for the retainer “[a]s 

part of their agreement to cooperate in the federal and state criminal cases.” Attached as 

Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a June 26, 2018 pleading filed by Backpage.com 

in the R.O. case containing this statement (¶ II.C, at 2). 

11. The Government’s Apparent Coordination with Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 

There is also reason to believe the government has been working with counsel 

representing plaintiffs in civil cases to assert challenges against the Medalist parties. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel have met with government counsel, they have apparently supplied 

information to the government about the R.O. case and rulings, and they previously 

worked with the government to provide confidential documents from a prior civil case. 

It also appears that the government has coordinated with plaintiffs’ counsel to seek stays 

in civil cases in Florida and Texas, in motions that appear to have been written by the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 331-1 Filed 10/04/18 Page 4 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

government and that invoke 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) as a basis for staying the civil cases 

while parallel criminal proceedings are pending. 

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the 

foregoing is true and correct.

Signed at Phoenix, Arizona, this 3rd day of October, 2018.

s/ James C. Grant

James C. Grant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 331-1 Filed 10/04/18 Page 5 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 3rd day of October, 2018, I electronically transmitted a 

PDF version of this document to the Clerk of Court, using the CM/ECF System, 

for filing and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following 

CM/ECF registrants listed below. 

s/ Toni Thomas

Toni Thomas 

CM/ECF Registrants: 

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

Paul Cambria, pcambria@lglaw.com 

Tom Bienert, tbienert@bmkattorneys.com 

Bruce Feder, bf@federlawpa.com 

Michael Kimerer, mdk@kimerer.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 331-1 Filed 10/04/18 Page 6 of 6