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 

MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, 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) JOHN J. KUCERA (Cal. Bar No. 274184, john.kucera@usdoj.gov) Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 

Telephone (602) 514-7500 

BRIAN BENCZKOWSKI 

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-SMB UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO 

EXTEND DEADLINE FOR 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 643) 

The United States respectfully moves for a 12-day extension of time, from July 3 to 

July 15, 2019, in which to file its response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 643). 

The government will not object to a commensurate extension for Defendants’ reply in 

support of the motion. A proposed form of Order is attached. 

Counsel for the United States has conferred with defense counsel Whitney Bernstein 

and Tom Bienert, who indicated that Defendants object to the extension. Defendants didn’t 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 645 Filed 06/21/19 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 

express any direct objection, but made their non-opposition contingent on two separate 

agreements. First, Defendants asked that the government agree not to object to a similar 

extension for Defendants to file their reply in support of the Motion to Compel. The 

government has no issue agreeing to this request. 

Defendants’ second condition, however, was that the government agree not to 

oppose Defendants’ requests to: (a) extend the deadline for their reply in support of the 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 561) from July 3 to July 17, 2019; and (b) extend the length of 

that reply from 20 to 30 pages. Defendants cited the recent amicus filing and upcoming 

Ninth Circuit argument on July 9, 2019 as reasons for these requests. For several reasons, 

the government opposes both of these requests. 

First, on June 19, 2019, Defendants filed an unopposed motion to extend by two 

weeks the deadline for their reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 642). This 

filing occurred after the amici filing (Doc. 641). The government had no issue agreeing to 

this two-week extension when Defendants requested it on June 19. The government is 

confused, however, why less than 24 hours after filing a request for a two-week extension, 

Defendants need another two weeks for their reply, especially when Defendants have long 

known about the Ninth Circuit argument, and Defendants had received the amici brief 

before filing their first extension request. Because there aren’t any changed circumstances 

that would support a second two-week extension, the government opposes this request. 

Further, the Court has already ordered that Defendants’ reply brief be limited to 20 pages—

and recently reaffirmed its Order. (See Doc. 573 (“affirming Court’s previous order” 

allowing Defendants to file a 20-page reply).) 

Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) may occur as a result of this motion or 

an order based thereon. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 645 Filed 06/21/19 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 

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of June, 2019. 

 MICHAEL BAILEY 

 United States Attorney 

 District of Arizona 

s/Andrew C. Stone 

 KEVIN M. RAPP 

 MARGARET PERLMETER 

 PETER S. KOZINETS 

 ANDREW C. STONE 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

JOHN J. KUCERA 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

 

BRIAN BENCZKOWSKI 

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

 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 June 21, 2019, 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/ Cristina Abramo

Cristina Abramo 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 645 Filed 06/21/19 Page 3 of 3