Exhibit L 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 12
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

APPENDIX A 

APPENDIX OF REQUESTS 

No. Request Justification for Request 

Data Regarding Backpage Website Generally 

1. Full read-only access to the 

Backpage.com I.T. systems, servers, and 

databases, as they existed and 

functioned on the date of the 

government’s seizures, with 

accompanying software and 

interconnections to enable queries, 

searches, collection, and analyses of 

data. 

Defendants must have the ability to access 

and conduct searches on Backpage’s 

servers as they existed and functioned on 

the date of the government’s seizures. As 

noted below, Defendants believe that these 

servers contain critical information 

regarding the government’s allegations, 

including regarding (1) the Backpage 

website generally; (2) the alleged 

moderation of advertisements; (3) the 

alleged aggregation of advertisements; 

(4) alleged reciprocal link programs; and (5) 

the advertisements that form the predicates 

for the government’s charges. 

2. Data reflecting, by month, the numbers 

of ads run on Backpage.com within each 

category of the website (e.g., 

“buy/sell/trade,” “jobs,” “rentals,” 

“adult,” etc.) and for each subcategory 

within the “adult” category (e.g., 

“escorts,” “massage,” “dating,” etc.). 

Defendants seek this data to show that 

Backpage.com was a general purpose 

classified ad website, only a fraction of ads 

were posted in the adult categories, and the 

site earned many millions of dollars from 

non-adult ads. 

3. Data reflecting total revenues, by 

month, for ads within each category and 

subcategory of the Backpage.com 

website. 

Id. 

4. All ads Backpage.com reported to the 

National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children (NCMEC) or other 

law enforcement (along with all 

administrative data and information 

regarding such ads) and data reflecting 

the numbers of ads reported, by month. 

The government has alleged that 

Backpage.com’s referrals to NCMEC were 

“artificially limit[ed]” and not made in 

good faith. See Dkt. 230 (Superseding 

Indictment, or “SI”) at ¶ 14. Defendants 

need to obtain all such referrals to 

demonstrate how extensive 

Backpage.com’s efforts were. Defendants 

also believe the government is aware that 

NCMEC complained that Backpage.com 

was making too many referrals, and data of 

the numbers of referrals by month will 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 12
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

 2

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

show Backpage.com’s response to 

NCMEC’s request to limit referrals. 

5. All documents and data reflecting 

Backpage.com’s cooperation with law 

enforcement authorities in investigations 

or prosecutions, including (a) responses 

to subpoenas, warrants, and/or other 

government requests about ads or users; 

(b) communications relating to such 

responses; and (c) testimony or other 

evidence provided by Backpage.com 

personnel in criminal proceedings or 

trials. 

Defendants believe the government is 

aware that law enforcement authorities 

repeatedly commended Backpage.com for 

its cooperation and assistance in 

investigations and prosecutions and for 

blocking (or not blocking) ads and users at 

the request of authorities (including, e.g., 

a May 2011 commendation by FBI 

Director Robert S. Mueller, and scores of 

other communications from DOJ thanking 

Backpage.com or its personnel for their 

support and assistance). Defendants seek 

this information, as well, to respond to the 

government’s accusations that testimony of 

Backpage.com personnel supporting law 

enforcement allegedly reflected knowing 

participation in prostitution activities of 

users. See SI ¶¶ 71, 92. 

6. All documents quoted or mentioned in 

the Indictment, identifying the 

paragraphs in the Indictment where 

each document is quoted or mentioned, 

and providing all other communications 

relating to each such document (e.g., all 

emails in a chain). 

The government has provided Bates ranges 

for over 2,200 pages of materials without 

any indication of which paragraphs of the 

Superseding Indictment refer to which 

documents. Searching through thousands 

of pages of documents to attempt to line 

them up to the allegations in the 

Superseding Indictment is an arduous, 

burdensome, and time-consuming task that 

Defendants should not have to do, because 

it is information known to the government, 

which could be readily disclosed. 

Data Regarding Moderation of Advertisements 

7. Data reflecting the numbers of ads, by 

category and month, that Backpage.com 

blocked or prevented from running 

(whether before or after the ads went 

live on the website) and the reasons the 

ads were blocked or prevented from 

running. 

Defendants must have the ability to 

demonstrate Backpage.com’s actual 

moderation practices to respond to and 

rebut mischaracterizations (i.e., to show 

that Backpage actually blocked and 

removed tens of millions of ads; did not 

edit ads to promote any illegal conduct; 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 3 of 12
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

3

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

enforced the website’s terms of use; and 

undertook screening and removal practices 

customary among websites). 

The government has alleged that 

Backpage.com routinely edited ads to 

remove terms so as to facilitate 

prostitution. See SI ¶¶ 11, 68. Defendants 

believe the data regarding Backpage.com’s 

actual practices will reflect that this is 

patently false. 

For example, Defendants believe the data 

concerning Backpage.com’s actual 

practices will reflect that the website 

blocked and removed approximately 

1,000,000 ads per month in all categories 

for a variety of different reasons (e.g., 

violations of the site’s terms of use, 

offensive content, possible malware, spam, 

scams, etc.). Defendants also believe the 

government is aware that, to the extent ads 

on Backpage.com were “edited” to remove 

text, this occurred only for a brief period, 

ending many years before the indictment. 

Defendants also believe the data will show 

that such editing occurred almost entirely 

through use of automated filters—which 

are commonly used by websites—and, 

after automated filtering, Backpage had 

additional layers of review by human 

moderators to determine if ads should be 

blocked or removed altogether. 

8. Data reflecting the numbers of ads, by 

category and month, for which 

Backpage.com revised or edited any text 

in an ad, identifying the numbers of ads 

revised/edited by (a) automated filters 

and (b) human moderators. 

Id. 

9. Data reflecting the numbers of ads, by 

category and month, that Backpage.com 

edited to remove images, identifying the 

number of ads with images removed by 

Id.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 4 of 12
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

4

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

(a) automated filters and (b) human 

moderators. 

10. Data reflecting the numbers of ads, by 

category and month, that Backpage.com 

edited in a manner other than as set 

forth in categories 7 and 8 above (e.g., to 

remove links to potential malware or 

spam), identifying the number of ads 

edited by (a) automated filters and 

(b) human moderators. 

Id.

11. All ads the government alleges 

Backpage.com revised to “remov[e] 

particular terms that were indicative of 

prostitution,” SI at ¶ 68, including all 

administrative data and information 

regarding such ads, and identifying 

(a) the ads as they were submitted by 

users; (b) the ads as they ran on the 

website; (c) the specific edits made to 

the ads; (d) how and/or by whom each 

ad was edited; (e) all data about whether 

each ad was blocked or removed; and 

(f) the dates of the ads. 

Defendants believe the government is 

aware that Backpage.com’s policies and 

instructions to moderators—at all times—

were to block and remove any ads that 

offered sex for money. It is unclear what 

the government may believe are terms 

“indicative of prostitution,” as alleged in 

the Indictment. To be able to respond to 

the government’s claim that Backpage.com 

allegedly edited ads to promote or facilitate 

specific instances of advertised 

prostitution, Defendants need to see all 

ads the government contends are evidence 

of such instances. In addition, Defendants 

seek evidence reflecting that 

Backpage.com’s screening searched for 

more than 26,000 terms, phrases, URLs, 

and addresses and blocked over 1,000,000 

user submissions per month as a result. See 

Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 

2d 805, 814 (M.D. Tenn. 2013). 

12. All iterations of lists of prohibited terms 

or phrases for ads on Backpage.com in a 

complete and searchable format (i.e., 

spreadsheets as they existed on the 

systems and not merely images of 

spreadsheets) including the dates each 

list was in effect and how the list was 

applied to different categories on the 

website (e.g., the differences in standards 

for ads posted by users in the dating 

Id. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 5 of 12
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

5

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

subcategory as opposed to the escort 

subcategory). 

13. All ads the government alleges 

Backpage.com edited to remove terms 

such as “Lolita,” “New In Town,” 

“young,” “amber alert,” “teen,” “fresh,” 

“tight,” “high school,” “rape,” 

“teenage,” “little girl,” “innocent,” or 

“school girl,” including all administrative 

data and information regarding such 

ads, and identifying (a) the ads as they 

were submitted by users; (b) the ads as 

they ran on the website; (c) the specific 

edits made to the ads; (d) how and/or 

by whom each ad was edited; (e) all data 

about whether each ad was blocked or 

removed; and (f) the dates of the ads. 

The government has alleged that 

Backpage.com omitted these terms from 

user-submitted ads to promote known 

instances of sex trafficking. See, e.g., SI 

¶¶ 13, 85, 95, 104, 116 see also Dkt. 577 at 

65 (AUSA Rapp stating, “They don’t 

respond to our arguments about the 

moderation practices where they removed 

terms indicative of child sex trafficking, 

like Lolita, Amber Alert, Sweet Young 

Thing, New in Town, and then continue to 

post the ads. They don’t respond to 

that.”). 

Defendants are not aware of any instances 

when this occurred, and therefore need to 

obtain all ads the government contends 

were so edited, as well as all other 

information about such ads (e.g., the 

context of the terms as used in given ads, 

whether the ads were blocked or removed 

entirely by human moderators, and 

whether the ads were reported to NCMEC 

or law enforcement authorities). 

Data Regarding Alleged Aggregation of Advertisements 

14. All ads that the government alleges 

concerned prostitution and were posted 

on Backpage.com through the process 

of “aggregation,” see SI at ¶¶ 35-44, 

including all administrative data and 

information regarding such ads, 

identifying (a) the websites on which the 

ads previously appeared; (b) the ads as 

they appeared on the other websites and 

on Backpage.com, respectively; (c) the 

categories/subcategories in which the 

ads ran on Backpage.com; and (d) the 

dates of the ads. 

Defendants believe the government is 

aware that Backpage.com employed 

“aggregation” efforts (i.e., contacting 

individuals who had posted ads on other 

websites such as Craigslist.org to ask if 

they wanted to run the same ads on 

Backpage.com) in the adult categories in 

the United States only for a short time 

early in the website’s history and ceased 

this marketing effort for the adult 

categories on its U.S. website many years 

ago. See, e.g., SI ¶¶ 37-42 (alluding to 

emails about aggregation only in 2007-

2008). Defendants further believe the ads 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 6 of 12
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

6

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

posted to Backpage.com through these 

efforts were primarily located via Google 

searches. 

15. Data reflecting the numbers of ads, by 

category and month, that Backpage.com 

posted through the process of 

“aggregation.” 

Defendants believe the government is 

aware that Backpage.com personnel 

solicited ads of many types, including for 

jobs, therapeutic massage, sporting goods, 

local places, and pet sales, as well as (for a 

period of time many years ago) escort ads. 

These efforts were similar to marketing 

done for newspaper classified advertising 

sales for many years. Defendants also 

believe the government is aware that 

Backpage.com’s policies for these 

marketing efforts forbade soliciting any ads 

that appeared to be for illegal or improper 

services and that the actual ads posted will 

reflect that this policy was followed. 

16. All data and documents reflecting that, 

in such aggregation efforts, “Backpage 

employees ... identif[ied] prostitutes 

advertising,” SI at ¶ 36, and each ad 

posted on Backpage.com through 

“aggregation” that the government 

alleges was, on its face, an ad for 

prostitution. 

Id. 

Data Regarding Alleged Reciprocal Link and Affiliate Programs 

17. All banner ads or other ads run by 

Backpage.com on theeroticreview.com, 

and documents and data reflecting the 

dates of each such ad. 

The government alleges Backpage.com 

entered into a “business arrangement with 

[theeroticreview.com to] post reciprocal 

ads on each other’s websites,” SI ¶ 45, but 

has not identified or provided any 

documents reflecting what the supposed 

agreed arrangement was, or what ads 

actually appeared on the respective 

websites. 

Defendants also believe the government is 

aware—and data from the website will 

reflect—that such arrangements for banner 

ads were discontinued many years ago. See, 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 7 of 12
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

7

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

e.g., SI ¶¶ 48-52 (reflecting that alleged 

arrangements were in place in 2007-2008). 

The government also has not provided any 

data or information for the period when 

the banner ads appeared reflecting that any 

Defendant had any knowledge that 

theeroticreview.com supposedly was a 

known “prostitution website.” 

18. All banner ads or other ads run by 

theeroticreview.com on Backpage.com, 

and documents and data reflecting the 

dates of each such ad. 

Id.

19. All contracts or agreements between 

Backpage.com and theeroticreview.com 

(whether directly or through affiliated 

entities) referring or relating to 

“a reciprocal link program” or 

a “business arrangement.” See SI at 

¶¶ 45, 46. 

Id.

20. All documents reflecting that any 

Defendant had knowledge that 

theeroticreview.com was a notorious 

“prostitution website.” Id. at ¶ 54. 

Id.

21. All data and documents reflecting 

Backpage.com policies and practices to 

preclude or block references to 

theeroticreview.com in user-submitted 

ads, including all ads Backpage.com 

blocked or removed on this basis. 

The Indictment alludes generally to banner 

ads run by theeroticreview.com and 

Backpage.com in 2007-2008, but does not 

mention Backpage.com’s policies and 

practices disallowing references to 

theeroticreview.com in user-submitted ads, 

which Defendants believe were imposed 

and in effect from 2011 onward. 

22. All ads posted on Backpage.com that 

contained references to 

theeroticreview.com and that the 

government contends related to 

unlawful prostitution, including all 

administrative data and information 

regarding such ads and identifying 

(a) the categories/subcategories in 

Id.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 8 of 12
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

8

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

which the ads ran on Backpage.com; 

(b) the content on theeroticreview.com 

to which the ads referred; and (c) the 

dates of the ads. 

23. All documents reflecting that the 

individual “known as ‘Dollar Bill’” was 

“known to be involved in the 

prostitution industry,” SI ¶ 59, and 

(a) who affiliated with Backpage.com 

the government alleges knew of this 

(and when); (b) who had dealings with 

“Dollar Bill” (and when); and 

(c) whether any Defendant ever had any 

dealings or involvement with “Dollar 

Bill.” 

The Indictment alludes to “Dollar Bill,” 

but offers no basis for asserting that he 

was “known to be involved in the 

prostitution industry,” much less any 

showing that any Defendant had any 

knowledge or awareness of this. See SI 

¶¶ 59-67 (alleging that Ferrer had all 

contacts and dealings with “Dollar Bill”). 

In terms of fact allegations, the indictment 

only mentions that Backpage.com blocked 

or removed ads posted by “Dollar Bill,” 

see SI ¶¶ 61, 64, 66, 67, not that 

Backpage.com knew of, promoted, or 

allowed any improper content. 

Defendants believe that data and 

documents concerning actual practices will 

reflect that “Dollar Bill” posted ads for 

massage businesses, and that 

Backpage.com enforced its terms of use 

and policies regarding ads posted by 

“Dollar Bill” as it did for other users. 

24. All ads posted on Backpage.com by 

“Dollar Bill,” including all administrative 

data and information regarding such 

ads, and identifying (a) the 

categories/subcategories in which the 

ads ran on Backpage.com; and (b) the 

dates of the ads. 

Id.

25. All ads posted on Backpage.com by 

“Dollar Bill” that Backpage.com 

blocked or removed, including all 

administrative data and information 

regarding such ads, and identifying 

(a) when and why the ads were blocked 

or removed; (b) whether and when they 

were restored or reposted; (c) who was 

Id.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 9 of 12
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

9

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

responsible or involved in blocking, 

removing, restoring, or reposting the 

ads; and (d) whether each Defendant 

had any knowledge or awareness of or 

involvement with the ads. 

Data Regarding the Predicate Advertisements

26. All ads from Backpage.com’s systems 

and databases that are or relate to the 

alleged “victims” identified in the 

Indictment, see SI ¶¶ 160-176, 201, 

including all ads submitted by, on behalf 

of, or for the individuals referenced in 

the ads (collectively, the “alleged victim 

ads”). 

The government has asserted that it has 

produced the alleged victim ads from 

Backpage.com’s databases and systems. See

Dkt. 577 at 23 (“we have also extracted, 

you know, all of the ads that were on 

Backpage.com and given them to the 

defendants”); id. at 24 (we [have] given 

them the ads that were referenced in our 

superseding indictment”). 

However, the ads produced by the 

government apparently come from the 

Internet Archive Wayback Machine 

(https://archive.org), see, e.g., DOJ-BP0004719487, or are merely captures of the 

text from ads (but not the ads as they 

appeared on the website), see, e.g., DOJ-BP0004719353, or appear to be image copies 

of subpoena responses provided by 

Backpage.com, see, e.g., DOJ-BP0004719354-69. 

On March 15, 2019, the government 

provided a disk purportedly containing 

“sample ads,” but which actually consisted 

of spreadsheets with some information 

about given ads (but not the text of the 

ads), and a separate collection of images 

from ads. This information is grossly 

incomplete and provided in a format that is 

all but useless. To be clear, Defendants 

seek the alleged victim ads and related ads 

as they appeared in Backpage.com’s 

systems and databases when they were 

operational, along with all administrative 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 10 of 12
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

 10

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

data and information about the ads. 

27. All ads posted using the same (a) email 

addresses; (b) IP addresses; 

(c) telephone numbers; (d) credit card 

numbers; (e) images; or (f) other 

identifying cross-references associated 

with the alleged victim ads (referred to 

here as “related ads”). 

As Defendants believe the government is 

aware, Backpage.com routinely identified 

these categories of information from its 

systems and databases in response to law 

enforcement subpoenas (ordinarily 

responding in less than 24 hours), and used 

the information to block and remove ads 

as requested by law enforcement 

authorities (or to maintain ads on the 

website when requested by law 

enforcement). Defendants need to obtain 

this information about the alleged victim 

ads and related ads to address the 

government’s accusations about the ads 

(e.g., to show that the ads were not facially 

unlawful) and to show how Backpage.com 

actually dealt with the ads. 

28. All administrative data and information 

regarding the alleged victim ads and 

related ads, including (a) credit card 

and/or other payment information; 

(b) editing or revision of ads by users; 

(c) editing or revision of ads by 

Backpage.com automated filters or 

moderators (and whether such revisions 

ever happened); (d) whether such ads 

were posted on Backpage.com through 

“aggregation” efforts; (e) all persons 

who reviewed, moderated, approved, 

revised or blocked such ads; (f) blocking 

or removal of any such ad by 

Backpage.com; (g) reporting of any such 

ad to NCMEC or law enforcement 

authorities; and (h) all cooperation of 

and information provided by 

Backpage.com to law enforcement or 

other authorities related to such ads and 

the individuals involved with the ads. 

This too is information available in 

Backpage.com’s systems and databases, 

which Backpage.com often collected and 

provided in response to requests from law 

enforcement authorities. To be clear, 

Defendants seek all data and information 

in Backpage.com’s systems and databases 

including in the “object editor,” “adref,” 

and “cardref” portions of the systems (i.e., 

reflecting all actions taken with regard to 

ads, payment information, and all other 

backend data collected and retained by 

Backpage.com about ads). 

Defendants strongly suspect that none of 

the alleged victim ads were edited by 

Backpage.com and none were posted 

through “aggregation” efforts. Defendants 

further believe Backpage.com cooperated 

with law enforcement with respect to some 

or many of the alleged victim ads and/or 

blocked or removed the ads or users. 

Defendants also seek information about 

review and moderation of the alleged 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 11 of 12
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

 11

APPENDIX A

No. Request Justification for Request 

victim ads and related ads to show that 

Defendants had no involvement. 

29. For each ad on Backpage.com that the 

government alleges provides a basis for 

criminal charges against any Defendant, 

provide (a) all data and information 

regarding all persons who reviewed or 

moderated such ads, and any data or 

information reflecting whether any 

Defendant (b) saw the ad before 

publication; (c) approved the ad for 

publication; (c) edited or revised the ad 

before publication; or (d) saw the ad or 

had any knowledge of it before the 

government disclosed the original 

indictment on or about April 6, 2019. 

Defendants believe the government is 

aware that Defendants had no knowledge 

or awareness of or involvement with any 

of any of the third-party ads on 

Backpage.com that the Indictment alleges 

as the bases for charges against 

Defendants. Administrative data about the 

ads from Backpage.com’s systems and 

databases will reflect this. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 643-13 Filed 06/19/19 Page 12 of 12