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

3683943.2 1 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice) 

 glincenberg@birdmarella.com 

Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice)

 aneuman@birdmarella.com 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice)

 gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, 

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C. 

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561 

Telephone: (310) 201-2100 

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst 

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

 tbienert@bienertkatzman.com 

Whitney Z. Bernstein (admitted pro hac vice)

 wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com 

BIENERT KATZMAN PC 

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 

San Clemente, CA 92673 

Telephone: (949) 369-3700 

Facsimile: (949) 369-3701 

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin 

[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. 

 CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF 

SUBPOENAS 

Assigned to Hon. Susan M. Brnovich 

Courtroom 506 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1093 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 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

3683943.2 2 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

 pcambria@lglaw.com 

Erin McCampbell (admitted pro hac vice)

 emccampbell@lglaw.com 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832) 

 bf@federlawpa.com 

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A. 

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone: (602) 257-0135 

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear 

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218) 

 david@deisenbergplc.com 

DAVID EISENBERG PLC 

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Telephone: (602) 237-5076 

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273 

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla 

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181) 

 joy.bertrand@gmail.com 

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC 

P.O. Box 2734 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252 

Telephone: (602)374-5321 

Facsimile: (480)361-4694 

Attorney for Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1093 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 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

3683943.2 3 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

MEMODRANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

I. The Government Does Not Have Standing To Oppose Defendants’ Motion 

Once again, the government is stepping in to “respond” to – but in reality, strongly 

oppose – Defendants’ attempts to obtain evidence necessary to present their defense. As 

Defendants previously pointed out, this is improper as the government has no standing in 

relation to a motion for issuance of Rule 17(c) subpoenas. See Dkt. #1040. Given that the 

Court previously decided that it will nonetheless consider the government’s objections to 

such motions, the arguments will not be reiterated here, but those previously set-forth 

points and authorities are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

II. The Government Cannot Have it Both Ways: Either Defendants Must Be Able 

to Answer The Government’s Evidence, or the Evidence Should Be Excluded 

As the government has made clear – and as the Court has indicated it will allow 

despite Defendants’ opposition – the government intends to introduce evidence that 

NCMEC, state attorneys generals (including the Arizona Attorney General), and others 

told Backpage and certain defendants that they were engaged in illegal activity. These 

notifications by third parties have no relevance to the case, but if the Court is going to 

allow such evidence, Defendants must be permitted to defend against it.1

 Nonetheless, the 

government opposes Defendants’ attempts to obtain evidence that would specifically 

demonstrate that these notifications were not based on sound legal analysis, but were 

instead agenda-driven communications based on ethical, moral, or other similar types of 

considerations. This is relevant because if the “notice” that Defendants received was not 

in fact based on legal principles, but was instead based on the authors’ ethical, moral, or 

similar principles, then the “notice” was meaningless from a legal perspective. 

And while the government speculates that the evidence obtained via the subpoenas 

will not be admissible, the government is wrong. First, as indicated in the Motion (and 

 

1

 As Defendants have separately argued, what matters is not what third parties thought 

about the legality of what Backpage and Defendants were doing, but the actual evidence of 

what Defendants knew, intended, and did, in light of the law. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1093 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 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

3683943.2 4 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

unanswered by the government), the evidence will be admissible as business records 

and/or public records. Second, some of the documents will likely be admissible through 

witnesses from these organizations that the government has said it intends to call. Thus, 

the government’s objection on this point is without merit. 

Finally, while the government tries to label the requested subpoenas a fishing 

expedition, so as to prohibit Defendants from obtaining the evidence they need and are 

constitutionally entitled to in defense of the government’s allegations and evidence, the 

subpoenas are in fact specific and directed at particular evidence. The documents that are 

responsive to the subpoenas go to the heart of one of the methods that the government – 

improperly – intends to use to prove its case, and are necessary for Defendants to answer 

and defend against that effort. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For all of these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue the 

requested subpoenas. 

DATED: November 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Gary S. Lincenberg 

Ariel A. Neuman 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, 

NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & 

RHOW, P.C. 

By: /s/ Ariel A. Neuman 

 Ariel A. Neuman 

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst 

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures 

Manual (August 2020) § II (C) (3), Ariel A. Neuman herby 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. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1093 Filed 11/23/20 Page 4 of 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

3683943.2 5 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

DATED: November 23, 2020 Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

Whitney Z. Bernstein 

BIENERT KATZMAN PC 

By: /s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

 Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin 

DATED: November 23, 2020 Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Erin McCampbell 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

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

 Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

DATED: November 23, 2020 FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A. 

By: /s/ Bruce Feder 

 Bruce Feder 

Attorneys for Defendant Scott Spear 

DATED: November 23, 2020 DAVID EISENBERG PLC 

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

 David Eisenberg 

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla 

DATED: November 23, 2020 JOY BERTRAND, ESQ. 

By: /s/ Joy Bertrand 

 Joy Bertrand 

Attorneys for Defendant Joye Vaught 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1093 Filed 11/23/20 Page 5 of 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

3683943.2 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on November 23, 2020, I served the attached document by 

email on the following, who are registered participants of the CM/ECF System: 

Whitney Z. Bernstein wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com

Andrew C. Stone andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Anthony Ray Bisconti tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com 

Bruce S. Feder bf@federlawpa.com

Dan G. Boyle daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov

David S. Eisenberg david@deisenbergplc.com 

Erin E. McCampbell emccampbell@lglaw.com 

James C. Grant jimgrant@dwt.com

John Lewis Littrell jlittrell@bmkattorneys.com 

Joy Malby Bertrand joyous@mailbag.com 

Kevin M. Rapp kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Margaret Wu Perlmeter margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov

Michael D. Kimerer mdk@kimerer.com 

Paul John Cambria, Jr. pcambria@lglaw.com 

Peter Shawn Kozinets peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

Reginald E. Jones reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov

Rhonda Elaine Neff rneff@kimerer.com 

Robert Corn-Revere bobcornrevere@dwt.com 

Ronald Gary London ronnielondon@dwt.com 

Seetha Ramachandran sramachandran@proskauer.com

Thomas Henry Bienert, Jr. tbienert@bienertkatzman.com

Ariel A. Neuman aneuman@birdmarella.com 

/s/ Ariel A. Neuman 

 Ariel A. Neuman 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1093 Filed 11/23/20 Page 6 of 6