Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1615 Filed 06/15/23 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`Timothy J. Eckstein, 018321
`Joseph N. Roth, 025725
`Sarah P. Lawson, 036436
`OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
`2929 North Central Avenue, 20th Floor
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793
`(602) 640-9000
`teckstein@omlaw.com
`jroth@omlaw.com
`slawson@omlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for James Larkin
`Additional counsel on following page
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
`GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN
`LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
`REFERENCES TO SECTION 230
`OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
`DECENCY ACT
`
`(Oral Argument Requested)
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1615 Filed 06/15/23 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`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 15873, admitted pro hac vice)
`Erin E. McCampbell (NY 4480166, admitted pro hac vice)
`LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP
`42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120
`Buffalo, New York 14202
`(716) 849-1333
`pcambria@lglaw.com
`emccampbell@lglaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Michael Lacey
`
`Bruce S. Feder (AZ 004832)
`FEDER LAW OFFICE PA
`2930 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 160
`Phoenix, Arizona 85016
`(602) 257-0135
`bf@federlawpa.com
`
`Eric Walter Kessler
`KESSLER LAW OFFICE
`6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85253
`(480) 644-0093
`Eric.kesslerlaw@gmail.com
`
`Attorneys for Scott Spear
`
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Ariel A. Neuman
`Gopi K. Panchapakesan
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
`DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW P.C.
`1875 Century Park E., Suite 2300
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`(310) 201-2100
`glincenberg@birdmarella.com
`gpanchapakesan.@birdmarella.com
`aneuman@birdmarella.com
`
`Attorneys for John Brunst
`
`David S. Eisenberg
`DAVID EISENBERG PLC
`3550 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1155
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012
`(602) 237-5076
`david@eisenbergplc.com
`
`Attorneys for Andrew Padilla
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1615 Filed 06/15/23 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`Joy Malby Bertrand
`JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC
`P.O. Box 2734
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85252
`(480) 656-3919
`joyous@mailbag.com
`
`Attorneys for Joye Vaught
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1615 Filed 06/15/23 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Section 230 of the CDA “immunizes providers of interactive computer services
`against liability arising from content created by third parties.” Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 2
`F.4th 871, 886 (9th Cir. 2021), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 598 U.S. ___, 143
`S.Ct. 1191 (2023).
`At the time Congress enacted § 230 [it] did not differentiate dangerous,
`criminal, or obscene content from innocuous content when it drafted §
`230(c)(1). Instead, it broadly mandated that ‘[n]o provider ... of an
`interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
`any information provided by another information content provider. 47 U.S.C.
`§ 230(c)(1).
`
`
`Id. at 896 (emphasis in original). Driven by “First Amendment values,” “Congress did not
`sound an uncertain trumpet when it enacted the CDA, and it chose to grant broad
`protections to internet publishers.” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12, 29
`(1st Cir. 2016); see also Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003) (“there is little
`doubt that [Congress] sought to further First Amendment and e-commerce interests on
`the Internet”).
`The government primarily argues (Doc. 1594 at 3) that any reference to Section 230
`is not relevant because it does not provide immunity from federal criminal liability. True,
`Section 230 does not preclude federal prosecution, but that hardly means that it is
`irrelevant to this prosecution.
`The government contends that Backpage’s content moderation decisions and its
`content aggregation efforts (offering free adult ads on Backpage.com to, primarily, users
`of its main business rival, craigslist.com) evidence an intent to facilitate crime. But
`Backpage.com’s moderation and aggregation practices were driven largely by the incentives
`and the immunities provided in Section 230, as recognized in numerous court decisions,
`including several involving Backpage.com.
`Defendants must be permitted to present evidence tending to negate unlawful
`intent, including by showing that Backpage.com’s moderation and aggregation processes
`were driven by factors other than facilitating crime. Although the Court will instruct the
`jury on the law, it cannot bar Defendants from presenting evidence about their
`contemporaneous understanding of Section 230 and the First Amendment values and
`interests it advanced and how that motivated Backpage’s moderation and aggregation
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1615 Filed 06/15/23 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`practices. To preclude this evidence would violate Defendants’ Fifth and Sixth
`Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial by interfering with their ability to cross-
`examine the government’s witnesses, to elicit direct testimony from their own witnesses,
`and to present a complete defense that they did not possess the requisite specific intent
`and knowledge to violate the law.
`Indeed, many of the government’s witnesses -- Carl Ferrer, Dan Hyer, former
`moderators, NCMEC representatives, etc. -- were interviewed by law enforcement or
`communicated with Defendants about Section 230. The Jencks materials disclosed by the
`government for these witnesses are replete with mentions of Section 230. Defendants are
`entitled to cross-examine these witnesses on their understanding of this law, its impact on
`Backpage practices, and other matters. For example, Section 230’s safe harbor immunity
`provision influenced how Backpage created and enforced moderation practices and other
`policies. To explain what motivated Defendants’ conduct, the jury must be told about the
`information Defendants received regarding Section 230,
`including the articles,
`correspondence and other publications communicated to Defendants.
`Furthermore, the government’s motion failed to disclose that it previously moved
`to preclude the testimony of defense expert, Eric Goldman, about Section 230, Doc. 905,
`or that the Court, while granting that motion in part, ruled that Professor Goldman will be
`allowed to testify about Section 230: “Testimony that Section 230 was meant to incentivize
`Internet providers to engage in moderation practices will be allowed.” Doc. 1081 at 20.
`That ruling implicitly recognizes that discussion of Section 230 is relevant, including as to
`Backpage’s moderation practices. This is law of the case. Having failed to notice its own
`Section 230 expert and having failed to block the testimony of the defense expert, the
`government cannot remedy its own lack of an expert witness through an end-run around
`the Court’s earlier ruling regarding the defense’s Section 230 expert.
`Given the central role Section 230 plays in influencing internet moderation
`practices generally and Backpage’s moderation practices specifically, the government is
`simply wrong to argue (at 3-4) that reference to Section 230 would “mislead[]”, “confus[e]
`the issues,” or “wast[e] time.” The government wants the jury to conclude that Backpage’s
`moderation practices are evidence of an intent to facilitate criminal activity. Evidence
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1615 Filed 06/15/23 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`regarding Section 230 and its influence on Backpage’s moderation policies directly rebut
`that argument. It is essential that the jury hear and understand this testimony. To preclude
`it would not confuse or waste time – it would keep the jury in the dark about critical
`evidence necessary to decide Defendants’ state of mind.
`Finally, the assertion (at 4) that Section 230 could only be relevant to jury-
`nullification is as wrongheaded as it is revealing. The evidence related to Section 230
`severely undercuts key pillars of the government’s case because it shows Defendants’ non-
`criminal, good-faith desire to follow the law. That the jury may find such evidence
`persuasive is not “nullification.” Though the government plainly wants the jury kept
`ignorant of Section 230, the jury cannot understand the facts of this case without it. The
`Court must deny this motion.
`
`DATED this 15th day of June, 2023.
`
`OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
`
`By
`
`
`
`s/ Joseph N. Roth
`Timothy J. Eckstein
`Joseph N. Roth
`Sarah P. Lawson
`2929 North Central, 20th Floor
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for James Larkin
`
`
`LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP
`
`By
`
`
`s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (w/permission)
`Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (pro hac vice)
`Erin E. McCampbell (pro hac vice)
`42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120
`
` Buffalo, New York 14202
`
`Attorneys for Michael Lacey
`
`FEDER LAW OFFICE PA
`
`By
`
`6
`
`s/ Bruce S. Feder (w/permission)
`Bruce S. Feder
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1615 Filed 06/15/23 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160
`Phoenix, Arizona 85016
`
`s/ Eric W. Kessler (w/permission)
`Eric W. Kessler
`6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85253
`
`
`
`
`KESSLER LAW OFFICE
`
`By
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Scott Spear
`
`
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
`NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
`RHOW P.C.
`
`By
`
`
`s/ Gary S. Lincenberg (w/permission)
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Gopi K. Panchapakesan
`Ariel A. Neuman
`1875 Century Park E., Suite 2300
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for John Brunst
`
`DAVID EISENBERG PLC
`
`By
`
`
`
`s/ David S. Eisenberg (w/permission)
`David S. Eisenberg
`3550 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1155
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012
`
`
`Attorneys for Andrew Padilla
`
`JOY BERTRAND LAW
`
`By
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Joye Vaught
`
`s/ Joy M. Bertrand (w/permission)
`Joy M. Bertrand
`P.O. Box 2734
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85252
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`