Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1829-1 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`Jonathan M. Baum (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower Ste 1070
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: (415) 365-6700
`Fax: (415) 365-6700
`jbaum@steptoe.com
`
`Tahir L. Boykins (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (213) 439-9437
`Fax: (213) 439-9599
`tboykins@steptoe.com
`
`Attorneys for Movant
`CARL FERRER
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH
`
`MOVANT CARL FERRER’S MOTION
`FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`[Filed concurrently with Declaration of
`Jonathan Baum ISO Movant Carl Ferrer’s
`Motion for A Protective Order]
`
`
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH
`MOVANT CARL FERRER’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`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 1829-1 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Carl Ferrer files this motion to assert the attorney-client privilege on his own behalf.
`
`During the course of cross-examination in this case, defense counsel sought to introduce a
`
`privileged memorandum sent from Mr. Ferrer to his prior lawyer, James Grant of Davis
`
`Wright Tremaine LLP, which the defense presumably obtained from Mr. Ferrer’s former
`
`lawyer, who also represented the defendants.1 While the Court properly excluded this
`
`exhibit, the defendants recently filed another motion (Dkt. No. 1822), indicating that they
`
`intend to continue to seek to violate Mr. Ferrer’s attorney-client privilege, his marital
`
`communication privilege, and potentially other privileges.
`
`Mr. Ferrer hereby objects to any question or exhibit that intrudes upon privileged
`
`communications of any kind.2
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. Mr. Ferrer Never Waived His Personal Attorney-Client Privilege
`
`In April 2018, Mr. Ferrer signed a limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege on
`
`behalf of the companies he formally controlled at that time. This waiver is already on the
`
`docket in this case, at Dkt. No. 195-3.
`
`This waiver states that Mr. Ferrer “waive[s] each of the Companies’ attorney-client
`
`privilege[.]” The waiver, however, expressly states that it does not apply “to any aspect of
`
`my personal attorney-client relationship with attorneys who have represented me in the
`
`past[.]” Id. Mr. Grant played many roles during the history of Backpage, but at the time of
`
`this communication, Mr. Grant served as Mr. Ferrer’s personal counsel in the criminal case
`
`
`
`1 The Defendants appear to have obtained this document in spite of Davis Wright Tremaine
`assuring Judge Logan in 2018 that it would maintain Mr. Ferrer’s attorney-client privilege. See
`Dkt. No. 338 at 10 (“Moving forward, the Court will rely on the representations of HCM, DWT,
`and their respective counsel that the firms will continue to preserve the confidences of Ferrer as a
`former client, create ethical walls where necessary, refrain from engaging in trial preparation or
`participating as trial counsel, and only participate in the limited capacity set forth in the
`pleadings, without an order from the Court.”).
`
` To the extent necessary, Mr. Ferrer also authorizes the Government to assert the attorney-client
`privilege on his behalf. See United States v. Martoma, 962 F.Supp.2d 602, 605 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
`23, 2013) (Government has standing to assert the attorney-client privilege where a witness
`“authorize[s] the Government to assert those rights on his behalf”).
`
` 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
`
`2 CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH
`MOVANT CARL FERRER’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1829-1 Filed 10/04/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`filed against him in Sacramento County, California. See Exhibit A (Sacramento Superior
`
`Court Criminal Pleading title page where Grant is identified as “Counsel for Defendants
`
`Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey and James Larkin.”). The document, therefore, is protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege.3
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Sixth Amendment Rights Do Not Trump Mr. Ferrer’s
`
`Attorney-Client Privilege
`
`The attorney-client privilege is “one of the oldest recognized privileges for
`
`confidential communications,” Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 403
`
`(1998). The Ninth Circuit has held that a defendant's right to cross-examine an adverse
`
`witness is not unlimited. Hayes v. Ayers, 632 F.3d 500, 518 (9th Cir. 2011). “[T]he
`
`Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-
`
`examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might
`
`wish.” Id. (emphasis in original); (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679
`
`(1986).) Here, permitting the defense to violate Mr. Ferrer’s attorney-client privilege is not
`
`justified.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`Accordingly, Mr. Ferrer requests that the Court issue a protective order prohibiting
`
`Defendants from violating his attorney-client privilege or other applicable privileges.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jonathan Baum
`Jonathan Baum (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Tahir L. Boykins (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`
`Attorneys for Movant Carl Ferrer
`
`
`
`3 The Defendants in this case in 2018 actually sought to block Mr. Ferrer from executing even
`this limited waiver. Judge Logan agreed with their request at that time, holding that that “the
`materials shared between the parties to the JDA are to be protected from disclosure unless the
`disclosing party first obtains the written consent of all parties who may be entitled to a claim of
`privilege over the materials.” (Dkt. No. 345, at 4.) Defendants cannot now make the opposite
`argument.
`
`3 CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH
`MOVANT CARL FERRER’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`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 1829-1 Filed 10/04/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 3, 2023, 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/ Debbie DeRivero
`Debbie DeRivero
`
`
`
`
`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 CASE NO. CR-18-422-PHX-DJH
`MOVANT CARL FERRER’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`