Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1887 Filed 10/22/23 Page 1 of 2
`
`DAVID EISENBERG
`DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.
`3550 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1155
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012
`Arizona State Bar No. 017218
`Telephone: 602.237.5076
`Email: david@deisenbergplc.com
`
`Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`United States of America,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`CR-18-00422-06-PHX-SRB
`DEFENDANT PADILLA’S NOTICE
`OF JOINDER re: DEFENDANT
`BRUNST’S MOTION TO SEEK
`ADMISSION OF STATE OF MIND
`TESTIMONY (Doc. 1879)
`
`The Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through counsel, hereby gives notice that he joins
`in Defendant Brunst’s Motion to Seek Admission of Brunst’s Testimony re: State of Mind.
`(Doc. 1879.) Specifically, Defendant Padilla joins in Mr. Brunst’s motion as it relates to
`testimony based on good faith in relying on the presence and participation of lawyers in
`Backpage’s operations. (Id., pp. 13-14.) In Mr. Padilla’s case, that guidance impacted his state
`of mind as to the criteria for the publication of advertisements during the time he managed the
`moderation process at Backpage. As Mr. Brunst has noted and as Mr. Padilla recognizes, such
`testimony concerning what he was told by lawyers would violate prior Court Orders.
`
`1/
`The following sets out Mr. Padilla’s contacts with lawyers in his position as operations
`manager and how these contacts impacted his actions at Backpage. Mr. Padilla, along with
`approximately 40 moderators attended a presentation by Steve Suskin (and others) on
`
` Mr. Brunst’s motion also refers to court opinions and cases that guided him in his work
`1/
`and on oral and written contacts he had with counsel concerning them. Although Mr. Padilla’s
`contacts with counsel was far more limited, his joinder encompasses the Brunst motion in its
`entirety.
`
`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 1887 Filed 10/22/23 Page 2 of 2
`
`moderation standards, which he incorporated into the criteria to be followed in reviewing
`advertisements. He also talked with and was guided by Mr. Suskin concerning subpoena
`compliance and would from time to time consult with Mr. Suskin about moderation criteria. Mr.
`Padilla also personally met and talked by telephone with Liz McDougall many times concerning
`moderation criteria. For example, when she started with Backpage in 2012, Ms. McDougall
`directed him in certain cases to remove entire advertisements rather than merely stripping out
`terms, and she encouraged him and Joye Vaught to meet with law enforcement.
`The evidence discloses that it was Carl Ferrer, Mr. Padilla’s superior, who was the
`overarching source of moderation standards - - ever changing - - in both words and photos.
`Nonetheless, the presence and participation of attorneys in the moderation process is quite
`relevant to Mr. Padilla’s state of mind: he relied on and followed their directions. If he takes the
`stand, Mr. Padilla should be allowed to testify about how the directions attorneys gave him in
`carrying out his duties supported his good faith belief that he was conducting himself properly.
`Respectfully submitted this 22 day of October, 2023.
`nd
`
`s/ David Eisenberg
`
`DAVID EISENBERG
`Counsel for Defendant Andrew Padilla
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that on October 22, 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/ David Eisenberg
` David Eisenberg
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.