Case 3:18-cr-00577-CRB Document 304 Filed 01/31/24 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Christopher J. Morvillo
`Celeste L.M. Koeleveld
`Daniel S. Silver
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Clifford Chance US LLP
`31 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 878-3437
`christopher.morvillo@cliffordchance.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Michael Richard Lynch
`
`
`
`Jonathan Matthew Baum (SBN: 303469)
`Steptoe LLP
`
`
`
`One Market Street
`
`
`
`Steuart Tower, Suite 1070
`
`
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`
`Telephone: (510) 735-4558
`
`jbaum@steptoe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reid H. Weingarten
`Brian M. Heberlig
`
`Michelle L. Levin
`
`Nicholas P. Silverman
`Dwight J. Draughon
`
`Drew C. Harris
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Steptoe LLP
`1114 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 506-3900
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL RICHARD LYNCH and
`STEPHEN KEITH CHAMBERLAIN,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No.: 3:18-cr-00577-CRB
`
`Judge: Hon. Charles Breyer
`
`DEFENDANT MICHAEL RICHARD
`LYNCH'S OPPOSITION TO THE UNITED
`STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO
`ADMIT EVIDENCE OF DR. LYNCH'S
`CONTROL, KNOWLEDGE, AND INTENT
`
`(Government MIL No. 2)
`
`Date: February 21, 2024 at 2 p.m.
`Court: Courtroom 6 – 17th Floor
`Date Filed: January 31, 2024
`Trial Date: March 18, 2024
`
`DEFENDANT MICHAEL RICHARD LYNCH’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
`NO. 2 RE: CONTROL, KNOWLEDGE, AND INTENT – 3:18-CR-00577-CRB
`
`
`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 3:18-cr-00577-CRB Document 304 Filed 01/31/24 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
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant Michael Richard Lynch respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition
`to the government's second motion in limine seeking to admit references to the mafia, villains
`from James Bond films and other movies, and piranhas in fish tanks that it insists are relevant
`and probative of Dr. Lynch's "control, knowledge, and intent." The government also claims that
`this evidence presents "no prejudice within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 403." ECF
`No. 296 (G. MIL No. 2) at 2.
`At most, the references the government seeks to admit are probative of tongue-in-cheek
`attempts at humor at Autonomy. Nonetheless, the government seeks to turn such innocuous
`banter into sinister behavior on Dr. Lynch's part designed to demonstrate his domination and
`control at Autonomy and even his attempt to "bamboozle" HP with a carefully cultivated "master
`of the universe" image. Id. at 2. This claim is absurd. Absent any link to knowledge and intent
`to defraud, and the government provides no such link, the evidence is irrelevant and unduly
`prejudicial, especially given the way the government plans to misuse it. Most of the evidence the
`government seeks to admit overlaps with evidence Dr. Lynch has moved to preclude in his own
`motion in limine, see ECF No. 291 (D. MIL No. 5) (seeking to prevent character assassination
`including via references to the mafia, Bond villains, aggressive fish, and the like), and the
`government's motion in limine as to that evidence should be denied for the reasons already set
`forth by Dr. Lynch. To the extent any of the evidence is not covered by Dr. Lynch's motion in
`limine, it should be precluded for the same reason: it is irrelevant, lacks probative value, and
`carries a significant risk of unfair prejudice to Dr. Lynch.
`ARGUMENT
`II.
`While relevance is a context-specific inquiry applying an admittedly "liberal" standard,
`see Crawford v. City of Bakersfield, 944. F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Evid.
`401 and related Advisory Committee Note), a party seeking to introduce state-of-mind evidence
`as relevant to an allegation bears the burden of clearly linking the evidence at issue with state of
`mind. Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, No. CV 06-6851 FMO (SHx), 2013 WL 12224037, at *3
`(C.D. Cal. July 1, 2013); see also United States v. Schena, No. 5:20-CR-00425-EJD-1, 2022 WL
`
`DEFENDANT MICHAEL RICHARD LYNCH’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
`NO. 2 RE: CONTROL, KNOWLEDGE, AND INTENT – 3:18-CR-00577-CRB
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-00577-CRB Document 304 Filed 01/31/24 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
`
`
`2910185, at *12 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2022) (to introduce evidence of fraudulent conduct other
`than the specific acts alleged in the indictment, the government must establish a nexus between
`the allegations and the evidence it seeks to introduce). The government fails to meet that burden
`here.
`
`The government argues that statements that Dr. Lynch and others made comparing
`Autonomy to "the Mafia," a mock sales video that portrayed Autonomy management as
`operating like a mob syndicate, the presence of a fish tank with piranhas in the Autonomy offices
`(along with references to piranhas in a news article about Dr. Lynch), and other "evidence
`relating to Dr. Lynch's marketing of his image" are relevant to Dr. Lynch's state of mind. ECF
`No. 296 at 2, 7. The government's contentions, however, are conspicuously vague and
`equivocal—it argues that the evidence is relevant to Dr. Lynch's "state of mind, his control, and
`his attention to minute details," "his desire to exert total control," and his "desire to brand an
`image of toughness." Id. at 7–8. In United States v. Hussain, this Court rejected the
`Government's argument that the same mock sales video was relevant because it "paints a more
`complete and accessible picture of [Defendant Hussain's] single-handed domination of
`Autonomy's sales teams and his intolerance of excuses."1 See Order Granting Defendant’s
`Motion in Limine No. 6, United States v. Hussain, CR 16-CR-00462-CRB (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9,
`2018), ECF No. 245. Here, the government repeats this refrain that the proffered evidence,
`including the parody video, is relevant because it "paints a more detailed and complete picture of
`the Defendant." ECF No. 296 at 8. But the government's mantra is no more convincing this time
`around.
`Moreover, the inferences the government seeks to draw from the evidence are
`unsupported leaps from innocuous references to "damning evidence" of knowledge and intent.
`For example, the government claims that mere references to James Bond villains and movies like
`
`
`1 "[T]he Court has come to the conclusion that the film is likely admissible as a submission to the
`Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in the category of Best Worst Live-Action Short
`Film (Foreign). If there is another basis of admissibility, the Court is unaware what it might be."
`ECF No. 245.
`DEFENDANT MICHAEL RICHARD LYNCH’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
`NO. 2 RE: CONTROL, KNOWLEDGE, AND INTENT – 3:18-CR-00577-CRB
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-00577-CRB Document 304 Filed 01/31/24 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
`
`
`"Scarface" and "The Untouchables" are proof positive of Dr. Lynch's supposed "view that rules
`that apply to others do not apply to Autonomy." Id. at 8. The government even jumps to the
`conclusion that the reference to Cazenove in that Mafia-themed sales conference video must be a
`veiled threat against analyst Daud Khan, id., but the government has neglected to do its
`homework: even if it could be said that Dr. Lynch was in fact threatening anyone (and it
`cannot), the video was presented at a sales conference in 2005 before Mr. Khan was even at
`Cazenove. In any event, the fact that the founder and CEO of a successful and cutting-edge
`software company had "demanding" standards and that he understood that salespeople
`sometimes struggled to close deals for various reasons does not mean that he possessed the
`specific intent to deceive or defraud or that he sought an acquisition via fraudulent means. Even
`under the liberal standard of relevance, the proffered evidence of innocuous attempts at humor
`within Autonomy is so untethered from the charged allegations that it must be excluded.
`Moreover, any minimal probative value derived from these humorous references to the
`mafia and movie villains are clearly outweighed by the unfair prejudice to Dr. Lynch. Rule 403
`provides for the exclusion of evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`"unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403. If and when evidence is directly
`probative of guilt of a specific allegation, it does not rise to the level of unfair prejudice. See Old
`Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997) ("The term 'unfair prejudice,' as to a criminal
`defendant, speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into
`declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged."). But district
`courts must exclude evidence that has an "undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper
`basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." Id. (quoting Advisory Committee
`Notes on Fed. Rule Evid. 403). Moreover, if the evidence is not determinative of a central issue,
`it may be excluded under Rule 403 for creating a "sideshow." Pac. Select Fund v. Bank of New
`York Mellon, No. SACV 10-198-JST (ANx), 2012 WL 12886495 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2012)
`(admitting evidence over a Rule 403 objection because it was at "the heart" of the defendant's
`case).
`
`DEFENDANT MICHAEL RICHARD LYNCH’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
`NO. 2 RE: CONTROL, KNOWLEDGE, AND INTENT – 3:18-CR-00577-CRB
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-00577-CRB Document 304 Filed 01/31/24 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
`
`
`In support of its contention that "Rule 403 is no barrier" to admitting the mafia
`references, the government cites to a case with plainly distinguishable facts that does not engage
`in a Rule 403 analysis. ECF No. 296 at 7. In that case, United States v. Fernandez, 172 F. Supp.
`2d 1265 (C.D. Cal. 2001), a RICO prosecution involving the Mexican mafia, the government
`relied on the defendant's admission that he was in the Mexican mafia to establish that the
`defendant was in fact part of the alleged RICO conspiracy involving the Mexican mafia. Id. at
`1274. The district court summarily concluded that the defendant's statements were admissible
`and did not engage in a Rule 403 analysis. Id. This is understandable given that Fernandez was
`a mafia prosecution where the fact of mafia membership was a relevant issue. For obvious
`reasons, the court's admission in Fernandez of a party opponent's statement regarding mafia
`membership does not bear on whether the proffered mafia evidence in an alleged accounting
`fraud case survives a Rule 403 analysis.
`Indeed, the government concedes that the references to organized crime are not probative
`of their truth but argues that this lessens the prejudicial impact on Dr. Lynch. See ECF No. 296
`at 7 ("[H]ere the statements are offered not to show actual membership in organized crime.").
`On the contrary, admitting mafia evidence in an accounting fraud case would cause substantial
`prejudice to Dr. Lynch. See, e.g., United States v. Love, 534 F.2d 87, 88 (6th Cir. 1976)
`(reversing conviction of transmitting a threat in interstate commerce because it rose to
`prosecutorial misconduct to "intentionally and for no proper purpose inject[] into the trial the
`spectre of organized crime and the Mafia"). The government's own motion illustrates this well—
`the mafia video features Dr. Lynch "wield[ing] and sharpen[ing] a knife as he waits for sales
`personnel to call in." ECF No. 296 at 4. The theatrical and sensational nature of the evidence
`would undoubtedly create a sideshow. Even with a proper limiting instruction, the government
`would use the mafia evidence to portray Dr. Lynch as an overly demanding and unlikeable
`person and would provide comparatively little insight on his state of mind in allegedly
`defrauding HP. The government's attempt to portray Dr. Lynch as a villainous "master of the
`universe"—a moniker it uses four times to describe Dr. Lynch—has no place in a case involving
`allegations of accounting fraud. Id. at 2, 6, 8.
`
`DEFENDANT MICHAEL RICHARD LYNCH’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
`NO. 2 RE: CONTROL, KNOWLEDGE, AND INTENT – 3:18-CR-00577-CRB
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-00577-CRB Document 304 Filed 01/31/24 Page 6 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
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For these reasons, the Court should deny the government’s motion in limine to admit
`references to the mafia, villains from James Bond films and other movies, and piranhas in fish
`tanks as prejudicial and irrelevant.
`Dated: January 31, 2024
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: _/s/ Christopher J. Morvillo_
`Christopher J. Morvillo
`
`Christopher J. Morvillo
`Celeste L.M. Koeleveld
`Daniel S. Silver
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`CLIFFORD CHANCE US LLP
`31 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 878-3437
`christopher.morvillo@cliffordchance.com
`
`Jonathan Matthew Baum (SBN: 303469)
`STEPTOE LLP
`One Market Street
`Steuart Tower, Suite 1070
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (510) 735-4558
`jbaum@steptoe.com
`
`Reid H. Weingarten
`Brian M. Heberlig
`Michelle L. Levin
`Nicholas P. Silverman
`Dwight J. Draughon
`Drew C. Harris
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`STEPTOE LLP
`1114 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 506-3900
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Michael Richard Lynch
`
`
`DEFENDANT MICHAEL RICHARD LYNCH’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
`NO. 2 RE: CONTROL, KNOWLEDGE, AND INTENT – 3:18-CR-00577-CRB
`5
`
`