Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1577 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`Randy K. Jones - SBN 141711
`rkjones@mintz.com
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130
`Telephone: (858) 314-1510
`
`Attorney for Mark Manoogian
`
`
`Whitney Z. Bernstein - SBN 304917
`wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com
`Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. - SBN 135311
`tbienert@bmkattorneys.com
`James Riddet – SBN 39826
`jriddet@bmkattorneys.com
`BIENERT | KATZMAN PC
`903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
`San Clemente, California 92673
`Telephone: (949) 369-3700
`
`Attorneys for Mohammed Abdul Qayyum
`
`
`Gary S. Lincenberg - SBN 123058
` glincenberg@birdmarella.com
`Naeun Rim - SBN 263558
` nrim@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 Petr Pacas
`
`David W. Wiechert - SBN 94607
`dwiechert@aol.com
`Jessica C. Munk - SBN 238832
`jessica@wmgattorneys.com
`William J. Migler - SBN 318518
`william@wmgattorneys.com
`WIECHERT, MUNK & GOLDSTEIN,
`PC
`27136 Paseo Espada, Suite B1123
`San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
`Telephone: (949) 361-2822
`
`Attorneys for Jacob Bychak
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` CASE NO. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`
`DECLARATION OF NAEUN RIM
`IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
`MOTION TO DISMISS WIRE
`FRAUD COUNTS FOR
`VIOLATING THE FIFTH
`AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS
`AND SIXTH AMENDMENT FAIR
`NOTICE PROTECTIONS
`
`Date: June 26, 2020
`Time: 2:30 p.m.
`Crtrm.:
`2D
`
`Assigned to Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`JACOB BYCHAK, MARK
`MANOOGIAN, MOHAMMED
`ABDUL QAYYUM, AND PETR
`PACAS,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3649623.1
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NAEUN RIM
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1578 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`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, Naeun Rim, declare as follows:
`1.
`I am an active member of the Bar of the State of California and a
`Principal with Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, A
`Professional Corporation, attorneys of record for Petr Pacas in this action. I make this
`declaration in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Wire Fraud Counts for
`Violating the Fifth Amendment Due Process and Sixth Amendment Fair Notice
`Protections. Except for those matters stated on information and belief, I make this
`declaration based upon personal knowledge and, if called upon to do so, I could and
`would so testify.
`2.
`Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an email chain with
`Assistant United States Attorneys Sabrina Feve and Melanie Pierson of our meet and
`confer efforts about undisputed facts.
`3.
`Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email received by
`David A. Lincenberg, a paralegal in my office, on May 5, 2020 from Amanda Baber at
`IANA.
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
`that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this declaration on May 18,
`2020, at Los Angeles, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Naeun Rim
`Naeun Rim
`
`3649623.1
`
`
`
`2
`DECLARATION OF NAEUN RIM
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1579 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`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
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Counsel for Defendant certifies that the foregoing pleading has been
`
`electronically served on the following parties by virtue of their registration with the
`CM/ECF system:
`
`Sabrina L. Feve
`Assistant U.S. Attorney
`sabrina.feve@usdoj.gov
`
`Melanie K. Pierson
`Assistance U.S. Attorney
`melanie.pierson@usdoj.gov
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Naeun Rim
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`
`By:
`
`s/ Naeun Rim
`Naeun Rim
`
`Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`
`DATED: May 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3649623.1
`
`
`
`3
`DECLARATION OF NAEUN RIM
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1580 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1581 Page 5 of 15
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Feve, Sabrina (USACAS) <Sabrina.Feve@usdoj.gov>
`Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:48 PM
`Naeun Rim; Pierson, Melanie (USACAS); dwiechert@aol.com; RKJones@mintz.com;
`wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com; jriddet@bienertkatzman.com;
`tbienert@bienertkatzman.com; Gary S. Lincenberg
`RE: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683-GPC, Meet and Confer
`
`Counsel‐ 
` 
`Thank you for continuing the meet and confer process.  It is our sincere hope that we can reach a common 
`understanding of which precise facts are at issue. Toward that end, we have spent considerable time reviewing the 
`pleadings and documents you reference.  My email from this morning addressed the four factual assertions you 
`summarized in your reply brief and those portions that we dispute. 
` 
`We have also reviewed the Lindsey and Curran declarations.  As we noted earlier, these declarations include many broad 
`statements that involve nuanced applications.  As articulated in the declarations, we disagree, in whole or in part, with 
`statements set forth by Lindsey in paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 8, 11‐14, 18, 22, 25 and 26, and with statements set forth by 
`Curran in paragraphs 14, 15, 19 and 21.   
` 
`We are uncomfortable being asked to take responsibility for identifying the facts upon which your clients’ arguments 
`will rely.  It is incumbent on you, as defense counsel, to put forward the facts upon which your motion will rely.  If you 
`wish to provide further details, we are happy to provide you with our position. 
` 
`Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.   
` 
`Respectfully,  
`AUSA Sabrina L. Fève 
` 
`From: Naeun Rim <nrim@birdmarella.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 11:39 AM 
`To: Pierson, Melanie (USACAS) <MPierson@usa.doj.gov>; dwiechert@aol.com; Feve, Sabrina (USACAS) 
`<sfeve@usa.doj.gov>; RKJones@mintz.com; wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com; jriddet@bienertkatzman.com; 
`tbienert@bienertkatzman.com; Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com> 
`Subject: RE: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683‐GPC, Meet and Confer 
`
`The Court agreed that the parties should brief the issue of how the Court should deal with the question of whether IP 
`addresses were property going forward.  At the hearing, we noted that it would help facilitate the briefing if the 
`government could identify what facts are in dispute.  The Court ordered the government to meet and confer with us on 
`what facts were disputed before the motion was field.   
` 
`We do not have to lay out all of the legal arguments we plan to make in our motion in order for the government to 
`comply with the Court’s order to meet and confer because the purpose of requiring the government to identify what 
`facts are in dispute is to narrow the issues we have to bring before the Court.   
` 
`To move this along, for now, please identify which of the facts you dispute in the following documents, attached: 
` 
`
`‐
`‐
`
`The chart created by the Government (please simply note in the box, “Disputed” or “Undisputed”) 
`The Declaration of John Curran that was submitted by the Government (23 paragraphs) 
`1
`
`5
`
`

`

`‐
`‐
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1582 Page 6 of 15
`The Declaration of Marc Lindsey (28 paragraphs) 
`The Declaration of Naeun Rim (10 paragraphs)—for this, we are not asking you to state whether you agree with 
`the contents of the documents described but only whether you dispute that the documents are authentic, 
`meaning that they are what they claim to be and came from the sources as attributed in the declaration (ARIN, 
`Canadian government, etc.) 
`
` 
`Naeun Rim 
`Principal 
`O: 310.201.2100                                         
`F: 310.201.2110 
`E: nrim@birdmarella.com 
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, 
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. 
`1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 
`Los Angeles, California 90067‐2561  
`www.BirdMarella.com 
` 
`From: Pierson, Melanie (USACAS) <Melanie.Pierson@usdoj.gov>  
`Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 11:18 AM 
`To: dwiechert@aol.com; Feve, Sabrina (USACAS) <Sabrina.Feve@usdoj.gov>; Naeun Rim <nrim@birdmarella.com>; 
`RKJones@mintz.com; wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com; jriddet@bienertkatzman.com; tbienert@bienertkatzman.com; 
`Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com> 
`Subject: RE: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683‐GPC, Meet and Confer 
`
`Dave,  If that was your take‐away, you misunderstood my position.  I deferred to the court on whether to have the 
`hearing, but we did not agree that the issue was one that the court could decide as a matter of law.  That was what I 
`understood was going to be briefed by the parties.  melanie 
` 
`From: dwiechert@aol.com <dwiechert@aol.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 11:14 AM 
`To: Feve, Sabrina (USACAS) <sfeve@usa.doj.gov>; nrim@birdmarella.com; Pierson, Melanie (USACAS) 
`<MPierson@usa.doj.gov>; RKJones@mintz.com; wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com; jriddet@bienertkatzman.com; 
`tbienert@bienertkatzman.com; glincenberg@birdmarella.com 
`Subject: Re: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683‐GPC, Meet and Confer 
`
`I'm sorry Sabrina but I am confused. In the last telephonic court hearing, which you unfortunately missed, we all seemed
`to be on the same page, including Melanie, that the determination of whether an IP address is property under the federal
`fraud statutes is initially for the court rather than the jury. If the court decides that an IP address is property we anticipate
`that it will instruct the jury so over defense objection. If the court decides that an IP address is not property, there are two
`avenues: 1) the court dismisses giving the government the ability to appeal the order; or 2) the court impanels the jury and
`grants a Rule 29 on the fraud counts at the close of the government's case. I assumed you would want door 1 in the case
`of an adverse decision by the court but in my stir craziness my judgment may be off. Dave
`
`
`This communication is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and any
`attachments and notify me immediately. Thank you.
`
`
`David Wiechert
`Wiechert, Munk & Goldstein, PC
`
`27136 Paseo Espada 
`Ste. B1123 
`San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 
`
`2
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1583 Page 7 of 15
`(949) 361‐2822 
`In a message dated 4/16/2020 8:47:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, Sabrina.Feve@usdoj.gov writes:
`
`
`Counsel-
`
`
`
`
`
`We have not identified disputed facts in the past because we believe the court is legally bound to rule
`on the motion accepting as true the allegations in the Indictment, without resolving disputes of
`fact. We await your legal argument providing authority for the premise that the court should decide, as
`a matter of law, whether an IP address is property. If you agree that the 37 facts identified in our letter
`are the only facts you believe are undisputed and necessary for the court to rule on the upcoming
`motion, we will promptly respond with our position as to each.
`
`
`
`
`
`The defense pleadings and attachments make numerous broad statements about IP addresses, many of
`which have nuanced application depending on whether it involves a legacy netblock. This is why we
`were asking you, as the moving party, to identify the specific material facts you believe are undisputed
`for purposes of this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`While we agree that ARIN has taken the position that IP address are not property, we do not agree
`theirs is the position of federal agencies. While we agree that various statements were made (by
`Curran, Lindsey, Cannon and a Harvard Business School professor), we do not agree that any of those
`positions are the official position of any federal agency, or binding on us for purposes of this
`proceeding. The recently produced table from ARIN shows that the status of the various netblocks at
`issue changed over time, so we also can’t agree that that they were all legacy blocks with no form of
`registration agreement for the full period of the conspiracy. Many statements were made by Mr.
`Lindsey relating to the WHOIS directory, many of which we disagree with, but we do not know if you
`consider those statements to be material for purposes of this new motion. For example, we do not agree
`that the only way to obtain exclusive use of a netblock is through an RSA or LRSA. We further believe
`it is undisputed that there is an active market for IP addresses that is not controlled by ARIN.
`
`
`
`I hope this clarifies the position of the United States in preparation for the filing of your motions.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`AUSA Sabrina L. Fève
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Naeun Rim <nrim@birdmarella.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 5:29 PM
`
`3
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1584 Page 8 of 15
`To: Feve, Sabrina (USACAS) <sfeve@usa.doj.gov>; Pierson, Melanie (USACAS)
`<MPierson@usa.doj.gov>; dwiechert_aol.com <dwiechert@aol.com>; Jones, Randy
`<RKJones@mintz.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>;
`jriddet@bienertkatzman.com; tbienert@bienertkatzman.com; Gary S. Lincenberg
`<glincenberg@birdmarella.com>
`Subject: RE: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683-GPC, Meet and Confer
`
`
`
`
`
`Sabrina,
`
`
`
`
`
`We have repeatedly identified which facts we believe are not in dispute: none of the facts are in dispute
`because none of them are disputable. The facts are laid out very clearly in the documents we
`referenced—they are in the form of declarations or described in sections that are clearly labeled
`“Background,” where facts are typically located. We have even summarized them—as an example,
`please see page 6 of our reply:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In response to each of these filings, it is the Government that has generally claimed these facts may be
`in dispute but refused to identify a single specific fact that it wishes to challenge. We asked the Court
`during the hearing to require the Government to specify what these so-called hypothetical disputed facts
`are, given that to date, the Government has not yet done. It is the Government’s turn to be specific. We
`have been more than specific.
`
`
`
`
`
`Please stop delaying on taking a position. It will not be difficult for the Government to go through the
`chart it created and simply note whether the government agrees or disagrees. It is not premature, nor is
`it a waste of time.
`
`
`
`4
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1585 Page 9 of 15
`Naeun Rim
`
`Principal
`
`O: 310.201.2100
`
`F: 310.201.2110
`
`E: nrim@birdmarella.com
`
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`
`1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
`
`www.BirdMarella.com
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Feve, Sabrina (USACAS) <Sabrina.Feve@usdoj.gov>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 5:15 PM
`To: Naeun Rim <nrim@birdmarella.com>; Pierson, Melanie (USACAS)
`<Melanie.Pierson@usdoj.gov>; dwiechert_aol.com <dwiechert@aol.com>; Jones, Randy
`<RKJones@mintz.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>;
`jriddet@bienertkatzman.com; tbienert@bienertkatzman.com; Gary S. Lincenberg
`<glincenberg@birdmarella.com>
`Subject: RE: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683-GPC, Meet and Confer
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel-
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants are the moving party and in the sole position to know which facts they believe are material
`and undisputed. The chart we compiled as a gesture of good faith represents our speculation about
`which facts you believe are relevant and undisputed. We do not know if you agree with this list, or if
`you have items to remove, edit, or delete. It would be premature and a waste of time for us to analyze
`and address a speculative list. Please respond with a finalized list containing all the facts that you
`believe are undisputed and material. When we have the chart that all four defendants have reviewed
`and approved, we will analyze and respond to that chart.
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Naeun Rim <nrim@birdmarella.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:33 PM
`To: Feve, Sabrina (USACAS) <sfeve@usa.doj.gov>; Pierson, Melanie (USACAS)
`5
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1586 Page 10 of 15
`<MPierson@usa.doj.gov>; dwiechert aol.com <dwiechert@aol.com>; jessica@wmgattorneys.com;
`Jones, Randy <RKJones@mintz.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>;
`jriddet@bienertkatzman.com; tbienert@bienertkatzman.com; Gary S. Lincenberg
`<glincenberg@birdmarella.com>
`Subject: RE: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683-GPC, Meet and Confer
`
`
`
`
`
`All,
`
`
`
`
`
`Thank you for your letter. You have not identified which of the facts in the chart you prepared are in
`dispute. Please identify those facts, and we will add/respond to your chart as soon as we can.
`
`
`
`
`
`Naeun Rim
`
`Principal
`
`O: 310.201.2100
`
`F: 310.201.2110
`
`E: nrim@birdmarella.com
`
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`
`1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
`
`www.BirdMarella.com
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Feve, Sabrina (USACAS) <Sabrina.Feve@usdoj.gov>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 9:33 AM
`To: Naeun Rim <nrim@birdmarella.com>; Pierson, Melanie (USACAS)
`<Melanie.Pierson@usdoj.gov>; dwiechert aol.com <dwiechert@aol.com>;
`jessica@wmgattorneys.com; Jones, Randy <RKJones@mintz.com>; Whitney Bernstein
`<wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; jriddet@bienertkatzman.com; tbienert@bienertkatzman.com;
`Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>
`Subject: RE: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683-GPC, Meet and Confer
`
`
`
`6
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1587 Page 11 of 15
`Good Morning,
`
`
`
`
`
`Please see the attached correspondence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Naeun Rim <nrim@birdmarella.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 5:02 PM
`To: Pierson, Melanie (USACAS) <MPierson@usa.doj.gov>; dwiechert aol.com
`<dwiechert@aol.com>; jessica@wmgattorneys.com; Jones, Randy <RKJones@mintz.com>; Whitney
`Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>; jriddet@bienertkatzman.com;
`tbienert@bienertkatzman.com; Gary S. Lincenberg <glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Feve, Sabrina
`(USACAS) <sfeve@usa.doj.gov>
`Subject: RE: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683-GPC, Meet and Confer
`
`
`
`
`
`Melanie,
`
`
`
`
`
`Thanks for your email. Hope you are staying safe and healthy. We agree with you that email is
`sufficient to meet and confer.
`
`
`
`
`
`We have identified several times the facts we believe are not in dispute in our moving papers. The facts
`are those as set forth in the declaration of John Curran (Dkts. 107 and 107-1), the declaration of Marc
`Lindsey (Dkts. 116, 116-1), the facts in the motion to dismiss the wire fraud counts, along with all
`accompanying documents (Dkts. 149, 149-1, 149-2), and the reply in support of the wire fraud motion
`(Dkt. 151). Please let us know by Monday which of these facts, if any, the government disputes so that
`we may narrow the issues that remain before the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`Given that the Government submitted the Declaration of John Curran, we assume the Government does
`not plan to dispute those facts, as it is judicially estopped from doing so, especially in light of the
`Court’s denial of our motion to dismiss the CAN-SPAM Counts.
`
`
`
`
`
`Best,
`
`Naeun Rim
`
`7
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1588 Page 12 of 15
`Principal
`
`O: 310.201.2100
`
`F: 310.201.2110
`
`E: nrim@birdmarella.com
`
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`
`1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
`
`www.BirdMarella.com
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Pierson, Melanie (USACAS) <Melanie.Pierson@usdoj.gov>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 3:18 PM
`To: dwiechert_aol.com <dwiechert@aol.com>; jessica@wmgattorneys.com; Jones, Randy
`<RKJones@mintz.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bienertkatzman.com>;
`jriddet@bienertkatzman.com; tbienert@bienertkatzman.com; Gary S. Lincenberg
`<glincenberg@birdmarella.com>; Naeun Rim <nrim@birdmarella.com>; Feve, Sabrina (USACAS)
`<Sabrina.Feve@usdoj.gov>
`Subject: RE: USA v Bychak et al 18cr4683-GPC, Meet and Confer
`
`
`
`
`
`Dear Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`At today’s telephonic status hearing, the court asked counsel to meet and confer regarding the facts in
`dispute as to whether an IP address is property or not. In this age of social distancing and in recognition
`of the difficulty of getting the schedules of all counsel to coincide, the government would propose that
`we meet and confer by way of email. Since you are the moving party in this case, it is requested that
`you identify the facts that you believe are not in dispute. We will reply within three days, to give you
`plenty of time to file your motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`AUSA Melanie Pierson
`
`
`
`8
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1589 Page 13 of 15
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1590 Page 14 of 15
`
`Amanda Baber via RT
`David A. Lincenberg
`[IANA #1169779] Historical obtaining and using IP addresses
`Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:34:03 PM
`
`From:
`To:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Hi David,
`
`Thanks for contacting us.
`
`We recommend reaching out to ARIN and its counsel. They've published law review articles
`on this history and they have primary source material. You may wish to reach out to associate
`general counsel Michael Abejuela <mabejuela@arin.net>.
`
`A colleague adds, "There were no rules prior to ARIN's formation. You first emailed or called
`Jon Postel and got an assignment emailed back or told to you over the phone. Then with SRI
`and DOD and NetSol you filled out a simple form, emailed or faxed or mailed it in, and got an
`assignment back via the same method. None of the assignment paperwork had any rules, and
`no rules were published at the time.
`
`"The RIRs now have lots of rules governing assignments, but those have slowly evolved over
`25 years of RIRs."
`
`Best regards,
`
`Amanda Baber
`Lead IANA Services Specialist
`
`On Mon May 04 23:05:43 2020, dlincenberg@birdmarella.com wrote:
`> Hello,
`>
`> I am hoping that you may be willing to help me with some research
`> regarding the rules for obtaining and using IP addresses, before the
`> RSA, and the LRSA.
`>
`> Did NSI have any written rules, or terms of use?
`>
`> Did NSF have any written rules, or terms of use?
`>
`> Did ArpaNET have any written rules or terms of use?
`>
`> Did IANA/ICANN have any written rules or terms of use?
`>
`> Are there any specific "Requests for Comment" (RFC) that would address
`> rules, or terms of use?
`>
`> Your assistance is appreciated,
`>
`> Sincerely,
`>
`> David A. Lincenberg
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-4 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1591 Page 15 of 15
`
`>
`> David A. Lincenberg
`> Paralegal Assistant
`> O: 310.201.2100
`> F: 310.201.2110
`> E: dlincenberg@birdmarella.com<mailto:dlincenberg@birdmarella.com>
`> Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`> Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`> 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
`> Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
`> www.BirdMarella.com<http://www.birdmarella.com/>
`
`15
`
`