Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 262 Filed 08/04/21 PageID.2977 Page 1 of 6
`
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKYAND POPEO, P.C.
`Randy K. Jones, SBN 141711
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 314-1510
`Email: rkjones@mintz.com
`
`Attorney for Mark Manoogian
`
`
`
`
`WIECHERT, MUNK &
`GOLDSTEIN, PC
`David W. Wiechert, SBN 94607
`Jessica C. Munk, SBN 238832
`27136 Paseo Espada, Suite B1123
`San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
`Telephone: (949) 361-2822
`Email: dwiechert@wmgattorneys.com
` jessica@wmgattorneys.com
`Attorneys for Jacob Bychak
`
`BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT
`BIENERT KATZMAN
`NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG
`LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP
`RHOW P.C.
`Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., SBN 135311
`Gary S. Lincenberg, SBN 123058
`James D. Riddet, SBN 39826
`Nicole Rodriguez Van Dyk, SBN 261646
`Whitney Z. Bernstein, SBN 304917
`Darren L. Patrick, SBN 310727
`903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
`1875 Century Park East, Floor 23
`San Clemente, California 92673
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (949) 369-3700
`Telephone: (310) 201-2100
`Email: tbienert@bklwlaw.com
`Email: glincenberg@birdmarella.com
`
` jriddet@bklwlaw.com
`nvandyk@birdmarella.com
`
` wbernstein@bklwlaw.com
` dpatrick@birdmarella.com
`
`Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`Attorneys for Mohammed Abdul Qayyum
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`JACOB BYCHAK, et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
`COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING
`GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS TO THE
`DEFENSE [DKT. NO. 261]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER [DKT. NO. 261]
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 262 Filed 08/04/21 PageID.2978 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`Defendants Jacob Bychak, Mark Manoogian, Mohammed Abdul Qayyum, and Petr
`
`Pacas (collectively “Defendants”) hereby submit the following Response to the Court’s
`
`Order Directing Government to Provide Additional Materials to the Defense Relating to
`
`Rule 15 Motion to Depose Witness (Dkt. No. 261) (hereinafter referred to as “Court’s
`
`Order”).
`
`The Court’s Order indicates that Defendants only objected to “eight of the email
`
`exchanges” between SAD and the government, but did “not raise[] objections as to any
`
`redactions relating to … sixteen [additional] exhibits.” Dkt. No. 261 at 2. Accordingly, the
`
`Court limited its ruling to the redacted emails in Exhibits A-H. Id. at 2:18-19. The Court is
`
`mistaken that Defendants’ objections were only to Exhibits A-H.
`
`The Defendants’ Response to the Government’s Motion for Rule 15 Depositions
`
`(Dkt. Nos. 251-53 filed under seal) (hereinafter “Defendants’ Rule 15 Response”),
`
`specifically requested “under Jencks and Rule 16, [for] the Court [to] order the
`
`government to disclose to the defense all of its communications with SAD as they are
`
`relevant and discoverable in so far as they relate to potential bias and the witness’s state of
`
`mind.” Defendants’ Rule 15 Response at 2:21-24 (emphasis added). In Defendants’
`
`conclusion of that response, Defendants again requested that the Court “order the
`
`government to produce to the defense all communications it had with SAD, including
`
`unredacted copies of discovery production 32.” Id. at 12 (emphasis added).
`
`At the time Defendants’ filed their Rule 15 Response, discovery production 32
`
`included 28 pages of redacted emails SAD had with the government.1 In order to show the
`
`Court the timeline of SAD’s communications with the government, Defendants’ attached
`
`as exhibits most of the redacted email communications SAD had with the government in
`
`discovery production 32, with the exception of four emails. Those four emails were not
`
`attached as exhibits to Defendants’ Response as these emails were not necessary to show
`
`the overall timeline of SAD’s representations to the government about the upcoming trial
`
`
`1 This production also included 7 pages of documents, largely unredacted that do not
`involve SAD’s communications with the government.
`
`2
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER [DKT. NO. 261]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 262 Filed 08/04/21 PageID.2979 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`and his later referenced purported health conditions.2 However, at no time did Defendants’
`
`fail to request disclosure of these unredacted emails. In fact, as established by Defendants’
`
`Rule 15 Response, Defendants have requested that the Court provide all copies of
`
`unredacted communications SAD had with the government – not just the attached emails
`
`in Exhibits A-H.
`
`In addition, since the Rule 15 briefing, and the July 8, 2021 telephonic hearing on
`
`this matter, the government has produced redacted emails between SAD and the
`
`government in productions 34 (produced July 9, 2021), 35 (produced July 12, 2021), 36
`
`(produced July 16, 2021), and 37 (produced July 20, 2021). Since these productions were
`
`after the hearing, the Defendants were unable to specifically reference them in their Rule
`
`15 Response, but they similarly would be included in Defendants’ requests for all
`
`unredacted communications SAD had with the government. Accordingly, Defendants
`
`continue to request that the Court order the government to produce its redacted
`
`communications with SAD under Jencks and Rule 16 as they are relevant and
`
`discoverable in so far as they relate to potential bias and the witness’s state of mind.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`Dated: August 4, 2021
`
`
`
`
`WIECHERT, MUNK & GOLDSTEIN, PC
`
`By: Jessica C. Munk
` David W. Wiechert
` Jessica C. Munk
` Attorneys for Jacob Bychak
`
`
`
`2 These emails are dated March 3, 2021 (Bates No. ADCONION-DISC32-00024-25),
`March 14, 2021 (Bates No. ADCONION-DISC32-00015), March 29, 2021 (Bates No.
`ADCONION-DISC32-00014), and March 30, 2021 (Bates No. ADCONION-DISC32-
`00013).
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER [DKT. NO. 261]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 262 Filed 08/04/21 PageID.2980 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`Dated: August 4, 2021
`
`Dated: August 4, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 4, 2021
`
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`
`By: Randy K. Jones
` Randy K. Jones
` Attorneys for Mark Manoogian
`
`
`BIENERT KATZMAN
`LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP
`
`By: James D. Riddet
` Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.
` James D. Riddet
` Whitney Z. Bernstein
` Attorneys for Mohammed Abdul Qayyum
`
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
`NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
`RHOW, P.C.
`
`By: Nicole Rodriguez Van Dyk
` Gary S. Lincenberg
`Nicole Rodriguez Van Dyk
` Darren L. Patrick
` Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER [DKT. NO. 261]
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 262 Filed 08/04/21 PageID.2981 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE
`
`Pursuant to section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and
`
`Procedures of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, I
`
`certify that the content of this document is acceptable to counsel for the Defendants and
`
`that I have obtained authorization from Randy K. Jones, James D. Riddet, and Nicole
`
`Rodriguez Van Dyk.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 4, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: s/Jessica C. Munk
` Jessica C. Munk
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 262 Filed 08/04/21 PageID.2982 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`
`
`AUSA Melanie K. Pierson
`AUSA Sabrina L. Feve
`AUSA Ashley E. Goff
`U.S. Attorney’s Office
`880 Front Street, Rm 6293
`San Diego, CA 92101
`melanie.pierson@usdoj.gov
`sabrina.feve@usdoj.gov
`ashley.goff@usdoj.gov
`
`Candina S. Heath
`Department of Justice
`1301 New York Avenue NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20530
`candina.heath2@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`
` I
`
` certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`America that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`Executed on August 4, 2021, at San Juan Capistrano, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Jessica C. Munk
`Jessica C. Munk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`