Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3529 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`WIECHERT, MUNK &
`GLOVSKYAND POPEO, P.C.
`GOLDSTEIN, PC
`Randy K. Jones, SBN 141711
`David W. Wiechert, SBN 94607
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`Jessica C. Munk, SBN 238832
`San Diego, CA 92130
`27136 Paseo Espada, Suite B1123
`Telephone: (858) 314-1510
`San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
`Email: rkjones@mintz.com
`Telephone: (949) 361-2822
`
`Email: dwiechert@wmgattorneys.com
`Daniel J. Goodrich, BBO 692624 (Pro
` jessica@wmgattorneys.com
`Hac)
` william@wmgattorneys.com
`Ryan Dougherty, BBO 703380 (Pro Hac)
`
`1 Financial Center
`
`Boston, MA 02111
`
`djgoodrich@mintz.com
`
`rtdougherty@mintz.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Jacob Bychak
`Attorneys for Mark Manoogian
`
`
`BIRD MARELLA BOXER
`BIENERT KATZMAN
`WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS
`LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP
`LINCENBERG
`Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., SBN 135311
`RHOW P.C.
`James D. Riddet, SBN 39826
`Gary S. Lincenberg, SBN 123058
`Nicole R. Van Dyk, SBN 261646
`Whitney Z. Bernstein, SBN 304917
`Darren L. Patrick, SBN 310727
`Carlos A. Nevarez, SBN 324407
`Alexis A. Wiseley, SBN 330100
`903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
`1875 Century Park East, Floor 23
`San Clemente, California 92673
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 201-2100
`Telephone: (949) 369-3700
`Email: glincenberg@birdmarella.com
`Email: tbienert@bklwlaw.com
`nvandyk@birdmarella.com
`
` jriddet@bklwlaw.com
` dpatrick@birdmarella.com
`
` wbernstein@bklwlaw.com
` awiseley@birdmarella.com
`
` cnevarez@bklwlaw.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`Attorneys for Mohammed Abdul Qayyum
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3530 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR
`RECONSIDERATION AND TO
`COMPEL
`
`[Declaration of Nicole R. Van Dyk and
`Motion to Seal filed concurrently
`herewith under seal.]
`
`Date: November 18, 2021
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Dept.: 2D
`
`
`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 No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3531 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Factual Background ................................................................................ 2
`1.
`The SI Set the Government’s Investigation in Motion
`in 2013. ......................................................................................... 2
`The SI Facilitated the Government’s Communication
`with CY as Early as 2014. ............................................................ 2
`The SI Worked Closely and Continuously with
`the Government From the Outset of the Investigation
`to Today. ....................................................................................... 3
`Procedural Background. .......................................................................... 6
`B.
`III. REGARDLESS OF HIS FORMAL DESIGNATION, THE SI
`HAS FUNCTIONED AS AN INFORMANT SINCE 2013 AND
`INFORMATION REGARDING HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH
`THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE DISCLOSED. ............................................ 8
`IV. EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT SPAMHAUS AND ITS
`AGENTS ARE STATE ACTORS. ................................................................. 11
`THE SI’S IDENTITY AND EVIDENCE REGARDING
`SPAMHAUS IS DICOVERABLE UNDER RULE 16 AND BRADY. .......... 13
`A.
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................... 13
`B.
`The SI’s Identity Should be Disclosed Because it is Material
`to the Defense. ....................................................................................... 15
`1.
`The SI’s Identity is Material Under Rule 16 and Brady. ............ 15
`2.
`The Qualified Informant Privilege Must Yield to
`Defendants’ Due Process Right. ................................................. 17
`Discovery Relating to Spamhaus and the SI is Material Because
`it is Necessary to Defendants’ Constitutional Challenges. ................... 19
`1.
`Discovery is Relevant to Motions Regarding the
`Warrantless Seizure of Company A’s Documents. .................... 21
`Discovery is Relevant to Motions Regarding the SI’s
`Invasion of the Defense Camp. ................................................... 24
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 25
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`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 No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`iii
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3532 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`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
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Brady v. Maryland,
`373 U.S. 83 (1963) ...................................................................................... passim
`Giglio v. United States,
`405 U.S. 150 (1972) ........................................................................................... 14
`Horn v. City of New Haven,
`No. 3:18-CV-1502 (JAM), 2019 WL 3006540
`(D. Conn. July 9, 2019) ...................................................................................... 12
`Kastigar v. United States,
`406 U.S. 441 (1972) ................................................................................... 1, 8, 20
`Kyles v. Whitley,
`514 U.S. 419 (1995) ........................................................................................... 14
`Limone v. United States,
`497 F. Supp. 2d 143
`(D. Mass. 2007) .................................................................................................... 9
`Quezada v. Scribner,
`No. CV047532RSWLMLG, 2013 WL 12340383
`(C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013) ................................................................................... 10
`Roviaro v. United States,
`353 U.S. 53 (1957) ....................................................................................... 17, 18
`United States v. Ackerman,
`831 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 12
`United States v. Aguilar,
`831 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................ 14, 15
`United States v. Armstrong,
`517 U.S. 462 (1996) ........................................................................................... 20
`United States v. Barcelo,
`628 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`iv
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3533 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`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
`
`
`United States v. Bell,
`506 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1974)............................................................................ 18
`United States v. Blackwell,
`No. 3:07-CR-00044-TMB, 2007 WL 9698053
`(D. Alaska June 22, 2007) ............................................................................ 10, 18
`United States v. Budziak,
`697 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 25
`United States v. Danielson,
`325 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 24
`United States v. Gonzalo Beltran,
`915 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................. 17
`United States v. Mazzarella,
`784 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 23
`United States v. Muniz-Jaquez,
`718 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................... 14, 20
`United States v. Nachamie,
`91 F. Supp. 2d 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .................................................................. 18
`United States v. Nobles,
`422 U.S. 225 (1975) ........................................................................................... 24
`United States v. Olsen,
`704 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 14
`United States v. Pesaturo,
`519 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Mass. 2007) ................................................................. 19
`In re Pratt,
`69 Cal. App. 4th 1294 (1999) ............................................................................... 9
`United States v. Price,
`566 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 5, 14
`United States v. Prieto-Villa,
`910 F.2d 601 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................. 20
`United States v. Reed,
`15 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................... 21, 22
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`v
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3534 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`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
`
`
`United States v. Reilly,
`224 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 23
`United States v. Sager,
`227 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 14
`United States v. Segal,
`No. 02-CR-112, 2004 WL 830428
`(N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2004) ..................................................................................... 25
`United States v. Shaffer,
`789 F.2d 682 (9th Cir. 1986) ................................................................................ 2
`United States v. Soto-Zuniga,
`837 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................ 13, 14, 19, 20
`United States v. Struckman,
`611 F.3d 560 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................. 17
`United States v. Sudikoff,
`36 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (C.D.Cal.1999) ............................................................ 14, 20
`United States v. Walther,
`652 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1981) .................................................................. 11, 21, 22
`United States v. Ward,
`No. 4:19-CR-00101-DCN, 2021 WL 738825
`(D. Idaho Feb. 25, 2021) .................................................................................... 19
`United States v. Wirth,
`No. CRIM. 11-256 ADM/JJK, 2012 WL 1110540
`(D. Minn. Apr. 3, 2012) ...................................................................................... 25
`United States v. Wolfenbarger,
`No. 16-CR-00519-LHK-1, 2018 WL 4913753
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2018) ............................................................................. 20, 21
`USA v. Conner,
`No. 15-CR-00296-HSG-1, 2015 WL 8482205
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015) ................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`vi
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3535 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 ........................................................................................... passim
`Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)(i) .......................................................................... 13, 19
`Fed. R. of Evid. Rule 502 ........................................................................................ 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`vii
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3536 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`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.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`On September 20, 2021, Jacob Bychak, Mark Manoogian, Mohammed Abdul
`Qayyum and Petr Pacas (collectively, “Defendants”) filed two motions: a motion for
`reconsideration of this Court’s April 30, 2019 order denying Defendants’ request to
`disclose the identity of the Spamhaus Informant (“SI”) (Dkt. 282-1), and a motion to
`compel discovery of additional communications between the Spamhaus Project and
`the Government (Dkt. 281-1) (together, the “Motions”).
`The Motions seek: (i) disclosure of the SI’s identity in order to interview and
`potentially call the SI as a trial witness, to interview and cross examine other witnesses
`with whom he interacted, and to seek discovery of his communications with potential
`trial witnesses; and (ii) discovery regarding Spamhaus’s and the SI’s cooperation with
`the Government in other investigations in order to mount challenges under the Fourth,
`Fifth and Sixth Amendments, based on the warrantless seizure of Company A’s
`internal documents and the invasion of the defense camp, and to request an
`evidentiary hearing to determine the extent of the resulting taint pursuant to Kastigar
`v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972).
`Defendants submit this Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities
`in further support of the Motions to address three questions raised by the Court at the
`October 4, 2021 hearing: first, when did the SI became a Government informant;
`second, did the Spamhaus Project function as a state actor, rendering the SI, as its
`employee, a state actor; and third, in light of those facts, is discovery of the SI’s
`identity and material regarding Spamhaus’s and the SI’s cooperation with the
`Government discoverable under Rule 16 or Brady. (Oct. 4, 2021 H’rg Tr. 25:7-23.)
`As explained below, the documents suggest that the SI was an FBI informant
`as early as 2013, and that Spamhaus and the SI functioned as state actors throughout
`the Government’s investigation and prosecution of this case. The documents further
`reveal that the Government has in its possession unlawfully obtained internal
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`1
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3537 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`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
`
`
`Company A documents that were passed from a Company A insider to the SI. The
`documents also reveal that the SI has been monitoring defense counsel’s online
`research, and providing information about defense counsel’s search terms to the
`Government. The fact that the Government possesses these documents at all
`“indicates the ‘tip of an iceberg’ of evidence” that should be revealed under Brady.1
`The Motions should therefore be granted.
`II. BACKGROUND
`As an initial matter, a detailed chronology of the SI’s involvement in the
`Government’s investigation and prosecution of this case, as well as the procedural
`history of Defendants’ efforts to obtain the relief sought in the Motions, is necessary
`to fully address the Court’s questions.
`Factual Background
`A.
`The SI Set the Government’s Investigation in Motion in 2013.
`1.
`The SI approached the FBI with information about allegedly “hijacked” IP
`addresses more than eight years ago. On July 12, 2013, the FBI interviewed the SI.
`(Declaration of Nicole Van Dyk (“Van Dyk Decl.”), Ex. 1 (ADCONION-DISC02-
`REPORTS-00980.)2 During that interview, the SI identified Company A as a target
`for the FBI’s investigation and suggested the FBI bring charges under the CAN-
`SPAM Act. (Id. at 981.) The FBI’s 302 Report referred to the SI as “S-00091118.”
`(Id. at 980.) Over the following years, the SI continued to help the government build
`its case, supplying the FBI with information about Company A and Defendants, and
`helping to facilitate the Government’s access to witnesses and evidence.
`The SI Facilitated the Government’s Communication with
`2.
`CY as Early as 2014.
`Beginning in at least 2014—before the FBI collected any “objective” evidence
`
`
`1 United States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 682, 690 (9th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).
`2 Exhibits are submitted under seal as attachments to the Van Dyk Declaration.
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`2
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3538 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`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
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`related to this case—the SI helped the FBI recruit a “vital” insider from Company A
`(hereafter, “CY”), and acted as a liaison between CY and the Government throughout
`the investigation. For example:
`On May 22, 2014, the SI emailed FBI Special Agent Chabalko
`•
`(“Chabalko”) about a “[Company A] informant”—believed to be CY—
`who has been “sending us a ton of info since September 2013,” and
`“knows all of the people we’ll be talking about.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 2
`at ADCONION-DISC26-03284.) Chabalko encouraged the SI to
`facilitate the Government’s access to CY, explaining that “[t]his would
`be vital to our investigation” and asking, “would he be willing to meet
`with us?” (Id. at 3283 (emphasis added).) The SI introduced the FBI to
`CY before it had collected any “objective” evidence. (Id. at 3284.)
`On June 2, 2014, the SI provided Chabalko a “list of IPs announced by
`Hostwinds on behalf of [Company A],” and indicated that he received
`information from a Company A insider who has “intimate knowledge”
`of and “dislikes everyone” at Company A. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 3 at
`ADCONION-DISC02-REPORTS-01014, 1015-1016.) The 302 Report
`referred to the SI as “S-00091118.” (Id. at 1011.)
`On June 7, 2014, the SI emailed Chabalko, letting him know that “[CY]
`is willing to talk,” and assuring him that he “[d]oes not know anything
`except one of our partners is looking into [Company A].” (Van Dyk
`Decl., Ex. 4 at ADCONION-DISC26-02006 (emphasis added).)
`The SI Worked Closely and Continuously with the
`3.
`Government From the Outset of the Investigation to Today.
`The SI’s involvement with the Government began prior to his introduction of
`CY and continued during and after he facilitated the Government’s contact with CY.
`During that time, the SI identified each of the Defendants and key witnesses in the
`case, instructed the Government who to interview and subpoena, and identified the
`netblocks that the Government intends to present in its case-in-chief. For example:
`On July 15, 2013, the SI sent the FBI a report about various IP addresses,
`•
`including some of those that form the basis for the charges in the
`indictment. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 5 at ADCONION-DISC02-REPORTS-
`00984) The FBI’s contemporaneous 302 Report referred to the SI as “S-
`00091118.”
` (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 6 at ADCONION-DISC02-
`REPORTS-00982.)
`On October 18, 2013, the SI emailed the FBI a spreadsheet containing a
`list of “hijacked IP blocks,” including those the Government has placed
`at issue in this case. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 7 at ADCONION-DISC02-
`REPORTS-01004) The contemporaneous FBI Report referred to the SI
`as “S-00091118.” (Id.)
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`3
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3539 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`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
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`On June 2, 2014, the SI provided the FBI with “numerous documents,”
`including a dossier containing “profiles of individuals” purportedly
`“associated with spamming companies.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 3 at
`ADCONION-DISC02-REPORTS-01017)3
`On May 16, 2014—days before he introduced CY—the SI emailed
`Chabalko, writing: “The guy at [Company A] that is arranging all the
`hijacks is Mark Manoogian … if you can subpoena [him] you will find
`a goldmine of info.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 8 at ADCONION-DISC26-
`03281 (emphasis added).)
`On June 11, 2014, Chabalko prepared a 302 Report memorializing his
`June 2, 2014 interview with the SI, stating that Spamhaus “works with
`law enforcement to identify and pursue spammers worldwide” and, as
`such, the SI provided “a list of IPs announced by Hostwinds on behalf of
`[Company A],” including those in the indictment. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex.
`3 at ADCONION-DISC02-REPORTS-01011, 14-15 (emphasis added).)
`On November 30, 2014, the SI sent Chabalko more information about
`Company A and Defendants. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 9 at ADCONION-
`DISC26-03295.) The contemporaneous 302 Report again referred to the
`SI as “S-00091118.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 10 at ADCONION-DISC02-
`REPORTS-01018.)
`Based on information from the SI, the FBI issued its first search warrant for
`Mark Manoogian’s Company A email account on December 23, 2014—after it had
`received information from CY through the SI. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 11 at
`ADCONION-DISC04-SW-00001) In the warrant, Chabalko explained the case
`background and technical aspects of netblocks “[a]ccording to information provided
`by [the SI].” (Id. at 7.)
`As the investigation progressed, and even after the Indictment was filed, the SI
`continued to act as a liaison between CY and the FBI, and continued to pass along
`information obtained through CY’s warrantless seizure of Company A’s internal
`emails, including some that were protected by the attorney-client privilege:
`On December 28, 2015, the SI received more internal Company A
`•
`emails from CY. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 12 at ADCONION-DISC42-
`00028, 32.)
`On September 27, 2017, the SI emailed Chabalko, explaining that CY
`provided “internal [Company A] emails”—including emails involving
`
`3 The dossier that the SI prepared and provided to the Government in June 2014 did
`not mention Defendants Bychak or Qayyum. (See Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 30 at
`ADCONION-DISC39-01752.)
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`4
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3540 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Company A’s in-house counsel—which, according to the SI,
`“implicat[e] various people of doing various things.” (Van Dyk Decl.,
`Ex. 13 at ADCONION-DISC26-02119 (emphasis added).)4
`On October 12, 2017, the SI sent Chabalko “interesting emails” that he
`received from CY (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 14 at ADCONION-DISC27-
`00001), and told Chabalko that he “emailed [CY] and asked him to
`contact you.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 15 at ADCONION-DISC25-
`00841.)5
`On November 8, 2018, the SI emailed Chabalko, encouraging him to
`“[r]ead the linda_libel.txt email in particular”—one of the internal
`Company A emails that CY sent to the SI. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 16 at
`ADCONION-DISC26-03542.)
`On August 25, 2021, the SI emailed Chabalko, writing: “I found the
`[CY] email documents, and to avoid any potential attorney/client
`privilege issues (even though they were sent voluntarily by [CY] and
`not by their attorney herself), I will only provide the headers of the
`emails as well as a summary of the contents to provide some context.”
`(Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 12 at ADCONION-DISC42-00010.)
`The SI also shared with the Government Spamhaus’s non-public resources, as
`well as the SI’s technical know-how, contacts, and detailed reports about Company A
`throughout the investigation. For example:
`On June 4, 2014, the SI provided the Government with the passwords
`•
`to search Spamhaus’s ROKSO database, including the “classified
`records,” which are not available to the public. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 17
`at ADCONION-DISC26-03702.)
`On February 24, 2015, the SI emailed Chabalko with a list of his
`“contacts from within ARIN.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 18 at
`ADCONION-DISC26-03344.) When Chabalko asked whether he
`could “drop [the SI’s] name,” the SI replied, “of course.” (Id.)
`On August 11, 2017, the SI emailed Chabalko “general information
`about [Company A’s] systems (where you might go to find evidence of
`
`4 Notably, there is no indication that the Government advised the SI at this time, or
`at any time thereafter, not to share privileged information. Further, as the Court
`correctly noted at the October 4, 2021 hearing, the fact that the SI asked Chabalko if
`he “want[ed] to see these emails” does not disprove that Spamhaus and the SI
`functioned as state actors at this time. (Oct. 4, 2021 H’rg Tr. 27:20-28:19.)
`5 The Government’s argument that it did not have this information prior to October
`12, 2017 is irrelevant. (Oct. 4, 2021 H’rg Tr. 21:23-22:2.) “The suppression prong
`of Brady may be met … even though a ‘record is not conclusive as to whether the
`individual prosecutor [or investigator] ... actually possessed’ the Brady material.”
`United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900, 910 (9th Cir. 2009) (brackets in original).
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`5
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`•
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3541 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`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
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`mailing from the hijacked ranges),” and added, “I’ll be sending a LOT
`more information soon.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 19 at ADCONION-
`DISC26-00046.)
`Finally, the SI has been actively involved in the prosecution, counseling the
`Government regarding its responses to Defendants’ motions and overall case strategy,
`and providing information regarding defense counsel and their research efforts in
`preparation for trial. For example:
`On June 24, 2020, the SI emailed Chabalko regarding the Government’s
`•
`theory in opposing Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See Van Dyk Decl.,
`Ex. 20 at ADCONION-DISC26-02029.)
`On August 1, 2021, the SI informed the Government that “every one of
`the four [defense] law firms used email filtering systems which
`subscribed to Spamhaus data feeds.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 21 at
`ADCONION-DISC39-00004 (emphasis added).)
`On August 5, 2021, the SI provided Chabalko with detailed rebuttals to
`the arguments set forth in Defendants’ briefs, including Dkts. 70-1, 71-
`1, 83 and 257-1. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 22 at ADCONION-DISC39-
`01817.)
`On September 21, 2021, the SI emailed Chabalko, listing the search dates
`and search terms used in the ROKSO database by someone “working
`for [Company A] and possibly their counsel.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 23
`at ADCONION-DISC45-00001 (emphasis added).)
`On September 26, 2021, the SI informed the Government that the
`“defense attorney[s] [are] … relying on Spamhaus for information on his
`guilty spamming client,” and provided the Government with the search
`terms, timestamp, IP address and physical location of the attorneys
`conducting the search. (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 24 at ADCONION-
`DISC46-00001.)
`On September 28, 2021, the SI emailed Chabalko to inform him of the
`“Backpage mistrial,” indicating that “the defense attorneys will have
`plenty of time to prepare for this trial.” (Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 25 at
`ADCONION-DISC47-00001.)
`Procedural Background.
`B.
`Since the Indictment was filed on October 31, 2018 (Dkt. 1), the parties have
`briefed multiple discovery motions. As the Government made its piecemeal
`productions over the last three years, the basis for these motions has shifted as new
`discovery has revealed additional facts.
`On March 15, 2019, Defendants moved to compel discovery relating to the SI.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`6
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3542 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`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 motion was based solely on documents in the Government’s first four
`productions. Based on these early productions, Defendants began to suspect that “the
`[SI] has essentially acted as an investigative agent for the FBI since 2013.” (Dkt.
`71-1 at p. 16 (emphasis added))
`On July 30, 2021, following 32 more Government productions, Defendants
`filed another motion to compel. The motion was based on newly produced documents
`revealing that the SI served as a liaison between CY and the FBI, and sent internal
`Company A documents that were obtained via a warrantless search to the FBI. (Dkt.
`257-1) This time, Defendants sought identification of all documents in the
`Government’s possession that came from CY in order to determine whether the
`Government had obtained those documents in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
`The Court granted Defendants’ request. (Dkt. 275.)
`On September 20, 2021, based on the Government’s response, Defendants
`moved to compel discovery relating to Spamhaus’s history of cooperating with
`governmental investigations in order to establish that Spamhaus is a state actor. (Dkt.
`281-1.) While this motion was pending, the Government produced a new document
`revealing that the SI had intentionally invaded the defense camp in an attempt to help
`the Government respond to Defendants’ motions. (See Van Dyk Decl., Ex. 24 at
`ADCONION-DISC46-00001.) As a result, Defendants requested leave to file a reply
`addressing the newly produced documents, raising concerns about not only the
`potential Fourth Amendment violations, but also potential Fifth and Sixth
`Amendment violations. (Dkt. 288.)
`Also on September 20, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of
`the Court’s April 30, 2019 order denying disclosure of the SI’s identity on the basis
`of “newly discovered evidence.” (Dkt. 282-1.) The newly discovered evidence
`revealed close and continuous cooperation between the SI and the Government
`starting in May 2014 and continuing to the present, as well as the SI’s name, which
`the Government inadvertently produced. (Id. at 3-4.) This information was included
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`7
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 295 Filed 10/18/21 PageID.3543 Page 15 of 35
`
`
`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 the Government’s 26th through 47th productions, starting on February 12, 2021,
`nearly two years after the Court first considered Defendants’ request. (Id.)6
`Against this backdrop, Defendants seek (i) formal disclosure of the SI’s identity
`in order to attempt to interview and potentially call the SI as a trial witness, to
`interview and cross-examine other witnesses with whom he interacted, and to seek
`discovery of his communications with potential trial witnesses; and (ii) discovery
`relating to the SI and Spamhaus’s relationship with the Government in order to mount
`constitutional challenges under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments based on the
`warrantless seizure of Company A’s internal documents and invasion of the defense
`camp, and to request a Kastigar hearing to determine the extent of the resulting taint.7
`III. REGARDLESS OF HIS FORMAL DESIGNATION, THE SI HAS
`FUNCTIONED AS AN
`INFORMANT
`SINCE
`2013 AND
`INFORMATION REGARDING HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE
`GOVERNMENT MUST BE DISCLOSED.
`The Motions seek, among other things, information showing the extent of the
`relationship between the SI and the Government, including the Government’