Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 315 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.4083 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`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@aol.com
`Daniel J. Goodrich, BBO 692624 (Pro
` jessica@wmgattorneys.com
`Hac)
`
`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 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
`Darren L. Patrick, SBN 310727
`Whitney Z. Bernstein, SBN 304917
`Alexis A. Wiseley, SBN 330100
`Carlos A. Nevarez, SBN 324407
`1875 Century Park East, Floor 23
`903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`San Clemente, California 92673
`Telephone: (310) 201-2100
`Email: glincenberg@birdmarella.com
`Telephone: (949) 369-3700
` nvandyk@birdmarella.com
`Email: tbienert@bklwlaw.com
` dpatrick@birdmarella.com
`
` jriddet@bklwlaw.com
` awiseley@birdmarella.com
`
` wbernstein@bklwlaw.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
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 315 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.4084 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`
`Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL
`
`REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE
`v.
`IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`INVOLVING SPECIAL AGENT
`CHABALKO
`JACOB BYCHAK, et al.,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Date: January 21, 2021
`Time: 2:30 p.m.
`Dept.: 2D
`
`
`On November 18, 2021, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ Supplemental
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their Motions for
`Reconsideration and to Compel (the “Supplemental MPA”).1 At the hearing, defense
`counsel highlighted for the Court evidence demonstrating that: (1) the Spamhaus
`Informant viewed certain internal Company A emails as potentially privileged, yet
`conveyed the information in those emails—with the caveat that it may be privileged—
`
`
`1 Undefined terms have the meanings ascribed to them in the Supplemental MPA.
`(See Dkt. 295.) Exhibits are to the under seal Van Dyk Declaration (Dkt. 298) and
`Supplemental Van Dyk Declaration (Dkt. 312).
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`1
`DEFENDANTS' PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 315 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.4085 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`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
`
`
`to Agent Chabalko anyway (see, e.g., Exs. 12 & 13); (2) the Spamhaus Informant has
`a pattern of reviewing search terms in Spamhaus’s ROKSO database and sharing that
`information—including the search terms used by defense attorneys—with Agent
`Chabalko, who never told him to stop (see, e.g., Exs. 24 & 29); and (3) the frequency
`and nature of the communications between Agent Chabalko and the Spamhaus
`Informant, together with the Government’s recent disclosure of a 2016 joint
`PowerPoint presentation involving Agent Chabalko and the Spamhaus Informant,
`indicates a close relationship that bears on Defendants’ claim that the Spamhaus
`Informant is a state actor (see, e.g., Exs. 2 & 32).
`In light of this evidence, the Court noted that Defendants “identif[ied] a
`possible, viable theory” relevant to their defense, and scheduled a January 21, 2022
`evidentiary hearing involving Agent Chabalko. (11/18/2021 Tr. 71:18, 72:13-14.)
`Under settled Ninth Circuit law requiring only a “minimal threshold showing” of
`“relevan[ce] and helpful[ness],” evidence unearthed at the January 21, 2022 hearing
`could lead to further discovery concerning the Spamhaus Informant. United States v.
`Henderson, 241 F.3d 638, 645 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended (Mar. 5, 2001) (“[A]
`district court must hold an in camera hearing whenever the defendant makes a
`‘minimal threshold showing’ that disclosure would be relevant to at least one
`defense,” as it “poses ‘little risk of disclosing the identity of the informant’ and may
`provide many of the same benefits as disclosure itself, especially when defense
`counsel may participate.”)2
`
`
`2
`Indeed, once a defendant has made such a showing, “there is ordinarily no
`governmental interest to balance against the defendant’s [sic] in deciding whether to
`hold an in camera hearing.” United States v. Spires, 3 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 1993)
`(emphasis added) (ordering in camera hearing, explaining that it is “favored
`procedure” where information may be “relevant and helpful” because it “provide[s]
`many of the same benefits as disclosure itself, particularly where defendant’s counsel
`is allowed to participate,” “bears little risk of disclosing the identity of the informant
`and does not jeopardize the government’s future use of that individual.”); United
`States v. Amador-Galvan, 9 F.3d 1414, 1417 (9th Cir. 1993) (ordering in camera
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 315 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.4086 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`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
`
`
`The Court explained that “the only question” as to the January 21, 2022
`evidentiary hearing is “the scope of the hearing.” (11/18/2021 H’rg Tr. at 72:15-16.)
`As explained below, Defendants propose that the evidentiary hearing encompass two
`issues: first, the invasion of the attorney-client privilege and defense camp in this case
`and, second, the interrelationship between Agent Chabalko and the Spamhaus
`Informant as it relates to Defendants’ anticipated motion to suppress.
`1.
`Proposed Scope of the January 21, 2022 Evidentiary Hearing.
`The Invasion of the Attorney-Client Privilege & Defense Camp. The Court
`expressed concern about the Spamhaus Informant, “given what we have learned about
`his zeal for investigations, and specifically investigations involving these defendants,
`which led the government then to go to their professional responsibility advisor to
`learn what steps they should take in response to information that had been brought to
`their attention.” (11/18/2021 Tr. 68:1-8.)
`Consistent with the Court’s concern, as well as case law permitting discovery
`“to show that the FBI had knowledge of and encouraged [a] pattern of … activity”
`and “acquiesced in such activity,” United States v. Wolfenbarger, No. 16-CR-00519-
`LHK-1, 2018 WL 4913753, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2018), “the thoroughness of the
`Government’s investigation,” United States v. Chen, No. 17-CR-00603-BLF-1, 2021
`WL 2662116, at *11 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2021), and “the software application[s] used
`by the Government,” United States v. Budziak, 697 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012),
`Defendants propose the following topics for the January 21, 2022 evidentiary hearing:
`The Government’s direction, knowledge of, and/or acquiescence in, the
`•
`Spamhaus Informant’s receipt and provision to the Government of
`potentially privileged documents;
`The Government’s direction, knowledge of, and/or acquiescence in, the
`
`•
`
`
`hearing, explaining that “[t]he district court … must hold such a hearing where the
`defendant has shown that the information would be ‘relevant and helpful’”).
`Defendants have asked the Court to conduct such a hearing in light of the Court’s
`tentative ruling on Defendants’ Motions. (See 11/18/2021 H’rg Tr. 66:22-24.)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 315 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.4087 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`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
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Spamhaus Informant’s invasion of the defense camp;
`The Government’s failure to follow its policies and procedures related to
`the handling of privileged, work product, and/or confidential
`information; and
`The Government’s use of the law enforcement portal in Spamhaus’s
`ROKSO database or any other Spamhaus resources to invade the defense
`camp or investigate the Defendants and charges in this case.
`The Interrelationship Between Agent Chabalko and the Spamhaus Informant.
`The Court likewise expressed the need to “learn a little bit more about the relationship
`between the agent and the Spamhaus informant,” given the Government’s recent
`disclosure of the 2016 joint PowerPoint presentation between the Spamhaus
`Informant and Agent Chabalko (see Ex. 32), which counsel for the Government only
`learned about in the course of responding to Defendants’ Supplemental MPA and
`disclosed to Defendants on October 29, 2021—three years after its indictment.
`(11/18/2021 H’rg Tr. 67:1-11.) To that end, Defendants propose the following topics
`concerning the interrelationship between Agent Chabalko and the Spamhaus
`Informant for the January 21, 2022 evidentiary hearing:
`Interactions between Agent Chabalko and the Spamhaus Informant, and
`•
`Agent Chabalko’s memorialization of, or failure to memorialize, such
`interactions;
`Materials created by or in collaboration with the Spamhaus Informant
`relating to the Defendants and charges in this case, including any
`memoranda, presentations, reports or any other form of work product;
`Information obtained from the Spamhaus Informant relating to Company
`A, Defendants, and persons or entities connected to them, including the
`Spamhaus Informant’s source of such information;
`Documents and communications concerning the Spamhaus Informant,
`Spamhaus, contacting potential witnesses (including, but not limited to,
`CY, ANON-1 and/or the Company A informant), and/or investigative
`strategy involving Spamhaus or the Spamhaus Informant in connection
`with this case;
`Agent Chabalko’s knowledge of the history of the Spamhaus
`Informant’s activities in conjunction with law enforcement, and of the
`interaction between Spamhaus and law enforcement;
`Agent Chabalko’s training and experience relating to confidential
`informants; and
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 315 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.4088 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`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
`
`
`•
`
`The Government’s failure to follow its policies and procedures related to
`the handling of confidential informants.
`Relatedly, the Court ordered the Government to obtain and review the FBI’s
`confidential informant file for the Spamhaus Informant, as well as any “internal
`summary reports relating to [Agent] Chabalko and the Spamhaus informant’s
`interrelationship.” (11/28/2021 H’rg Tr. 74:9-15, 75:7-16.) To the extent that the
`Government discloses any new documents or information (and to the extent not
`already encompassed by the topics above), Defendants propose that the January 21,
`2022 evidentiary hearing address the newly disclosed evidence.
`2.
`Proposed Length of the January 21, 2022 Evidentiary Hearing.
`Defendants propose that the Court allot three hours for the evidentiary hearing
`with Agent Chabalko, subject to an extension of time based upon a showing of good
`cause by the parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 315 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.4089 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
`NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERT &
`RHOW, P.C.
` By: s/ Nicole Rodriguez Van Dyk
`Nicole Rodriguez Van Dyk
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Darren L. Patrick
`Alexis A. Wiseley
`Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`
`
`
`
`
` WIECHERT, MUNK & GOLDSTEIN, PC
` By: s/ Jessica C. Munk
`Jessica C. Munk
`David W. Wiechert
`Attorneys for Jacob Bychak
`
`
`
` BIENERT KATZMAN
`LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP
` By: s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein
`
`Whitney Z. Bernstein
`Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.
`James D. Riddet
`Carlos A. Nevarez
`Attorneys for Mohammed Abdul Qayyum
`
`
`
`COHN,
`LEVIN,
` MINTZ,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
` By: s/ Randy K. Jones
`Randy K. Jones
`Daniel J. Goodrich (Pro Hac)
`Ryan Dougherty (Pro Hac)
`Attorneys for Mark Manoogian
`
`
`FERRIS,
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 3, 2021
`
`
`
`Dated: December 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 315 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.4090 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`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 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
`Defendants and that I have obtained authorization from Jessica C. Munk, Whitney
`Z. Bernstein and Randy K. Jones to affix their electronic signatures to this
`document.
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: December 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s Nicole R. Van Dyk
`Nicole R. Van Dyk
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Darren L. Patrick
`Alexis A. Wiseley
`
`
`
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`Attorneys for Defendant Petr Pacas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`7
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 315 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.4091 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Counsel for Defendants certify that the foregoing pleading has been
`electronically served on the following parties by virtue of their registration with the
`CM/ECF system:
`
`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
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: December 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s Nicole R. Van Dyk
`Nicole R. Van Dyk
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Darren L. Patrick
`Alexis A. Wiseley
`
`
`
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`Attorneys for Defendant Petr Pacas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-CR-4683-GPC
`8
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IN CAMERA HEARING
`
`