Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4515 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`RANDY S. GROSSMAN
`United States Attorney
`MELANIE K. PIERSON
`SABRINA L. FEVE
`Assistant U.S. Attorneys
`California Bar No. 112520/226590
`Office of the U.S. Attorney
`880 Front Street, Room 6293
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel: (619) 546-7976
`Fax: (619) 546-0631
`Email:Melanie.Pierson@usdoj.gov/Sabrina.Feve@usdoj.gov
`
`CANDINA S. HEATH
`Senior Counsel
`Texas Bar No. 09347450
`Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel: (202) 307-1049
`Email: Candina.Heath2@usdoj.gov
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`United States of America
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Case No.: 18cr4683-GPC
`
`
`UNITED STATES’ MOTIONS IN
`
`Plaintiff,
`LIMINE FOR:
`
`v.
`
`
`
`(1) RULING ON OBJECTIONS
`JACOB BYCHAK (1),
`& EXHIBITS DURING
`MARK MANOOGIAN (2),
`DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
`ABDUL MOHAMMED QAYYUM (3), and
`OF L.W.T.; and
`PETR PACAS (4),
`(2) RULING ON OBJECTIONS
`
`
`Defendants.
`& EXHIBITS DURING
`
`DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
`
`OF S.A.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMES NOW the plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel,
`Randy S. Grossman, United States Attorney, and Assistant United States Attorneys
`Melanie K. Pierson, Sabrina L. Fève, and Computer Crime and Intellectual Property
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4516 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`Section Senior Counsel Candy Heath, and hereby files its above-referenced Motions in
`Limine, based on the files and records in this case, and the attached exhibits (including
`three filed under seal).
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On September 9, 2021, and September 15, 2021, pursuant to a court order, the
`government deposed witnesses LWT and SAD, respectively. Thereafter, the government
`produced the deposition videos and the transcripts thereof in discovery. The parties have
`since met and conferred on their respective objections. On those issues where there was
`agreement, the government redacted the testimony that both parties agreed should be
`removed, along with any objections of counsel.
`In the attached deposition transcripts, the red highlighted items are those the
`government seeks to admit which the defense seeks to exclude, and the green highlighted
`items are those the defense seeks to admit which the government seeks to exclude. The
`yellow highlights represent the objections lodged on the record related to the green or red
`highlighted items. The parties have agreed to the admissibility of all the exhibits introduced
`through LWT and all but five of the exhibits introduced through SAD. The United States
`now asks the Court to admit the unchallenged testimony and exhibits and further requests
`rulings on the parties’ outstanding evidentiary disputes. The deposition of LWT is attached
`as Exhibit 1, and the deposition of SAD is attached as Exhibit 2. The five disputed exhibits
`from SAD’s deposition are attached as Exhibits 3 through 7 (exhibit 3-5 are filed under
`seal).
`
`II.
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`After depositions were taken of witnesses LWT and SAD, the parties stipulated that
`those two witnesses were unavailable to testify at trial, due to infirmity. [ECF 285.] This
`stipulation allows their sworn deposition testimony to be admitted at trial over a hearsay
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`2
`
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4517 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`objection, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 804(b)(1). The remaining rules
`of evidence are nonetheless applicable.
`A. The Deposition of LWT (Exhibit 1)
`1. Lack of Objection During the Deposition Waives the Challenge.
`Rule 15(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a deposition in
`a criminal case must be taken “in the same manner as a deposition in a civil matter.” Rule
`15(g) further provides that a “party objecting to deposition testimony or evidence must
`state the grounds for the objection during the deposition.” Rule 30(c)(2) of the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure further requires that “objection at the time of the examination—
`whether to evidence, to a party's conduct, to the officer's qualifications, to the manner of
`taking the deposition, or to any other aspect of the deposition—must be noted on the
`record.” Nguyen v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 15CV758-LAB (RBB), 2017 WL 951026, at
`*2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2017). Rule 32(d)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`(“FRCivP”) requires that a timely objection be made to errors and irregularities at an oral
`examination, and failure to lodge a contemporaneous objection waives the grievance.1
`Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 178 F. Supp. 3d 867, 903 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Failure to
`object subjects the party to the maxim “[s]ilence, when speech is due, defeats later
`objection.” Concrete Mixing and Conveying v. Great Western Power Co. of California, 46
`F. 2d 331, 332 (N.D. Cal. 1928).
`In the LWT transcript (Exhibit 1), no objection was raised by the defense during the
`deposition to the following testimony:
`-page12, lines 20-5, page13, lines 1-3 [witness explained purpose of her company]
`-page 35, lines 8-12 [witness stated attorneys researched the history of the netblock]
`-page 39, lines 12-16 [witness testified that she believed the netblock was an asset]
`-page 51, lines 15-20 [witness testified she was doing her best to answer but had
`suffered a stroke].
`
`
`1 Failure to object, under the rule, does not waive objections to competence, relevance or
`materiality, unless the ground for it might have been corrected at the time.
`3
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4518 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`Because no contemporaneous objection was made, the objections should be deemed
`waived. Moreover, it is impossible for the government to know the defense objection to
`such evidence and respond herein. The United States requests an opportunity to respond
`to any future objections raised by the defense.
`The United States maintains that the above evidence is relevant and admissible under
`FRE 401, as it will assist the jury in understanding the nature of the business assigned to
`the netblock, the due diligence performed by the witness prior to the sale of the netblock,
`the witness’s understanding of any value of the netblock and the reason for any problems
`or affect the witness might have had in testifying. The defense should also have permitted
`the government an opportunity to cure any potential defect by raising a timely objection
`and their failure to do so should not prejudice the government.
`2. Vague and Confusing Testimony Should be Excluded under Rule 403.
`Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that the court may exclude
`relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`confusing the issues or misleading the jury. During the cross-examination of LWT, defense
`counsel sought to establish that LWT had not spoken to the individual defendants. The
`witness was asked if she had met or spoken with one of the defendants, to which she replied
`that she had not spoken to anyone in “the book.” [Exhibit 1, page 49, lines 4-12.] The
`reference to “the book” referred to a book of exhibits that was placed before the witness
`during the deposition. The government objected to the question as vague. The witness’
`reference to “the book” has the strong potential to confuse or mislead the jury into assuming
`that “the book” refers to the book of all trial exhibits, rather than the book with a limited
`number of exhibits for the deposition that was presented to the witness. As defense counsel
`also established on the record that the witness had not spoken to the individual defendants
`in this case, this additional piece of confusing evidence is cumulative.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`4
`
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4519 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`3. The Remaining Defense Objections Should be Denied.
`After establishing that LWT was the president and CEO of her company and had
`handled the sale of the netblock in 2016 (after it was hijacked by the defendants), the
`witness was asked if she viewed the IP addresses sold to be corporate assets. Defense
`counsel objected to the question as vague, and lacking foundation. The witness then
`answered that she considered the IP addresses to be assets. [Exhibit 1, p. 23, line 24
`through p. 25, line 4.] The foundation had been abundantly established, with testimony
`that LWT, president and CEO of the company, had sold the netblock for $850,000 and had
`authenticated a contract and escrow agreement she had signed on behalf of the company in
`relation to the sale. Such a foundation is more than adequate to allow the witness to state
`whether she considered the IP addresses to be corporate assets. Moreover, such a question
`is quite specific, and not vague.
`LWT testified that a broker was involved in the sale of the netblock assigned to her
`company. The witness was asked if she knew how the broker determined she was the owner
`of the IP addresses involved in the sale. The witness responded that the broker “hired an
`attorney” who “reviewed files and did research” and “assured me that the ownership was
`indeed” her company. The defense objected to the question based on hearsay and lack of
`foundation. [Exhibit 1, p. 25, lines 5-12.] While the statement of the broker regarding
`ownership is an out of court statement, it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted
`(i.e., that LWT was the owner of the netblock), but for the effect on the listener (i.e., she
`understood that she was the rightful owner). The question and answer are also offered to
`show how it was possible to research and identify the netblock’s owner. As the president
`and CEO of the company, who participated in the sale of the netblock (and signed the
`transfer documents), LWT was aware of the full nature of the services she received from
`the broker. Accordingly, an adequate foundation was laid for the question and the question
`and answer should be admitted.
`Finally, the witness was asked a series of questions to elicit the evidence regarding
`the effect on the victim of the use of the netblock to send spam and the use of her company’s
`5
`
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4520 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`name without permission, to which the defense objected on the grounds of foundation,
`relevance, and vagueness. [Exhibit 1, p. 31, line 10 through p. 32, line 3.] Victims of fraud
`are permitted to testify at trial about how they were affected by the crime. In United States
`v. Green, 428 F.3d 1131, 1344 (8th Cir. 2005), the victims of the fraud were permitted to
`testify “about their experience, recounting the steps taken to prove that they did not
`purchase the equipment and to repair their credit.” Green found the victims’ testimony to
`be relevant and even “emotional,” but not to the extent that it would lure the factfinder into
`finding guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged, citing Old
`Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997). Id. In this case, the testimony of the witness
`that the image of her company was harmed by the use of the netblocks to send spam and
`that she was shocked and felt violated to learn that her property was used without
`authorization is relevant to show that the defendants deprived LWT and her company of a
`property interest (including business goodwill), acted without authorization in using her
`company’s name and netblock to send spam, and could not reasonably believe their scheme
`was a “victimless” crime involving forgotten or abandoned property, but is not so
`inflammatory that it should be excluded.
`B. The Deposition of SAD (Exhibit 2)
`1. Speaking Objections and Arguments of Counsel Should be Excluded.
`Rule 30(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that objections on the
`record be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. Speaking
`objections are improper. Van Osten v. Home Depot, 2021 WL 3471581 * 14 (S.D. Cal,
`2021). Moreover, arguments of counsel are not evidence, United States v. Nicoechea. 986
`F. 2d 1273, 1280 (9thCir. 1993), nor are statements and objections of counsel. Ninth Circuit
`Model Jury Instruction 1.4 [What is Not Evidence]. Accordingly, all objections of counsel
`should be excluded from the record, after the court rules.
`In particular, the defense seeks to present to the jury statements of defense counsel
`at the deposition of SAD to the effect that the testimony of the witness was “improper” and
`“unacceptable” [Exhibit 2, page 109, line 25 through page 110, line 22], as well the
`6
`
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4521 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`counsel’s statement that the witness was “evasive.” [Exhibit 2, page174, lines 8-13]. Such
`statements by counsel are clearly not evidence in any way and should not be presented to
`the jury.
`2. Improper Cross Examination Should be Excluded.
`
`It is improper during cross examination to tell the jury the substance of inadmissible
`
`evidence. United States v. Sanchez, 176 F. 3d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir. 1999). This principle
`gives rise to the common objection of “reading from items not in evidence.” The emails
`that defense counsel read aloud were inadmissible hearsay. Pursuant to FRE 801(d)(1) a
`prior statement of a witness is not hearsay if the statement “is inconsistent with the
`declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury,” or “is consistent with the
`declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant
`recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying.”
`The emails at issue were neither inconsistent with the testimony of the witness, nor
`provided under penalty of perjury. Nor were they consistent statements, offered to rebut an
`alleged recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive, as no allegation of recent
`fabrication, influence, or motive was raised. Accordingly, the contents of the emails are
`inadmissible hearsay which cannot be presented to the jury.
`In addition, the emails themselves that defense counsel asked SAD to read aloud
`were inadmissible extrinsic evidence of the witness’s prior statements. Pursuant to FRE
`613(b), “extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if
`the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party
`is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it.” FRE 613(b) clearly contemplates
`that extrinsic evidence is only admissible if the prior statement was inconsistent with the
`statement provided to the tribunal. During the examination, SAD made no statement that
`was inconsistent with the emails prior to defense counsel reading (or asking SAD to read)
`the content of the emails into the record. Accordingly, the emails are not admissible under
`FRE 613(b).
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`7
`
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4522 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`The examination of the witness regarding the emails begins on page 84 of the
`transcript, where defense counsel, having established that SAD reviewed the emails in
`preparation for his testimony, began to read from the one of the emails:
`Q: Okay. The next line you say “I have had horrible email conversations…
`
`Govt Counsel: Objection. Reading from a doc-
`Q: …with your fellow officers of the court in San Diego.”
`
`Govt Counsel: Objection. Reading from a document not in evidence.
`Q: How many – how many emails have you – did you – were you referring to there
`that you had with – with fellow officer of the court in San Diego?
`[Exhibit 1, p. 89, lines 11-22].
`After receiving a response from the witness about the number of emails, defense counsel
`continued reading from the email:
`Q: Okay. And then you also said, “I informed them that any future communications
`should be done by San Diego personnel in person.” Why did you write that sir?
`
`Govt Counsel: Objection, relevance.
`A: Why did I write that?
`Q: Yes.
`A: Because of the fact they were going to force me to fly to San Diego.
`Q: Okay. In fact, you say “This is because they need to feel the pain they would be
`putting me through by forcing me to appear in person by flying coast to coast when
`there is technology to do the same thing remotely.”
`
`Govt Counsel: Objection, reading from document not in evidence.
`Q: Do you remember saying that sir?
`A: Can you restate the question again?
`Q: That next sentence, why don’t you read it to me that begins with “This is.”
`[Exhibit 1, page 92, line 1-20.]
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`8
`
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4523 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`Defense counsel then insisted that SAD read the section from the email aloud, and SAD
`complied. This pattern continued throughout the examination regarding the emails of the
`witness.
`
`Q: Okay. Let’s go to – to the next paragraph and the second sentence from the
`bottom of that paragraph that says, “I also do not trust the prosecutor.” Can you read that
`please? [page 94, line 24 through page 95, line 2.]
`
`Q: Then read the next sentence after that sir. [page 95, lines 8-9.]
`Q: Sir, let’s go to the second paragraph that begins with the number 2. And if you
`don’t mind, could you read the entire paragraph beginning with – this is indicated –
`designated as num- with the number 2? [page 106, lines 19-23]
`Q: Okay sir. In this email, if you look at paragraph 3, it has the number 3? Can you
`read that paragraph to us? [page 111, lines 19-21]
`Q: Okay, do you recall in paragraph 2 that reads. “Bearing item number 1 in mind,
`please arrange to take me off the witness list as I will only testify under duress caused
`by the states attorney. Don’t I have a Fifth – Fifth Amendment rights not to testify?”
`[page 122, lines 22-25, page 123, line 1.]
`Further examples of this practice of reading from the emails can be found in the transcript
`as follows: page 123, lines 23-35; page 124, lines 2-6; page 126, lines 5-11; pages 127,
`lines 2-7; and page 130, lines 1-4.
`
`The witness did not make any inconsistent statements that required impeachment at
`all during the examination. To the extent that SAD was asked if his prior statements were
`true, the witness confirmed they were true, and were consistent with the statements
`provided at the deposition. (See, for example, Exhibit 1, page 103, lines 1-4.).
`Accordingly, there is no basis for the hearsay exception for prior consistent statement to
`rebut recent fabrication, or the admissibility of the emails as extrinsic evidence of prior
`inconsistent statements. Therefore, both the emails the defense seeks to admit, as well as
`the improper cross examination regarding those emails, should be excluded.
`
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`9
`
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4524 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`3. Evidence Related to SAD’s Displeasure Regarding Travel to San Diego to
`Testify Should Be Excluded as Irrelevant.
`FRE 402 states that “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Only relevant evidence
`may be admitted at trial. United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001). The
`relevance of a particular piece of evidence is determined by the facts of the case. Id.
`Relevance is not inherent in any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an
`item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Id. FRE 401 states that
`evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
`consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would
`be without the evidence.
`The United States requests that the court exclude portions of the cross examination
`and defense exhibits used with SAD as lacking relevance under FRE 402. Specifically, the
`government requests the court exclude from the jury’s view any testimony elicited
`regarding SAD’s personal travel plans and SAD’s email communications with the
`government regarding his displeasure with the government at having to travel.
`During the cross examination of SAD, defense counsel extensively explored SAD’s
`vacation that conflicted with the prior trial date, as well as three emails written by SAD,
`wherein SAD discussed his infirmity and complained bitterly that representatives of the
`government did not appear to be sympathetic to his desire not to travel to San Diego during
`the pandemic. The government consistently objected to such testimony as irrelevant. Since,
`after the deposition, the defense has stipulated that SAD is unavailable, that line of
`questioning bears no relevance to any issue now before the court.
`While any infirmity that might affect SAD’s ability to perceive or recall facts at issue
`is a fair subject for cross examination, questions about his vacation travel or his displeasure
`with the government’s request that he appear in San Diego to testify at trial do not make
`any fact of consequence to the determination of any issue before the jury more or less
`probable. For example, during SAD’s deposition, defense counsel emphasized portions of
`the emails wherein the witness stated that the government made him “feel like a criminal,”
`put him through “four months of hell,” that he did “not trust the prosecutor to have my
`10
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4525 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`back on the witness stand,” and the prosecutor “comes across to me as only wanting
`victories in her court cases.” The witness later explained that the reason he made those
`statements stemmed from the prosecution being “unsympathetic to the point of doing a
`remote testimony.” [Exhibit 2, p. 96.] As the danger of unfair prejudice far outweighs any
`imagined probative value, the statements should further be excluded under FRE 403.
`Because the statements related only to SAD’s desire to avoid traveling to San Diego
`to testify, they offer no insight into the credibility of the witness in general, or to the
`motives of the witness when not asked to travel. The Supreme Court has noted that
`Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment entitles the defense to explore on cross
`examination a witness’s “motive for favoring the prosecution in his testimony.” Delaware
`v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). The statements the defense seeks to admit are
`not evidence of the witness’s motive for favoring the prosecution and should be excluded.
`In Van Arsdall, the Court stated, “trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the
`Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination
`based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the
`issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
`Id. As SAD’s contested statements are not relevant to issues the jury must decide, and only
`demonstrate an animosity towards the government subpoenaing him to testify, rather than
`a motive for favoring the prosecution, they should be excluded.
`The segments of the transcript objected to on the grounds of relevance include all
`the items the defense seeks to include in Exhibit 2 on pages 92-100, 104-116, and 120-132,
`which are highlighted in green, as well as the three emails offered as exhibits by the
`defense, attached here as Exhibits 3, 4 and 5.
`4. The Remaining Defense Objections Should be Denied.
`The defense objected to a series of questions to SAD to establish a foundation to
`admit two documents as company business records, as well as the admission of the
`documents themselves. The documents are the application for the original assignment of a
`particular netblock (attached here as Exhibit 6) and the letter to SAD’s then-employer,
`11
`
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4526 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`assigning the netblock (attached here as Exhibit 7). This discussion began on page 24, line
`7 of the transcript (Exhibit 2), and concluded on page 29, line 6. SAD testified that he
`personally filled out the application for the netblock on behalf of his company in 1993,
`faxed it to Network Solutions (who was assigning netblocks at that time, as one of the
`predecessors to ARIN), and received the letter of assignment a few days later in response.
`SAD testified that the records were used, maintained, and relied upon by his company.
`As the person who both prepared and maintained the records for the company in the
`ordinary course of his business, contemporaneously with the dates on the documents, the
`witness provided the proper foundation for the admission of the referenced exhibits as
`business records, satisfying the requirements as an exception to the hearsay rule found at
`FRE 803(6). A document kept in the ordinary course by one business, but not made by the
`business, can nonetheless qualify as a business record of FRE 803(6) if the record was kept
`in the regular course and the business relied on the document. United States v. Childs, 5
`F.3d 1328, 1334 (9th Cir. 1993). Because the witness provided the appropriate foundation
`and the records meet the requirements for the business records exception to the hearsay
`rule, the defense objections should be denied. Moreover, these records are especially
`probative in this case, as they will provide the jury with information regarding exactly how
`companies obtained netblocks prior to the inception of ARIN (the American Registry of
`Internet Numbers), and how the companies were advised of the IP addresses which were
`assigned to them. The documents also are relevant to show that the netblock at issue was
`assigned to the company for which the witness worked, and not the defendants.
`The defense further objected to a series of questions designed to explain to the jury
`the importance of the netblock to the witness’s company. The witness testified that it was
`important so that the company could grow and compete with sales offices in remote
`locations that could communicate on the company network. The witness, a supervisor of
`technical services and computer operations, noted that the mainframe computer the
`company had been using was no longer sufficient for the needs of the company. This
`testimony, which is relevant and admissible over defense objections regarding lack of
`12
`
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4527 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`foundation, personal knowledge, vagueness, and relevance, is found on Exhibit 2, pages
`37-38, highlighted in red.
`The defense also objected to a question establishing that the assignment of the
`netblock was intended for use by the witness’s company alone. The witness was asked,
`“was that internet range allowed to be used by any other company or any other individual?”
`The witness stated that Network Solutions “assigned the class B IP address network 167.87
`to [his company] alone.” [Exhibit 2, page 39, lines 3-15.] The question was not vague, did
`not call for a legal conclusion, and as a supervisor of computer operations who personally
`filed the application and received the assignment, had full knowledge and awareness of
`how the netblock could be used. The use of the netblock is also pertinent to the issue of
`what sorts of possessory rights and interests netblock registrants had, including the right to
`exclusive use. Accordingly, the defense objections should be denied, and the testimony
`should be admitted.
`The witness testified that, in 2000, the company that he worked for (which had been
`assigned the netblock) was acquired by another larger company, where he continued to be
`employed for another six years, with the same title. The witness testified that all assets of
`his former firm, including the netblock, were acquired by the new firm, noting that
`documents establishing the acqusition were filed with the SEC. The defense objected to
`the testimony relating to all assets being acquired by the new firm, citing lack of foundation
`or personal knowledge, speculation, vague and non-responsive. (See Exhibit 2, page 41,
`lines 7-12; page 44, lines 18-19.) The witness was a supervisory employee in both
`companies and stated that documents had been filed with the SEC, demonstrating his
`personal knowledge and foundation for the testimony.
`The witness later testified that his company operations were moved from the earlier
`assigned netblock to the network of the new company. Defense counsel again attempted to
`improperly introduce inadmissible hearsay evidence during cross examination, asking the
`witness “So if you were to be made aware that [the new company] was contacted by the
`FBI in 2015 and told there had been an improper transfer, that they never received that at
`13
`
`
`Government’s Motion in Limine for Rulings on
`Objections & Exhibits During Depositions
`
`18cr4683-GPC
`
`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-04683-GPC Document 351 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4528 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`that time?” The defense repeatedly, over government objection, inserted the fact that the
`new company was not aware it owned the netblock until contacted by the FBI in 2015,
`although the witness stated he had no knowledge of that. These questions can be found on
`Exhibit 2, page 159, line 13 through page 160, line 16. This improper cross examination
`should be excluded.
`Finally, the witness testified that the Letter of Authorization (LOA) submitted by the
`defendants to the hosting company for the netblock assigned to SAD’s former employer
`was forged. The defense now seeks to redact SAD statements that use the word forgery,
`and statements regarding whether SAD was a handwriting expert, in connection with the
`witness’s review of the LOA that he purportedly signed. [Page 101, line 25-Page 102, line
`4; Page 102, line 18-20; and page 117, line 11]. Pursuant to FRE 901(b)(2), handwriting
`can be authenticated by a non-expert’s opinion, based on familiarity with it that was not
`acquire