Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 386-2 Filed 04/15/22 PageID.5882 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 386-2 Filed 04/15/22 PageID.5883 Page 2 of 8
` 1
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
` v.
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, .
` .
`Plaintiff, . No. 18-cr-4683-GPC
`.
`. January 25, 2019
`. 10:44 a.m.
` .
`JACOB BYCHAK,
` .
`MARK MANOOGIAN,
` .
`MOHAMMED ABDUL QAYYUM,
` .
`PETR PACAS,
` .
`Defendants.
`. San Diego, California
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING/TRIAL SETTING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE GONZALO P. CURIEL
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`
`For the Defendant
`JACOB BYCHAK:
`
`
`For the Defendant
`MARK MANOOGIAN:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Attorney's Office
`By: MELANIE K. PIERSON, ESQ.
` SABRINA FEVE, ESQ.
`880 Front Street, Room 6293
`San Diego, California 92101
`
`Law Office of David W. Wiechert
`By: JESSICA C. MUNK, ESQ.
` DAVID W. WIECHERT, ESQ.
`115 Avenida Miramar
`San Clemente, California 92672
`
`Mintz Levin
`By: RANDY K. JONES, ESQ.
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130
`
`25
`
`///
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 386-2 Filed 04/15/22 PageID.5884 Page 3 of 8
` 2
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
`
` 2
`
`
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`For the Defendant
`MOHAMMED ABDUL
`QAYYUM:
`
`
`
`For the Defendant
`PETR PACAS:
`
`Bienert, Miller & Katzman, P.L.C.
`By: WHITNEY Z. BERNSTEIN, ESQ.
` JAMES D. RIDDET, ESQ.
`903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
`San Clemente, California 92673
`
`Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert
` Nessim Drooks & Lincenberg
`By: NAEUN RIM, ESQ.
`1875 Century Park East
`Suite 2300
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Chari L. Bowery, RPR, CRR
`USDC Clerk's Office
`333 West Broadway, Suite 420
`San Diego, California 92101
`chari_bowery@casd.uscourts.gov
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`Reported by Stenotype, Transcribed by Computer
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 386-2 Filed 04/15/22 PageID.5885 Page 4 of 8
` 3
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
`SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; JANUARY 25, 2019; 10:44 A.M.
`
`-o0o-
`
`THE CLERK: Calling item seven on the calendar, Case
`
` 4
`
`Number 18-cr-4683, U.S.A. v. Defendant Number 1, Jacob Bychak.
`
` 5
`
`If I could have the appearance for Defendant 1, please.
`
` 6
`
`MS. MUNK: Good morning, Your Honor. Jessica Munk
`
` 7
`
`and Dave Wiechert on behalf of Jacob Bychak, who is present in
`
` 8
`
`court.
`
` 9
`
`MR. JONES: Good morning, Your Honor. Randy Jones on
`
`10
`
`behalf of Mark Manoogian, present in court.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Jones.
`
`THE CLERK: Defendant 3, Mohammed Abdul Qayyum.
`
`MS. BERNSTEIN: Good morning, Your Honor. James
`
`14
`
`Riddet and Whitney Bernstein on behalf of Mohammed Qayyum,
`
`15
`
`present before the Court.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`THE CLERK: And Petr Pacas.
`
`MS. RIM: Naeun Rim for Petr Pacas.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning to all.
`
`MS. PIERSON: On behalf of the United States, Melanie
`
`20
`
`Pierson and Sabrina Feve. And Bob Ciaffa may join us
`
`21
`
`momentarily.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`We are here for a motion hearing/trial setting, and at
`
`24
`
`this time, let me inquire. Are there any discovery issues to
`
`25
`
`address? Any matters that the Court needs to get involved in
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 386-2 Filed 04/15/22 PageID.5886 Page 5 of 8
` 10
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`voluminous -- there would be sufficient information provided to
`
` 2
`
`the defense regarding the particulars of how this crime was
`
` 3
`
`allegedly committed, what it involved, and different pieces of
`
` 4
`
`evidence that the government intends to offer at trial.
`
` 5
`
`But to the extent there's something that I am missing, let
`
` 6
`
`me hear from defense counsel.
`
` 7
`
`MS. MUNK: Thank you, Your Honor. I do want to
`
` 8
`
`address a couple of areas.
`
` 9
`
`The government did, in their opposition, identify that it
`
`10
`
`was limiting the alleged hijacked IP netblocks and the
`
`11
`
`associated letters of authority to 11 IP netblocks, which were
`
`12
`
`identified in their Exhibit 251. So that was helpful. But
`
`13
`
`some of these other areas that we have requested, there's a
`
`14
`
`problem where we would need particulars.
`
`15
`
`With our number five request, it was the dba's and domain
`
`16
`
`names that were allegedly used to conceal the defendants'
`
`17
`
`identity. The government doesn't specify what dba or domain
`
`18
`
`names it views as illegal. And when you look at the
`
`19
`
`indictment, paragraph 8 addresses this, under the wire fraud
`
`20
`
`counts. We don't know if the government is alleging the dba's
`
`21
`
`and domain names used with the alleged hijacked netblocks were
`
`22
`
`fraudulent, or if the government is alleging a broader theory,
`
`23
`
`that the company's use of just using domain names and dba's, in
`
`24
`
`and of itself, were illegal. So that's one area that the
`
`25
`
`defendants don't have notice of.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 386-2 Filed 04/15/22 PageID.5887 Page 6 of 8
` 11
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`If the government is alleging the latter, it is
`
` 2
`
`essentially attacking the company's entire business model, and
`
` 3
`
`this is going to be a much broader case than we would otherwise
`
` 4
`
`be required to defend, and we don't have notice of that, Your
`
` 5
`
`Honor. So that's one big area.
`
` 6
`
`If the government is going to limit the dba's and domain
`
` 7
`
`names to the alleged hijacked IP netblocks, we need the
`
` 8
`
`government to identify what dba's and domain names it views
`
` 9
`
`were fraudulent, because there's no document that we are aware
`
`10
`
`of, from reviewing this, that would point us to that, Your
`
`11
`
`Honor. So that's one big area.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Pierson, do you have a response?
`
`MS. PIERSON: My response would be that we do intend
`
`14
`
`to limit this case to just those related to the hijacked
`
`15
`
`netblocks. This case is about those 11 hijacked netblocks, and
`
`16
`
`that's what it is about. We are not talking about the broader
`
`17
`
`practices of the company, here. We are just talking about the
`
`18
`
`ones relate to the hijacked netblocks.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: Does that address your concern?
`
`MS. MUNK: It partially does, Your Honor. It does in
`
`21
`
`that the fact that that lets us know, at least with the dba's
`
`22
`
`and domain names, it is related to the alleged hijacked
`
`23
`
`netblocks, but I don't know if we have a way of knowing which
`
`24
`
`dba's and domain names would have been associated with these
`
`25
`
`netblocks.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 386-2 Filed 04/15/22 PageID.5888 Page 7 of 8
` 12
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Pierson?
`
`MS. PIERSON: That information is available to them
`
` 3
`
`in the discovery, and their clients are actually in the best
`
` 4
`
`position to know of anyone, since their clients were the ones
`
` 5
`
`who established the domain names, purchased the domain names,
`
` 6
`
`and established the associated IP addresses, all of which are
`
` 7
`
`provided to them in the discovery that they have.
`
` 8
`
`THE COURT: I am not too sure that the second part of
`
` 9
`
`that answer is sufficient.
`
`10
`
`But with respect to the first part, that this information
`
`11
`
`is contained in discovery, do you have a contrary view?
`
`12
`
`MS. MUNK: Your Honor, the company's practice, which
`
`13
`
`we believe is lawful, was to use dba's and domain names to send
`
`14
`
`commercial e-mails. So the government is now limiting the
`
`15
`
`case; that it's only viewing as illegal a very small section, I
`
`16
`
`guess, of e-mails that were sent on these alleged 11 hijacked
`
`17
`
`netblocks. The company used tons of IP netblocks, not just
`
`18
`
`these 11 allegedly hijacked netblocks.
`
`19
`
`So while it's great to know that the government wants to
`
`20
`
`narrow it, I don't know of any particular document -- and maybe
`
`21
`
`the government can point us to that -- that would actually let
`
`22
`
`us know which dba's and domain names would be associated with
`
`23
`
`those netblocks.
`
`24
`
`And maybe I can just also address our second request,
`
`25
`
`because I think that may be somewhat on point, is that with
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 386-2 Filed 04/15/22 PageID.5889 Page 8 of 8
` 23
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
`
`
` C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N
`
` 3
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that I am a duly appointed,
`
` 4
`
`qualified and acting official Court Reporter for the United
`
` 5
`
`States District Court; that the foregoing is a true and correct
`
` 6
`
`transcript of the proceedings had in the aforementioned cause;
`
` 7
`
`that said transcript is a true and correct transcription of my
`
` 8
`
`stenographic notes; and that the format used herein complies
`
` 9
`
`with rules and requirements of the United States Judicial
`
`10
`
`Conference.
`
`11
`
`DATED: January 30, 2019, at San Diego,
`
`12
`
`California.
`
`13
`
`
`
` /s/ Chari L. Bowery
` _______________________________
` Chari L. Bowery
` CSR No. 9944, RPR, CRR
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
