Rishi Shah hereby movesto exclude evidence from Goldman Sachs (“GS”) representative Kenneth Eberts regarding GS’s attempts to obtain the original IMSreports after the publication of the Wall Street Journal article.

The Government apparently intends to suggest that Mr. Shah knew or should have knownearlier of Ashik Desai’s rogue alterations of the IMSreports, and “stonewalled” GS from accessing the original reports in order to conceal the fraud.

When, addedon top ofthat, there is complicated and nuanced contextthat will need to be introduced to place the Government’s evidence in context, the post-WSJ interactions between Mr. Shah and GS should be excluded on the groundsofprejudice, confusion, and waste of time.

Any conclusions Mr. Eberts drew as a result of viewing a collection of materials assembled afterthe fact and with knowledgeofactual fraud should further be excluded as improper opinion lacking foundation.

As set forth above in the background section above, Mr. Shah will have to introduce a series of documents and multiple Voxers to correct the false and prejudicial misimpression that will invariably result from Mr. Eberts’ testimony on these topics.

During cross-examination, counsel for Purdy repeatedly attacked Ma’s credibility, suggesting that he was looking to “cash in” by filing a complaint with the SEC and that his immunity agreement with the government amounted to a “free pass from getting prosecuted.” (2/13/23 Tr. 2461, 2554.)

Purdy’s attorney further impeached Ma on other topics, including his fabrication of tablet metrics with Desai and his creation of false images for proofs of performance that were sent to clients.

The Rule covered only those consistent statements that were offered to rebut charges of recent fabrication or improper motive or influence.

Most notably, Agarwal’s counsel flashed Ma’s immunity agreement with the government before the jury, after reviewing statements that Ma had made in text-message communications with Joyce Chen about his desire to see Shah “go to jail” and Agarwal “deported.” (GX 1025.)

Shah’s response, rather than expressing surprising that there was a significant inventory gap, was to direct Desai (in Ma’s presence) to raise the target for revenue the following year.

As set forth in other filings, after Quinn Emanuel withdrew, Shah retained no fewer than 11 attorneys from four prestigious law firms to represent him.

How did Shah, if he had insufficient funds to hire Quinn Emanuel, not only hire these great lawyers, but have sufficient funds to (1) live in a multi-million- dollar luxury home in Puerto Rico while owning a home in Chicago worth about $10 million and owning a condo in Chicago worth more than $1 million, R. 483 at 3-5; (2) invest $2 million in LEAF VIP, LLC—what appears to be a cannabis investment entity associated with Shah’s long- time employee David Cho—in April 2023 at the end of trial, R. 483 at 8; (3) invest $500,000 in LEAF VIP in October 2022, Id.; (4) spend copious amounts of money on private jets, private yacht charters and fine dining after he was indicted, R. 512 at 24, R. 482 at 51; and (5) attempt to set up multiple six-figure sports gambling accounts after conviction?

Agarwal, for her part, retained lawyers from Larson O’Brien LLP, an elite trial firm in Los Angeles, and Blegen & Garvey, a highly-regarded criminal defense boutique in Chicago.

Though Agarwal could have sold the residences in Austin and/or India or taken out asset-backed loans in order to raise legal fees, she chose not to; she held onto her properties and benefitted from their use and appreciation in value.

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5, 10 (2016) (plurality) (holding that “the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel violates the Sixth Amendment”) (emphasis added).