UNITED STATES v. LACEY

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-SMB.

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Michael Lacey, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Arizona.

February 10, 2020.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael Lacey, Defendant, represented by Anne Michelle Chapman, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, Erin E. McCampbell, Liptsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Michael Zamora, Debus & Kazan Limited, James C. Grant, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, Lee David Stein, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, Paul John Cambria, Jr., Liptsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Corn-Revere, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald Gary London, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice & Janey Henze Cook, Henze Cook Murphy PLLC.

James Larkin, Defendant, represented by Anne Michelle Chapman, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, Anthony Ray Bisconti, Bienert Miller & Katzman PLC, pro hac vice, James C. Grant, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, John Lewis Littrell, Bienert Miller & Katzman PLC, pro hac vice, Kenneth Morley Miller, Bienert Miller & Katzman PLC, pro hac vice, Lee David Stein, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, Robert Corn-Revere, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seetha Ramachandran, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Henry Bienert, Jr., Bienert Katzman PC, pro hac vice & Whitney Z. Bernstein, Bienert Katzman PC, pro hac vice.

Scott Spear, Defendant, represented by Anne Michelle Chapman, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, Bruce S. Feder, Feder Law Office PA, James C. Grant, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, Lee David Stein, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC & Robert Corn-Revere, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

John Brunst, also known as Jed, Defendant, represented by Anne Michelle Chapman, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, Ariel A. Neuman, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow PC, pro hac vice, Gary S. Lincenberg, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow PC, pro hac vice, Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow PC, pro hac vice, James C. Grant, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, Lee David Stein, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, Michael D. Kimerer, Kimerer & Derrick PC & Rhonda Elaine Neff, Kimerer & Derrick PC.

Dan Hyer, Defendant, represented by Anne Michelle Chapman, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC, K.C. Maxwell, Maxwell Law PC, pro hac vice & Lee David Stein, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC.

Andrew Padilla, Defendant, represented by David S. Eisenberg, David Eisenberg PLC.

Joye Vaught, Defendant, represented by Joy Malby Bertrand, Joy Bertrand Esq LLC.

Nathan Kopeckey, Cody Gautier, Levi Yockey, Jessica Shelton, Devyn Braga, Maria Rhoad, Ray Ronan & Melissa Schneider, Movants, represented by Anne Michelle Chapman, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman PC.

Equality Now, Movant, represented by Paul J. Nathanson, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice.

Legal Momentum, Sanctuary for Families, United Abolitionists Incorporated & National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Movants, represented by David Boies, II, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice.

Carl Ferrer, Movant, represented by Jonathan Baum, Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP, pro hac vice, Nanci Clarence, Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP, pro hac vice & Shaneeda Jaffer, Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP, pro hac vice.

DKT Liberty Project, Cato Institute & Reason Foundation, Amicuss, represented by Jessica Ring Amunson, Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice.

ACLU of Arizona, Amicus, represented by Daniel Clayton Barr, Perkins Coie LLP, John Howard Gray, Perkins Coie LLP, Kathleen E. Brody, ACLU & Paul F. Eckstein, Perkins Coie LLP.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by John Jacob Kucera, US Attorneys Office, Kevin M. Rapp, US Attorneys Office, Margaret Wu Perlmeter, US Attorneys Office, Reginald E. Jones, US Dept of Justice - Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section, Andrew C. Stone, US Attorneys Office & Peter Shawn Kozinets, US Attorneys Office.


ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Joye Vaught's Motion to Sever. (Doc. 784, "Mot." or "Motion"). The Government responded, (Doc. 808, "Resp."), and Defendant replied, (Doc. 831, "Repl."). Neither party requested oral argument. The Court has considered the parties' briefings, the superseding...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases