Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kyle Goodwin

Kyle Goodwin

Ratings: (0)|Views: 243 |Likes:
Published by jbrodkin2000

More info:

Published by: jbrodkin2000 on Jun 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/10/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEEASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIAAlexandria DivisionUNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.KIM DOTCOM,
et al.
,Defendants.))))))))Case No. 1:12CR3
RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES TO NON-PARTY KYLE GOODWIN’SMOTION FOR THE RETURN OF PROPERTY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1963OR FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 41(g)
The United States, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby responds to non-party movant Kyle Goodwin’s request that this Court exercise its equity jurisdiction to order thatsomeone other than Mr. Goodwin fund the return of data that he entrusted to MegauploadLimited and Carpathia Hosting, Inc. Because the extraordinary circumstances necessary for anexercise of this Court’s equity jurisdiction do not exist, and because the Court has already givenMr. Goodwin the only arguable relief to which he is entitled, the Court should deny the motion.To do otherwise would create a new and practically unlimited cause of action on behalf of anythird party who can claim that the government’s execution of a search warrant adverselyimpacted a commercial relationship between the target of the search and the third party. Finally,because Mr. Goodwin has already been heard by this Court on these claims, an additionalhearing on this motion is unnecessary. Thus, the United States requests that the Court decide themotion on the papers, pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 47(J).
1
 
1
 
Local Criminal Rule 47(J) provides: “Determination of Motions Without Oral Hearing: TheCourt may rule upon motions without an oral hearing.”
 
Case 1:12-cr-00003-LO Document 99 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 1090
 
2
I. BACKGROUND
Because the facts that give rise to the instant motion are basically unchanged since theApril 13, 2012 motions hearing, this brief includes only those facts that are necessary to resolvethe instant motion. On January 5, 2012, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginiareturned an indictment charging Megaupload Limited (“Megaupload”) as well as numerousindividuals and an additional corporation with a number of federal crimes. (Doc. No. 1.) OnJanuary 12, 2012, this Court authorized the restraint of certain funds belonging to Megaupload(and other associated entities and individuals) as property subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(1), 1963(a), and 2323. On January 19, the United Statesexecuted a number of search warrants at the premises leased by Carpathia Hosting, Inc.(“Carpathia”), for evidence related to Megaupload’s criminal activities. Megaupload leasedmore than 1100 computer servers from Carpathia that were used by Megaupload to host dataassociated with the sites it operated.
See
Doc. No. 39 Ex. A at ¶ 3 (Decl. of Theresa Pittinger).Many of these servers were located in the Eastern District of Virginia.The government did not seize any of the Megaupload-leased servers. Instead, pursuant tothe warrants, the government copied certain data from the servers. While the search warrantswere being executed, servers belonging to Carpathia and leased by Megaupload were takenoffline so that they could be properly forensically imaged. Because of the large number of servers leased by Megaupload, not all of the servers were imaged by the government (based onestimates provided by Megaupload, imaging all 1103 servers would have taken approximately22,000 person-hours).
See
Doc. No. 82 at 9-10. After the execution of the search warrants wascompleted (a process which took approximately one week), the government left the premisesleased by Carpathia, and did not retain any of the servers. The government has reviewed the data
Case 1:12-cr-00003-LO Document 99 Filed 06/08/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 1091
 
3it imaged from the Megaupload servers, and the government did not image any of KyleGoodwin’s content files.
II. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS COURT TO EXERCISE ITSEQUITABLE JURISIDICTION TO ORDER ANY PARTY TO FUND THERETURN OF KYLE GOODWIN’S DATA OR DATA OF ANY OTHERMEGAUPLOAD USER
The government does not possess any of Mr. Goodwin’s property, nor does it seek toforfeit it. The government also does not oppose access by Kyle Goodwin to the 1103 serverspreviously leased by Megaupload. But access is not the issue – if it was, Mr. Goodwin couldsimply hire a forensic expert to retrieve what he claims is his property and reimburse Carpathiafor its associated costs. The issue is that the process of identifying, copying, and returning Mr.Goodwin’s data will be inordinately expensive, and Mr. Goodwin wants the government, orMegaupload, or Carpathia, or anyone other than himself, to bear the cost.
See
Goodwin Br. at10. Such a request is not supported by 18 U.S.C. § 1963, Rule 41, or any other applicable law.As such, the Court should decline Mr. Goodwin’s request to order the government to bear hiscosts.
2
 
A. 18 U.S.C. § 1963 Does Not Give the Court Jurisdiction to Grant theRequested Relief.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963 governs the forfeiture of property pursuant toviolations of Section 1962 of the same title. Specifically, Section 1963(l)(2) governs the claimsof third parties who have interests in forfeited property.
3
 
2
 
Mr. Goodwin also claims to be asserting his claims on behalf of other similarly-situated parties.Though millions of people uploaded files to Megaupload, no other similarly-situated person hascome forward. To the extent other third parties assert claims that would require the discretionaryexercise of this Court’s equitable jurisdiction, such requests should be denied for the reasonsstated in this pleading.
 
It states, in relevant part:
3
The property that was seized and restrained in this case was restrained pursuant to a number of statutes, not just Section 1963. Because, as noted by Mr. Goodwin, the language of those
Case 1:12-cr-00003-LO Document 99 Filed 06/08/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 1092

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->