Well, that's not specific. Let me go pull the filing and read it...

Upon reading:

I am not impressed with their motion on the Brady issues. They seem to claim that certain interviews of Ulbricht's friends were not turned over. They claim that these contained exculpatory material, but only under "information and belief." That's law-speak for "weak ass." Defense does not provide any evidence that the material contained therein is exculpatory or material.

They also seem to indicate that SA Der-Yeghiayan fingered an alternative suspect, but again, no details on whether or not this actually happened, was true, or credible. They seem to complain a lot about late disclosures of certain Jencks material (though Jenks material need not be disclosed until after witness testimony, though it is good practice to do so before). Nevertheless, given the defense's horribly shoddy and unprofessional way it handled its expert disclosures, I imagine the government will say the modification of the exhibits was due to the fact that the defense appeared to change its trial strategy midstream.

The points about warrantless surveillance of a Tor exit node are similarly baseless. Ulbricht has no standing to challenge the warrantless surveillance or seizure of third-party property.

Why Mr. Ulbricht chose to deny ownership of the Silk Road servers for the purpose of the suppression motion months ago, though that acknowledgement could not be used against him in trial, is quite frankly, beyond me, and beyond the thinking of greater legal minds than my own. As J. Forrest wrote in her decision denying Ulbricht's very-late expert disclosures: "Lawyers and clients make tactical decisions. The Court cannot always understand why certain decisions are made, nor need it. But when tactical decisions run contrary to established rules and case law, the Court's duty is clear. The Court is duty-bound to apply the law as it exists, not as any party wishes it to be."