From Document 30: "UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY MOTION"

The investigation began with the identification of the commercial child exploitation website known as “Home Collection.” ICE investigators determined that the same criminal organization was operating essentially a two-tiered child pornography distribution system. Numerous websites like “Home Collection” were set up to advertise access to member-restricted websites. After paying an access fee through the advertising site, an individual was then emailed a user name and password, and directed to a member-restricted website providing access to a large collection of child pornography images.

This guy wasn't too bright:

On October 12, 2006, the defendant, STEVEN GERSTENFELD, made a payment to PayPal account in the amount of $79.95, for 30 days access to the 'Angel Collection 1010', which was a child pornography collection available through a member-restricted commercial website. In conjunction with this purchase the defendant provided his work address at the University of Richmond, where he was employed as a coach of the men’s head tennis team, and his work email account of [email protected].

The defense team requested to have the images found on the hard drive shipped to three separate experts:

Additionally, the defendant has requested that copies of all image evidence, both charged and uncharged, be shipped to local law enforcement agencies around the country so that three separate experts can review the evidence at their convenience: Mark Vassel, in Ohio; Hany Farid, Ph.D., in New Hampshire; and Arlan Rosenbloom, MD, in Florida.

Is/Was one of these three individuals involved with the ring? Would getting them copies of 'all image evidence' he was being charged with (and the evidence he wasn't being charged with) give them insight into how much of the network had been compromised? The fact that they kept pushing for further discovery, even though it was against the client's best interests, might suggest such an outside influence:

Additionally, the Government endeavored to communicate to the defendant and counsel in as clear terms as possible that such additional discovery requests might be very counter-productive for the defendant. In essence the defendant’s request amounts to a request to generate discovery that could be used to link the uncharged child pornography images in the hard drive unallocated space to specific dates of receipt. The upshot of responding to GERSTENFELD’s request would be to put in hand additional evidence that could enable the Government to file a superseding indictment that would have the effect of significantly increasing the defendant’s sentencing exposure, if he is convicted. Despite the Government’s repeated warnings, the request is still on the table, and the Government is endeavoring to obtain the requested information.