{"id":"court_sdny_253_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":253,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-03-28","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) 30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498","summary_zh":"辩方信函/动议(法院文档标注为 ORDER)—— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵)案,被告王雁平方,SDNY 1:23-cr-00118(案号亦列 23 Cr. 118-3)ECF #253(2024-03-28 立案)。王雁平辩护律师(Baker Botts 律所)致函 Analisa Torres 法官,请求:(1)为政府完成 Rule 16 证据开示设定截止日期,(2)责令政府将证据材料专人递送至 MDC 布鲁克林拘押所交付被告,(3)禁止政府将涉及被告本人的通讯记录或照片标注为「仅限律师阅览」(AEO)。","summary_en":"Defense letter/motion (docketed as ORDER) — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), co-defendant Yanping Wang, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 (also captioned 23 Cr. 118-3), ECF No. 253 (filed 2024-03-28). Wang's counsel (Baker Botts LLP) wrote to Judge Analisa Torres asking the Court to (1) set a deadline for the government to complete Rule 16 discovery, (2) order the government to hand-deliver discovery productions to MDC Brooklyn for the defendants, and (3) prohibit designating communications or photographs of the defendants as \"Attorneys' Eyes Only.\"","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498\n\nTEL +1 212.408.2500 FAX +1 212.408.2501 BakerBotts.com\n\nAUSTIN BRUSSELS DALLAS DUBAI HOUSTON LONDON\n\nNEW YORK PALO ALTO RIYADH SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE WASHINGTON\n\nMarch 28, 2024\n\nBrendan F. Quigley TEL: 2124082520 FAX: 2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\nRe: *United States v. Yanping Wang*, 23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nWe represent Yanping Wang in this matter. We write to request the Court's assistance regarding issues with the government's discovery, which are materially impacting Ms. Wang's ability to prepare for trial, which is set to begin in seven weeks. In particular, we ask the Court to (i) set a deadline for the government to complete production of Rule 16 discovery, (ii) require the government to hand-deliver discovery to the defendants at the MDC, and (iii) prohibit the government from designating communications involving the defendants or photos of the defendants as Attorneys' Eyes Only.\n\nWe, and/or counsel for Ms. Wang's co-defendant, Mr. Kwok, have repeatedly raised each of these matters with the government over the last several weeks but have been unable to reach a satisfactory resolution.\n\n### **I. The Court Should Set a Deadline for the Government to Complete Rule 16 Discovery**\n\n*First*, the Court should set a deadline of April 10, 2024, 40 days before trial, for the the government to complete Rule 16 discovery.\n\nThe Court has broad discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) to, \"for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.\"\n\nHere, good cause exists for the entry of such an order. The government's investigation of this matter has been going on for almost four years,<sup>1</sup> and the defendants have been charged for almost 13 months. But despite giving oral assurances to defense counsel in January 2024 that its\n\n<sup>1</sup> See, e.g., Order, ECF No. 157 at 4 (noting that the underlying investigation was \"opened around May 2020\").\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 2 - March 28, 2024\n\n- 2 -\n\nMarch 28, 2024\n\nproduction was largely complete, the government continues to roll out near-daily productions, and sometimes to make multiple productions a day, making (by counsel's count) approximately 16 productions between March 1st and March 27th.\n\nThe productions have been voluminous. Between March 6 and March 19 alone, the government produced almost 500,000 pages of discovery. Only approximately two percent of that material (less than 10,000 pages) was in response to the Court's February 21 \"Foxhunt\" order. The rest consisted of “Rule 16” materials that, in many cases, appear to have been in the government’s possession, custody, or on control for months, including, for example, records from multiple banks that the government appears to have obtained in early and mid 2023.\n\nThe government should not be permitted to roll out thousands of pages of discovery a day through trial and requiring the government—in a four-year old investigation—to complete discovery 40 days before trial is reasonable under the circumstances.\n\n### **II. The Court Should Order the Government to Hand Deliver Recent and Forthcoming Productions to MDC**\n\n*Second*, the Court should order the government to hand-deliver all recent productions and any subsequent productions to the appropriate officials at MDC Brooklyn for prompt delivery to the defendants.\n\nAfter strenuously, and successfully, arguing for Ms. Wang's detention (despite the fact she was initially ordered released on conditions and that this is a case involving no allegations of violence), the government has woefully failed to get her discovery inside the facility. In fairness, the government has made *some* efforts in this regard, but ultimately it does not really matter whether the failure is caused by the U.S. Attorney's Office or the Bureau of Prisons, because (even setting aside that both agencies are part of the Department of Justice), these failures impact Ms. Wang's right to a fair trial, particularly in light of the volume of the recent productions.\n\nFor example, on February 20, 2023, I contacted the government to figure out how to get Ms. Wang access to the discovery that had been produced over the last several months.<sup>2</sup> Three days later, the government responded asking us to provide them with a hard drive, for follow-on delivery to MDC. That hard drive was delivered to the government on February 27, although (based on emails from the government) the government did actually not load it with discovery until March 9.\n\n*Two weeks later, over a month after my initial request and during a period when the government produced hundreds of thousands of pages of additional discovery, the hard drive had still not made it to Ms. Wang at MDC*. On Monday, March 25, I was informed by the\n\n<sup>2</sup> Prior to my coming into the case in November 2023, the government had provided Ms. Wang with some discovery at MDC.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 3 - March 28, 2024\n\n-3-\n\nMarch 28, 2024\n\ngovernment that, while \"SDNY provided the drive to the MDC,\" the MDC was \"continu[ing] to search for the drive.\" The government offered to provide a replacement drive for some (but not all) of the discovery in question, but that drive has still not made it to Ms. Wang—*over five weeks after our initial request*.\n\nThis situation is untenable. Having, in a case involving no violence but voluminous document discovery, sought and obtained Ms. Wang's detention, fundamental fairness requires that the government take appropriate steps to ensure that she has access to discovery. That clearly has not happened, and which branch of the Department of Justice—the USAO or the BOP—bears the blame really does not matter. At this point, the government should be required to hand-deliver all recent productions to the appropriate officials at MDC and those officials should be ordered to make that discovery available to Ms. Wang.\n\n## **III.Communications Involving the Defendants and Photographs of the Defendants Should Not Be Designated AEO**\n\nFurther complicating discovery is the fact that the government has designated large portions of its recent productions as \"Attorneys' Eyes Only,\" or \"AEO,\" meaning it cannot be disclosed in any way to the defendants. *See* Protective Order, ECF No. 63 at 5.\n\nUnder the Protective Order, the AEO designation is reserved for \"highly confidential and highly sensitive material that affects the privacy, confidentiality, and/or safety interests of individuals or entities, such that its disclosure could cause substantial harm and/or pose safety concerns to individuals or entities . . . .\"\n\nMuch of the material the government has designated as AEO appears, by any measure, to fall short of this standard. While the defense's review of the government's recent voluminous productions is still on-going, we request, for starters, that the Court rule that (i) communications (whether written or recorded) involving the defendants and (ii) photographs of the defendants are presumptively not AEO. There is little reason to think that conversations for which the defendants were present or pictures of them somehow \"affect[] privacy, confidentiality, and/or safety interests\" and that merely *discussing* these materials with the defendants would somehow \"cause substantial harm\" or \"pose safety concerns.\"\n\n\\*\\*\\*\n\nIn sum, the Court should grant the requested relief.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Brendan F. Quigley Brendan F. Quigley","body_zh":"30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498\n\n电话 +1 212.408.2500 传真 +1 212.408.2501 BakerBotts.com\n\n奥斯汀 布鲁塞尔 达拉斯 迪拜 休斯敦 伦敦\n\n纽约 帕洛阿尔托 利雅得 旧金山 新加坡 华盛顿\n\n2024年3月28日\n\nBrendan F. Quigley（布伦丹·F·奎格利） 电话：2124082520 传真：2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\n事由：United States v. Yanping Wang（美国诉王雁平案），案号 23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\n尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n\n我们在本案中代表 Yanping Wang（王雁平）。我们致信请求法院就政府证据开示相关问题提供协助，这些问题正在对王女士准备定于七周后开庭的审判之能力产生实质性影响。特别是，我们请求法院：(i) 设定政府完成 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》）第 16 条项下证据开示交付的截止日期；(ii) 要求政府将证据开示材料专人送交至位于 MDC（大都会拘留所）的被告手中；以及 (iii) 禁止政府将涉及被告的通信或被告的照片指定为 Attorneys' Eyes Only（仅限律师查阅）。\n\n在过去几周内，我们及/或王女士的同案被告 Kwok（郭）先生的辩护律师已多次向政府提出上述各项事宜，但未能达成令人满意的解决办法。\n\nI. 法院应当为政府完成第 16 条证据开示设定截止日期\n\n第一，法院应当将2024年4月10日（即审判前40天）设定为政府完成第 16 条证据开示的截止日期。\n\n根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 16(d)(1) 条，法院拥有广泛的裁量权，可以“基于正当理由，拒绝、限制或推迟证据开示或检查，或给予其他适当的救济”。\n\n在此，作出该等裁定存在正当理由。政府对本案的调查已持续近四年（见脚注 1），且被告已被起诉近13个月。然而，尽管政府在2024年1月向辩护律师作出口头保证称其\n\n（脚注 1：参见，例如，裁定，ECF No. 157 第 4 页（指出基础调查“于2020年5月前后启动”）。）\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官 - 第 2 页 - 2024年3月28日\n\n- 2 -\n\n2024年3月28日\n\n交付已基本完成，但政府仍在近乎每日滚动式交付，有时甚至一天交付多次，在3月1日至3月27日期间（经辩护律师统计）进行了约16次交付。\n\n交付量极其庞大。仅在3月6日至3月19日期间，政府就交付了近 500,000 页的证据开示材料。其中仅有约百分之二的材料（少于 10,000 页）是针对法院2月21日“猎狐”裁定作出的回应。其余均为“第 16 条”材料，在许多情况下，这些材料似乎已在政府的占有、保管或控制之下长达数月，例如包括政府似乎在2023年初和年中获取的多家银行的记录。\n\n不应允许政府在临近审判期间每天滚动交付数千页的证据开示材料，且在一项历时四年的调查中要求政府在审判前40天完成证据开示，在当前情况下是合理的。\n\nII. 法院应当命令政府将近期及后续交付的材料专人送交至 MDC\n\n第二，法院应当命令政府将所有近期交付的材料及任何后续交付的材料专人送交至 MDC Brooklyn（布鲁克林大都会拘留所）的适当官员处，以便及时送达给被告。\n\n在极力且成功地主张对王女士进行羁押之后（尽管最初已裁定准予其附条件释放，且本案不涉及任何暴力指控），政府在使王女士在羁押场所内获得其证据开示材料方面却严重失职。平心而论，政府在这方面做出了一些努力，但归根结底，这一失职是由 U.S. Attorney's Office（联邦检察官办公室）还是 Bureau of Prisons（联邦监狱管理局）造成的并不重要，因为（即使撇开这两个机构均隶属于 Department of Justice（司法部）不谈），这些失职影响了王女士获得公正审判的权利，特别是考虑到近期交付材料的庞大体量。\n\n例如，在2024年2月20日（原文误为2023年），我联系了政府，以设法让王女士能够查阅过去几个月交付的证据开示材料（见脚注 2）。三天后，政府回复要求我们向其提供一个硬盘，以便后续送交至 MDC。该硬盘已于2月27日交付给政府，尽管（根据政府的电子邮件）政府实际上直到3月9日才将证据开示材料加载至该硬盘中。\n\n两周之后，即在我最初提出请求的一个多月后，且在政府交付了数十万页额外证据开示材料的期间，该硬盘仍未送达 MDC 的王女士手中。3月25日星期一，我获\n\n（脚注 2：在我于2023年11月加入本案之前，政府曾在 MDC 向王女士提供过一些证据开示材料。）\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官 - 第 3 页 - 2024年3月28日\n\n- 3 -\n\n2024年3月28日\n\n政府通知称，虽然“SDNY（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）已将硬盘提供给 MDC”，但 MDC“仍在继续寻找该硬盘”。政府提出为所涉的部分（但非全部）证据开示材料提供一个替代硬盘，但该硬盘仍未送达王女士手中——距我们最初提出请求已超过五周。\n\n这种情况是无法维系的。在一桩不涉及暴力但包含大量书证开示的案件中，政府在谋求并获准羁押王女士之后，基本的公平原则要求政府采取适当措施以确保其能够查阅证据开示材料。这显然没有做到，而究竟是司法部的哪个部门——USAO 还是 BOP——应当承担责任实在无关紧要。在此阶段，应当要求政府将所有近期交付的材料专人送交至 MDC 的适当官员处，并应当命令这些官员使王女士能够查阅该等证据开示材料。\n\nIII. 涉及被告的通信和被告的照片不应被指定为仅限律师查阅\n\n使证据开示进一步复杂化的是，政府将其近期交付材料中的大部分指定为“Attorneys' Eyes Only”或“AEO”（仅限律师查阅），这意味着该等材料不得以任何方式向被告披露。参见保护令，ECF No. 63 第 5 页。\n\n根据保护令，AEO 指定专门保留给“高度机密且高度敏感的材料，该等材料影响个人或实体的隐私、保密性及/或安全利益，致使其披露可能对个人或实体造成实质性损害及/或构成安全隐患……”。\n\n无论从何种标准衡量，政府指定为 AEO 的材料中很大一部分似乎都达不到这一标准。虽然辩方对政府近期庞大交付材料的审查仍在进行中，但我们首先请求法院裁定：(i) 涉及被告的通信（无论是书面还是录音）以及 (ii) 被告的照片推定不属于 AEO。几乎没有理由认为被告在场的谈话或他们的照片会以某种方式“影响隐私、保密性及/或安全利益”，且仅与被告讨论这些材料就会以某种方式“造成实质性损害”或“构成安全隐患”。\n\n***\n\n综上所述，法院应当准予所请求的救济。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Brendan F. Quigley\nBrendan F. Quigley","key_entities":["Torres","Analisa Torres","Yanping Wang","Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":63,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":157,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1203,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-03-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-03-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:25:26"}