{"id":"court_sdny_275_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":275,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"预审程序裁定 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）及 Yanping Wang 案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #275。法官 Analisa Torres 对多方在开庭前提出的程序问题做出裁定，包括确认政府提交证据的截止日期、要求政府将发现材料送交被羁押被告处、规范律师眼睛专用文件的处理程序。","summary_en":"Pretrial Procedure Order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui) and Yanping Wang, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #275. Judge Analisa Torres rules on various pretrial motions, establishing deadlines for government discovery production, requiring hand-delivery of materials to defendants in custody, and setting procedures for disclosure of Attorney's Eyes Only materials.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n-against-\n\nHO WAN KWOK and YANPING WANG,\n\nDefendants.\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nThe Court has reviewed the parties' letters requesting a pretrial scheduling order and miscellaneous other relief. ECF Nos. 253, 255, 259, 260. The parties shall adhere to the following schedule for pretrial discovery and disclosures:\n\n| Pretrial Disclosure                                                                               | Due Date       |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|\n| Expert Disclosures (excluding Mandarin language experts)                                          | April 1, 2024  |\n| Government's Rule 16 Discovery Materials                                                          | April 10, 2024 |\n| Government's Trial Exhibits                                                                       | April 22, 2024 |\n| Government's \b 3500 Material                                                                      | May 6, 2024    |\n| Government's Witness List                                                                         | May 6, 2024    |\n| Defendants' Rule 16 Discovery Materials                                                           | May 6, 2024    |\n| Defendants' Trial Exhibits                                                                        | May 10, 2024   |\n| Defendants' Witness List                                                                          | May 10, 2024   |\n| Notice of Advice-of-Counsel Defense and Disclosure of Relevant Documents                          | May 10, 2024   |\n| Attorneys' Eyes Only (\"AEO\") Designations Lifted on Government \b 3500 Material and Trial Exhibits | May 13, 2024   |\n| Defendants' Rule 26.2 Material                                                                    | May 13, 2024   |\n\n## I. Defendant Yanping Wang's Requests\n\nBy letters dated March 28 and April 4, 2024, Wang requests that the Court (1) set a deadline of April 10, 2024, for the Government to complete production of Rule 16 discovery; (2) require the Government to hand-deliver discovery to Defendants at the Metropolitan Detention Center (\"MDC\"); and (3) prohibit the Government from designating communications involving the Defendants or photos of the Defendants as AEO. *See* Wang Letter at 1, ECF No. 253; Wang Resp., ECF No. 260.\n\nAs to Wang's first request, the Government \"has no objection to a deadline of April 10 to produce any Rule 16 discovery currently in its possession.\" Gov't Letter at 3, ECF No. 255. This request is, therefore, GRANTED. The Government shall complete Rule 16 production including any documents responsive to the Court's order at ECF No. 243 (the \"Compel Order\")—by **April 10, 2024**.\n\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 04/10/2024\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n**ORDER**\n\nWang next requests that the Government \"hand-deliver all recent productions and any subsequent productions to the appropriate officials at MDC [] for prompt delivery\" to Defendants. Wang Letter at 2. The Court recognizes that the Government has made significant efforts to provide Defendants with full access to discovery materials despite the restrictive conditions at MDC. *See* Gov't Letter at 13–14. However, to ensure that Defendants have sufficient time to review the voluminous discovery and avoid any trial delays, Wang's request is GRANTED. The Government shall hand-deliver future productions (and any recent productions not yet received) to the appropriate officials at MDC. MDC is directed to ensure that Defendants have prompt and complete access to any discovery materials so delivered.\n\nThird, Wang requests that \"the Court rule that (i) communications (whether written or recorded) involving the defendants and (ii) photographs of the defendants are presumptively not AEO.\" Wang Letter at 3. The request is overbroad, and the Court declines to make sweeping ruling as to all photographs of Defendants and communications involving Defendants sight unseen. However, the Government is advised to adhere strictly to the protective order issued on May 4, 2023. *See* ECF No. 63. Screen captures of publicly available websites, without any identifying information as to any victims potentially involved, shall not be designated AEO. *See, e.g.*, Wang Resp. Exs. C, D, E, G.\n\n## II. The Government's Requests\n\nBy letter dated March 31, 2024, the Government requests that the Court (1) direct Defendants to produce reciprocal Rule 16 discovery four weeks before trial, Gov. Letter at 3–5; (2) require Defendants to provide notice of, and documents supporting or impeaching, any advice-of-counsel defense by April 20, 2024, *id.* at 6–7; and (3) permit the Government to produce § 3500 material and trial exhibits that would identify victim-witnesses AEO, *id.* at 12– 13.\n\nAs to the Government's first request, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b) provides that if a defendant requests and receives discovery from the Government under Rule 16(a)(1), the defendant must also permit the Government to inspect any document or record that the defendant \"intends to use . . . in the defendant's case-in-chief at trial.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A); *see United States v. Ortega*, No. 22 Cr. 91, 2023 WL 145615, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2023). This request is GRANTED to the extent that Defendants shall produce Rule 16 material to the Government by **May 6, 2024**, two weeks in advance of trial.<sup>1</sup>\n\nSecond, the Government requests that Defendants be required to provide, in advance of trial, \"notice of any advice-of-counsel defense they may seek to offer at trial,\" including details of the \"contours\" of the defense and \"all documents (including attorney-client and attorney work\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> What constitutes the defendant's case-in-chief does not turn on \"who called the witness\"; rather, \"if a defendant seeks to present affirmative (non-impeachment) evidence through a government witness during the government's case in chief, the defendant's presentation of evidence during such an examination should be treated as part of the defendant's 'case-in-chief' for purposes of the defendant's disclosure obligations under Rule 16.\" *United States v. Napout*, No. 15 Cr. 252, 2017 WL 6375729, at \\*7–8 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2017). \"The distinction is impeachment\" evidence, which the defendant need not disclose. *Id.* at \\*8.\n\nproduct documents) that support or might impeach or undermine any such defense.\" Gov't Letter at 6.\n\nAlthough the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not explicitly require the defense to provide notice of an advice-of-counsel defense, the Court has the \"inherent authority to manage the course of its trials\" and \"[its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.\" *United States v. Schulte*, No. 17 Cr. 548, 2020 WL 133620, at \\*6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2020) (citation omitted); *see United States v. Ray*, No. 20 Cr. 110, 2021 WL 5493839, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021) (\"The authority to require notice of an advice-ofcounsel defense derives from the court's inherent authority to manage the trial before it.\"). In light of the potential complexity of an advice-of-counsel defense in this matter, the Court directs Defendants to provide pretrial notice of their reliance on the defense and disclose all documents relevant to the assertion of this defense. *See United States v. Atias*, No. 14 Cr. 403, 2017 WL 563978, at \\*4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017) (ordering pretrial notice in response to the \"risk that the jury will be diverted from its fact finding task\"); *United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Ins. Servs.*, 828 F. Supp. 2d 698, 711 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (stating that such notice was \"simply a logistical request\" to permit review of and expedite litigation over any privileged materials); *United States v. Crowder*, 325 F. Supp. 3d 131, 138–39 (D.D.C. 2018) (mem.).\n\nThe Court mitigates the burden on Defendants and the attorney-client privilege by setting a deadline for disclosure ten days before trial. *See United States v. Dallmann*, 433 F. Supp. 3d 804, 813 (E.D. Va. 2020).The Government's request is, therefore, GRANTED to the extent that Defendants shall give notice and, if necessary, produce pertinent documents by **May 10, 2024**. The notice shall identify the specific attorneys involved, the advice those attorneys provided, and any discovery concerning the advice-of-counsel defense that Defendants will rely upon at trial. Failure to provide notice and appropriate discovery may preclude reliance on an advice-of-counsel defense.\n\nThird, the Government requests that it be permitted to designate as AEO § 3500 material and trial exhibits that would identify victim-witnesses, with the designation lifted four days before the relevant victim-witness's testimony. The Government cites numerous occasions upon which Defendant Ho Wan Kwok has used \"his followers and the entities he controls . . . to harass and obstruct\" court proceedings, including by \"threatening his critics and his victims.\" Gov't Letter at 8–11. However, Defendants have a constitutional right to assist in their own defenses. *See United States v. Fishenko*, No. 12 Cr. 626, 2014 WL 5587191, at \\*1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2014). The Government's request is GRANTED to the extent that the AEO designations shall be lifted by **May 13, 2024**, one week prior to trial. The Court determines that this period of time adequately protects Defendants' constitutional rights while also accounting for the security of potential victim-witnesses and the common interest in avoiding trial delays.[2](#page-2-0) In addition, the Court by this order hereby MODIFIES paragraph nine of the protective order at ECF No. 63 to state that AEO material may be disclosed to foreign-language interpreters or translators retained by defense counsel in connection with this action.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> The Government may, of course, still designate this information as confidential or highly confidential to prevent public dissemination.\n\n## III. Defendant Ho Wan Kwok's Requests\n\nBy letter dated April 4, 2024, Kwok joins Wang's motion in relevant part and further requests that the Government (1) \"confirm the scope of its search and production\" in response to the Compel Order; and (2) produce all discovery pursuant to the Compel Order by April 10, 2024, including certain recordings for which the Government has produced only summaries. Kwok Letter at 2–10, ECF No. 259. Kwok's separate requests are premature and, therefore, DENIED. The Government shall complete its production of materials responsive to the Compel Order by **April 10, 2024**, at which time the parties may confer about any perceived omissions.\n\nThe Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 253.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 10, 2024 New York, New York\n\nAS","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n-诉-\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），\n\n被告。\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n本院已审阅各方请求审前日程安排裁定及其他各项救济的信函。ECF Nos. 253, 255, 259, 260。各方应遵守以下审前开示及披露日程安排：\n\n审前披露 截止日期\n专家披露（不包括普通话语言专家） 2024年4月1日\n政府方《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条开示材料 2024年4月10日\n政府方庭审证据 2024年4月22日\n政府方《美国法典》第18编第3500条材料 2024年5月6日\n政府方证人名单 2024年5月6日\n被告方《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条开示材料 2024年5月6日\n被告方庭审证据 2024年5月10日\n被告方证人名单 2024年5月10日\n采纳律师意见抗辩通知及相关文件披露 2024年5月10日\n解除对政府方第3500条材料及庭审证据的“仅限律师查阅”（AEO）标识 2024年5月13日\n被告方《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第26.2条材料 2024年5月13日\n\nI. 被告 Yanping Wang 的请求\n\n在日期为2024年3月28日和4月4日的信函中，王请求本院 (1) 将政府方完成《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条开示材料交付的截止日期定为2024年4月10日；(2) 要求政府方向在大都会拘留中心（Metropolitan Detention Center，“MDC”）的被告当面送交开示材料；以及 (3) 禁止政府方将涉及被告的通信或被告的照片标为 AEO。参见王信函第 1 页，ECF No. 253；王答复，ECF No. 260。\n\n针对王的第一项请求，政府方“对在4月10日截止日期前提供其目前持有的任何第16条开示材料不持异议”。政府方信函第 3 页，ECF No. 255。因此，该请求予以准许（GRANTED）。政府方应在2024年4月10日之前完成第16条材料的提供——包括对本院 ECF No. 243 裁定（“强制令”）作出响应的任何文件。\n\nUSDC SDNY 电子归档文件 文件编号： 归档日期：04/10/2024\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n裁定\n\n王随后请求政府方“将近期交付的所有材料及随后的任何交付材料当面送交至 MDC 的相应官员，以便及时转交”给被告。王信函第 2 页。本院认可政府方在 MDC 的限制性条件下为向被告提供对开示材料的充分查阅权限所付出的巨大努力。参见政府方信函第 13–14 页。然而，为确保被告有足够的时间审阅海量的开示材料并避免任何庭审延误，王的请求予以准许（GRANTED）。政府方应将未来的交付材料（以及任何尚未收到的近期交付材料）当面送交至 MDC 的相应官员。指令 MDC 确保被告能够及时、完整地查阅如此送交的任何开示材料。\n\n第三，王请求“本院裁定 (i) 涉及被告的通信（无论书面或录音）以及 (ii) 被告的照片推定非 AEO”。王信函第 3 页。该请求过于宽泛，在未见实物的情况下，本院拒绝就所有被告照片及涉及被告的通信作出全面的一刀切裁决。然而，建议政府方严格遵守于2023年5月4日发布的保护令。参见 ECF No. 63。公开网站的屏幕截图，在不包含涉及任何潜在受害者的任何身份识别信息的情况下，不得被指定为 AEO。参见，例如，王答复证据 C、D、E、G。\n\nII. 政府方的请求\n\n在日期为2024年3月31日的信函中，政府方请求本院 (1) 指示被告在开庭审理前四周提供对等的第16条开示材料，政府方信函第 3–5 页；(2) 要求被告在2024年4月20日之前就任何采纳律师意见抗辩提供通知以及支持或弹劾该抗辩的文件，同上第 6–7 页；以及 (3) 允许政府方将可能识别受害证人身份的第3500条材料及庭审证据标为 AEO，同上第 12–13 页。\n\n针对政府方的第一项请求，《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条(b)款规定，如果被告根据第16条(a)(1)款向政府方请求并获得开示，被告还必须允许政府方查验被告“意图在庭审的主案陈述中使用的”任何文件或记录。Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A)；参见 United States v. Ortega, No. 22 Cr. 91, 2023 WL 145615, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2023)。该请求在以下限度内予以准许（GRANTED）：被告应在2024年5月6日之前（即开庭审理前两周）向政府方提供第16条材料。1\n\n第二，政府方请求要求被告在开庭前提供“关于其可能在庭审中提出的任何采纳律师意见抗辩的通知”，包括该抗辩的“轮廓”细节以及“支持或可能弹劾或削弱任何此类抗辩的所有文件（包括律师-委托人保密特权及律师工作\n\n1 构成被告的主案陈述的内容并不取决于“谁传唤了证人”；而是“如果被告试图在政府方的主案陈述阶段通过政府方证人提出肯定性（非弹劾性）证据，则被告在此类询问期间展示的证据应被视为被告‘主案陈述’的一部分，以适用被告在第16条下的披露义务”。United States v. Napout, No. 15 Cr. 252, 2017 WL 6375729, at *7–8 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2017)。“其区别在于弹劾”证据，被告无需披露弹劾证据。同上，第 *8 页。\n\n成果文件）”。政府方信函第 6 页。\n\n尽管《联邦刑事诉讼规则》未明确要求辩方提供采纳律师意见抗辩的通知，但本院拥有“管理其庭审进程”和“管理自身事务以实现案件有序且迅速处理的固有权力”。United States v. Schulte, No. 17 Cr. 548, 2020 WL 133620, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2020)（引文省略）；参见 United States v. Ray, No. 20 Cr. 110, 2021 WL 5493839, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021)（“要求发出采纳律师意见抗辩通知的权力源自法院管理其审理的庭审的固有权力”）。鉴于本案中采纳律师意见抗辩的潜在复杂性，本院指示被告就其对该抗辩的依赖提供审前通知，并披露与提出该抗辩相关的所有文件。参见 United States v. Atias, No. 14 Cr. 403, 2017 WL 563978, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017)（针对“陪审团偏离其事实认定任务的风险”命令发出审前通知）；United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Ins. Servs., 828 F. Supp. 2d 698, 711 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)（指出此类通知“仅仅是一项事务性请求”，以允许对任何受特权保护的材料进行审查并加快诉讼程序）；United States v. Crowder, 325 F. Supp. 3d 131, 138–39 (D.D.C. 2018) (mem.)。\n\n本院通过将披露截止日期设定在开庭审理前十天，以减轻被告的负担并保护律师-委托人保密特权。参见 United States v. Dallmann, 433 F. Supp. 3d 804, 813 (E.D. Va. 2020)。因此，政府方的请求在以下限度内予以准许（GRANTED）：被告应在2024年5月10日之前发出通知，并视需要提供相关文件。该通知应指明所涉及的具体律师、这些律师提供的意见，以及被告在庭审中将依赖的有关采纳律师意见抗辩的任何开示材料。未提供通知和适当开示材料可能会被禁止依赖采纳律师意见抗辩。\n\n第三，政府方请求允许其将可能识别受害证人身份的第3500条材料及庭审证据指定为 AEO，并在相关受害证人作证前四天解除该标识。政府方列举了被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）多次利用“其追随者及其控制的实体……骚扰和阻碍”法院诉讼程序的情况，包括通过“威胁其批评者和受害者”。政府方信函第 8–11 页。然而，被告拥有协助自身辩护的宪法权利。参见 United States v. Fishenko, No. 12 Cr. 626, 2014 WL 5587191, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2014)。政府方的请求在以下限度内予以准许（GRANTED）：AEO 标识应在2024年5月13日（即开庭审理前一周）之前解除。本院认定，该时间段充分保护了被告的宪法权利，同时也兼顾了潜在受害证人的安全以及避免庭审延误的共同利益。2 此外，本院特以此裁定修改 ECF No. 63 保护令第九段，规定 AEO 材料可以向辩护律师就本案聘请的外语口译员或笔译员披露。\n\n2 当然，政府方仍可将此类信息指定为机密或高度机密，以防止公开传播。\n\nIII. 被告 Ho Wan Kwok 的请求\n\n在日期为2024年4月4日的信函中，郭在相关部分加入了王的动议，并进一步请求政府方 (1)“确认其对强制令作出响应时的检索和交付范围”；以及 (2) 依照强制令在2024年4月10日之前提供所有开示材料，包括政府方仅提供了摘要的某些录音。郭信函第 2–10 页，ECF No. 259。郭的单独请求尚不成熟，因此予以驳回（DENIED）。政府方应在2024年4月10日之前完成对强制令作出响应的材料交付，届时各方可就任何察觉到的遗漏进行协商。\n\n谨指示法院书记官终止 ECF No. 253 处的动议。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2024年4月10日 纽约州纽约市\n\nAS","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Je","Torres","Analisa Torres"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":63,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":243,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":253,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":255,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":259,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":260,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1597,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:27:34"}