{"id":"court_sdny_298_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":298,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-04-19","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) DMP:AAS F. #2023R00138","summary_zh":"检方信函/动议(法院文档标注为 ORDER)—— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵)案,SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #298(2024-04-19 立案)。纽约东区联邦检察官办公室致函 Analisa Torres 法官,请求撤销郭文贵辩护律师 Sabrina Shroff 就「Bai 投诉」及「猎狐行动」相关记录发出的 Rule 17 传票,理由是该传票触及大陪审团保密要求、范围过宽且构成不当的审前证据开示手段。","summary_en":"Government letter/motion (docketed as ORDER) — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF No. 298 (filed 2024-04-19). The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York wrote to Judge Analisa Torres asking her to quash a Rule 17 subpoena issued by Kwok defense counsel Sabrina Shroff seeking records related to the \"Bai\" complaint and Operation Fox Hunt, arguing the subpoena implicates grand-jury secrecy under Rule 6(e), is overbroad, and functions as an improper pretrial discovery device.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nDMP:AAS F. #2023R00138\n\n### U.S. Department of Justice\n\nUnited States Attorney Eastern District of New York\n\n271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklvn. New York 11201\n\nApril 10, 2024\n\nBy Email\n\nHon. Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007\n\n> Re: United States v. Kwok Crim. No. 23-118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York (the \"Office\") respectfully moves to quash a Rule 17 subpoena dated March 5, 2024, and issued by Sabrina Shroff, Esq., (the \"Subpoena\"), which seeks materials purportedly in the possession of the Office. For the reasons outlined below, the Subpoena should be quashed because (1) it seeks materials subject to the secrecy requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), (2) the Subpoena is overbroad, and (3) compliance with the Subpoena would be \"unreasonable or oppressive.\" Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 17(c)(2).\n\nI. Background\n\nOn or about April 3, 2024, Ms. Shroff contacted the undersigned counsel. During a telephone call, Ms. Shroff stated that she represented\n\nthe lead defendant Ho Wan Kwok in the above-referenced matter. Ms. Shroff indicated that she needed to subpoena the undersigned counsel as the purported lead drafter of the Bai complaint. When asked to explain the context of the subpoena, Ms. Shroff stated that, after she had unsuccessfully sought the documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (\"USAO-SDNY\"), Your Honor had directed Ms. Shroff to serve the Subpoena directly on the Office.\n\nSoon thereafter, Ms. Shroff emailed a cover letter to the Office, indicating that Your Honor had issued an Ex Parte order directing Kwok's counsel to serve a copy of the Subpoena to the Office. Attached to the letter were (1) the Subpoena; (2) a redacted version of the Court's order dated February 21, 2024 finding certain materials to be discoverable that are relevant to one or more of the Office's investigations, including \"Records concerning the\n\nallegations in the Bai complaint, including the underlying evidence of targeting of [REDACTED],\" \"Records concerning the Government of China's targeting of Kwok as part of Operation Fox Hunt,\" and \"Records concerning the targeting of Kwok's family by the Chinese government, including as part of Operation Fox Hunt\";<sup>1</sup> and (3) a redacted declaration in support of Kwok's Rule 17 motion. Notably, the redacted declaration neither includes any detailed summary of the records sought nor explains the relevance of those records to the pending matter before Your Honor.<sup>2</sup>\n\nOn April 9, 2024, the Office sent Ms. Shroff a letter stating that it would not seek records in its possession, as the Subpoena did not comply with the Touhy regulations. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.22(b), 16.24. In pertinent part, the letter states that a party seeking Department of Justice records must summarize the records sought and explain the relevance of those records to the proceeding, and that Ms. Shroff had failed to do so in any correspondence with the Office. See id. § 16.22(d) (\"When information other than oral testimony is sought by a demand, the responsible U.S. Attorney shall request a summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding.\"). To date, neither Ms. Shroff nor the defendant have complied with the Touhy regulations.\n\n# II. Applicable Law\n\nRule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the issuance of subpoenas for documents in federal criminal proceedings. Under Rule 17(c)(1), \"[a] subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them.\"\n\nIn United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court held that the party requesting a Rule 17 subpoena must demonstrate that the materials sought are (1) relevant; (2) admissible; and (3) specific. 418 U.S. 683, 700 (1974) (stating that a Rule 17 subpoena is not intended to be a \"general 'fishing expedition'\"). The Supreme Court further emphasized two \"fundamental characteristics\" of Rule 17 subpoenas. Id. at 698. First, Rule 17 subpoenas are \"not intended to provide a means of discovery in criminal cases.\" Id. Second, Rule 17 subpoenas are intended to \"expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of subpoenaed materials.\" Id. at 698-99. The Supreme Court further explained that \"generally, the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial.\" Id. at 701.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Office had been previously unaware of the Court's order finding that Bairelated records were discoverable in Kwok or that Bai-related records were the subject of any motion practice before the Court.\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Office did not receive the Court's April 2, 2024 Rule 17 order until USAO-SDNY provided a redacted version of the order on April 5, 2024.\n\nApplying the principles set forth in Nixon, courts have repeatedly emphasized the narrow purpose and scope of Rule 17 subpoenas. See, e.g., United States v. Dupree, No. 10-CR-627 (KAM), 2011 WL 2006295 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011) (stating that Rule 17(c) is not a means for discovery and quashing subpoena that sought documents \"well outside the time frame of the counts with which [the defendant was] charged\"); United States v. Weissman, No. 01-CR-529 (BSJ), 2002 WL 31875410, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2002) (\"[I]f the moving party cannot reasonably specify the information contained or believed to be contained in the documents sought but merely hopes that something useful will turn up, the requirement of specificity will not have been met.\") (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Ashley, 162 F.R.D. 265, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (\"[C]ourts must be careful that [R]ule 17(c) is not turned into a broad discovery device, thereby undercutting the strict limitation of discovery in criminal cases found in [Rule 16.]\") (quotation and citation omitted).\n\n#### III. Analysis\n\nThe Court should quash the Subpoena, as the requests constitute an impermissibly broad fishing expedition, rendering compliance to be \"unreasonable or oppressive.\" Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 17(c)(2). Further, certain materials sought are grand jury materials subject to the secrecy limitations of Rule 6(e). The Office addresses the unreasonableness of each of the first three requests below.3\n\n#### 1. Request One\n\nThe request for \"Records concerning the allegations in the Bai complaint, including the underlying evidence of targeting \" is unduly broad. The request is not limited we but rather seeks all evidence gathered in a multi-year investigation that culminated in charges against 34 officers of the People's Republic of China's Ministry of Public Security (the Chinese government's federal police) who perpetrated a multifaceted and longstanding harassment scheme against dissidents located throughout the world, Accordingly, the request \"does not satisfy the specificity requirement under Nixon\" and, therefore, constitutes an impermissibly broad discovery device. United States v. Tagliaferro, 19-CR-472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021) (collecting cases).\n\n![](_page_2_Picture_6.jpeg)\n\n<sup>3</sup>\n\n### 2. Request Two\n\nAlso impermissibly broad is the request for all \"Records concerning the targeting of Kwok's family by the Chinese government, including as part of Operation Fox Hunt, including (iii) the payment of bribes to U.S.\n\ncitizens to solicit U.S. government officials to extradite Kwok to China; and (iv) any cyberattacks on property used by Kwok or his family.\"\n\nAs an initial matter, the Office is unaware of any responsive evidence in its possession pertaining to subcategories (iii) and (iv).\n\nThe comprehensive request for all targeting of Kwok's family, including through Operation Fox Hunt, constitutes an impermissibly broad use of a Rule 17 subpoena. In recent years, the Office has brought numerous cases in which the Chinese government or its representatives have targeted dissidents located in the United States, including through Operation Fox Hunt. See, e.g., United States v. Jin, 20-MJ-1103 (RER) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Zhu, 21-CR-265 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Lin, 22-MJ-251 (MMH/JRC) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Wang, 22-CR-230 (SJ) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Liu, 22-CR-311 (LDH) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. An, 22-CR-460 (KAM) (E.D.N.Y.). Requiring the Office to search through the records in all these prosecutions-each of which culminated longstanding investigations-for material specific to targeting of Kwok and his family would be unduly burdensome and fails Nixon's specificity requirement.\n\nMore specificity is similarly required as to the requests regarding the Chinese government's efforts Rather than seeking individual pieces of evidence such as specific communications, recordings, interview summaries, or visa records, Kwok's lawyers seek all records regarding\n\nSee Tagliaferro, 2021 WL 980004, at \\*3 (denying Rule 17 subpoena for impermissibly broad discovery requests).\n\n> Request Three 3.\n\nThe same analysis as for Request Two applies to the overly broad request for all \"Records concerning the targeting of Kwok's family by the Chinese government, including as part of Operation Fox Hunt.\" The Court should quash this subpoena request, rather than compel the Office to rummage through its extensive holdings spanning the numerous transnational repression cases outlined above.\n\n# IV. Conclusion\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Court should quash the Subpoena in its entirety.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nBREON PEACE United States Attorney Eastern District of New York\n\nBy: /s/ Alexander A. Solomon Alexander A. Solomon Assistant United States Attorney (718) 254-6074","body_zh":"DMP:AAS F. #2023R00138\n\nU.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\nUnited States Attorney（联邦检察官） Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）\n\n271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201\n\n2024年4月10日\n\n通过电子邮件\n\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下） 美国联邦地区法官 Southern District of New York（纽约南区） 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007\n\n事由：United States v. Kwok（美国 诉 郭案） 刑事案号 23-118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\nU.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York（纽约东区联邦检察官办公室，以下简称“本办公室”）谨提出动议，请求撤销由 Sabrina Shroff, Esq.（萨布丽娜·施罗夫律师）于2024年3月5日签发、索取据称由本办公室持有的材料的 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》）第17条传票（以下简称“该传票”）。基于下文所述理由，该传票应予撤销，因为：(1) 其索取的材料属于《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第6(e)条保密规定的适用范围；(2) 该传票范围过于宽泛；以及 (3) 遵从该传票将是“不合理的或具有压迫性的”。Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 17(c)(2)。\n\n一、背景\n\n2024年4月3日或该日前后，施罗夫女士联系了下述署名律师。在一次电话通话中，施罗夫女士表示她代表上述案件中的主要被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。施罗夫女士指出，由于下述署名律师据称为 Bai 申诉书的主要起草人，她需要向下述署名律师送达传票。在被要求解释该传票的背景时，施罗夫女士表示，在向 U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室，“USAO-SDNY”）索取文件未果后，法官阁下已指示施罗夫女士直接向本办公室送达该传票。\n\n此后不久，施罗夫女士向本办公室发送了一封附信电子邮件，表明法官阁下已签发一项单方裁定，指示郭的律师向本办公室送达该传票的一份副本。随信附有：(1) 该传票；(2) 法院于2024年2月21日作出的裁定的涂黑版本，该裁定认定与本办公室一项或多项调查相关的某些材料具有可开示性，包括“关于 Bai 申诉书中指控的记录，包括针对[已涂黑]的目标行动的基础证据”、“关于中国政府作为 Operation Fox Hunt（‘猎狐行动’）一部分针对郭开展行动的记录”，以及“关于中国政府针对郭的家属开展行动（包括作为‘猎狐行动’一部分）的记录”；1 以及 (3) 支持郭的第17条规则动议的一份涂黑声明。值得注意的是，该涂黑声明既未包含所索取记录的任何详细摘要，亦未解释这些记录与法官阁下审理中的未决案件之间的相关性。2\n\n2024年4月9日，本办公室向施罗夫女士发送信函，说明因该传票不符合 Touhy regulations（《图伊规程》），本办公室将不会搜寻其持有的记录。参见 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.22(b), 16.24。该函的相关部分指出，请求获取司法部记录的一方当事人必须提供所索取记录的摘要，并解释该等记录与诉讼程序的相关性，而施罗夫女士在与本办公室的任何往来信件中均未履行该要求。参见同上 § 16.22(d)（“当要求索取口头证词以外的信息时，负责的联邦检察官应要求提供所索取信息的摘要及其与诉讼程序的相关性说明。”）。截至目前，施罗夫女士和被告均未遵从《图伊规程》。\n\n二、适用法律\n\n《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第17(c)条对联邦刑事诉讼程序中调取文件的传票签发作出了规定。根据第17(c)(1)条，“传票可命令证人出示传票所指定的任何账簿、文书、文件、数据或其他物品。法院可指示证人在审理之前或在拟作为证据出示之前将指定的物品出示于法庭。当物品送达时，法院可允许当事人及其律师查阅其全部或部分内容。”\n\n在 United States v. Nixon（美国 诉 尼克松案）中，最高法院认定，请求签发第17条规则传票的一方必须证明所索取的材料具有：(1) 相关性；(2) 可采性；以及 (3) 明确性。418 U.S. 683, 700 (1974)（指出第17条规则传票不旨在成为一种“普遍性的‘摸底调查’ (fishing expedition)”）。最高法院进一步强调了第17条规则传票的两项“基本特征”。同上，第698页。首先，第17条规则传票“并非旨在提供刑事案件中的证据开示手段”。同上。其次，第17条规则传票旨在“通过在审理前指定查阅传票所调取材料的时间和地点来加速审理进程”。同上，第698-99页。最高法院进一步阐明，“通常情况下，获取弹劾证人证据的需求不足以构成要求在审理前出示该证据的理由”。同上，第701页。\n\n1 本办公室此前并不知悉法院认定与 Bai 相关的记录在郭案中具有可开示性，亦不知悉与 Bai 相关的记录是向法院提起的任何动议实践的标的。\n\n2 直至 USAO-SDNY 于2024年4月5日提供了该裁定的涂黑版本，本办公室才收到法院于2024年4月2日作出的第17条规则裁定。\n\n适用尼克松案确立的原则，各法院已一再强调第17条规则传票的狭窄目的和范围。参见，例如 United States v. Dupree, No. 10-CR-627 (KAM), 2011 WL 2006295 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011)（指出第17(c)条并非证据开示手段，并撤销了索取“完全超出[被告被]控罪名项时间范围”的文件传票）；United States v. Weissman, No. 01-CR-529 (BSJ), 2002 WL 31875410, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2002)（“[如果]动议方不能合理明确所索取文件中包含或据信包含的信息，而仅寄希望于能找出某些有用的东西，则不符合明确性的要求。”）（引文内部引号省略）；United States v. Ashley, 162 F.R.D. 265, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)（“[各]法院必须谨慎行事，切勿将第17(c)条变成广泛的证据开示工具，从而削弱[第16条]中关于刑事案件证据开示的严格限制。”）（引文及出处省略）。\n\n三、分析\n\n法院应当撤销该传票，因为这些请求构成了不可容许的广泛摸底调查，致使遵从该传票变得“不合理或具有压迫性”。Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 17(c)(2)。此外，所索取的某些材料属于受第6(e)条保密限制约束的大陪审团材料。本办公室在下文逐一阐述前三项请求的不合理性。3\n\n1. 请求一\n\n关于“与 Bai 申诉书中的指控相关的记录，包括针对[已涂黑]的目标行动的基础证据”的请求过于宽泛。该请求未作限定，而是索取一项长达数年的调查中所收集的全部证据，该调查最终对 People's Republic of China's Ministry of Public Security（中华人民共和国公安部，即中国政府的联邦警察）的34名警官提起了指控，这些警官对遍布世界各地的异见人士实施了多方面的、长期的骚扰计划。因此，该请求“未能满足尼克松案下的明确性要求”，因而构成了不可容许的广泛证据开示手段。United States v. Tagliaferro, 19-CR-472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021)（汇总判例）。\n\n3\n\n2. 请求二\n\n索取关于“中国政府针对郭的家属开展行动（包括作为‘猎狐行动’一部分）的所有记录，包括 (iii) 向美国公民支付贿赂以游说美国政府官员将郭引渡至中国；以及 (iv) 针对郭或其家属所使用财产的任何网络攻击”的请求同样属于不可容许的宽泛。\n\n首先，就第 (iii) 和 (iv) 项细分类别而言，本办公室不知悉其持有任何相关的答复性证据。\n\n对针对郭的家属的所有行动（包括通过“猎狐行动”）的全部记录提出全面请求，构成了对第17条规则传票不可容许的宽泛使用。近年来，本办公室提起了多起涉及中国政府或其代表针对位于美国的异见人士开展行动（包括通过“猎狐行动”）的案件。参见，例如 United States v. Jin, 20-MJ-1103 (RER) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Zhu, 21-CR-265 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Lin, 22-MJ-251 (MMH/JRC) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Wang, 22-CR-230 (SJ) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Liu, 22-CR-311 (LDH) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. An, 22-CR-460 (KAM) (E.D.N.Y.)。要求本办公室在所有这些起诉案件（每一项均是长期调查的最终结果）的记录中搜寻专门针对郭及其家属的材料，将造成过重负担，且不符合尼克松案的明确性要求。\n\n对于涉及中国政府行动的请求，同样需要更高的明确性。郭的律师并未索取诸如具体通讯记录、录音、谈话摘要或签证记录等个别证据，而是索取关于[已涂黑]的所有记录。\n\n参见 Tagliaferro, 2021 WL 980004, at *3（因证据开示请求范围不可容许地宽泛而驳回第17条规则传票）。\n\n3. 请求三\n\n针对索取关于“中国政府针对郭的家属开展行动（包括作为‘猎狐行动’一部分）的所有记录”的过度宽泛请求，适用与请求二相同的分析。法院应撤销该项传票请求，而不应强迫本办公室在其涵盖上述多起跨国镇压案件的大量留存档案中进行翻找。\n\n四、结论\n\n基于上述理由，法院应全面撤销该传票。\n\n此致，\n\nBREON PEACE（布里昂·皮斯）\nUnited States Attorney（纽约东区联邦检察官）\nEastern District of New York\n\n签署人：/s/ Alexander A. Solomon\nAlexander A. Solomon（亚历山大·A·所罗门）\nAssistant United States Attorney（联邦助理检察官）\n(718) 254-6074","key_entities":["Kwok","Shroff","Je","Torres","Ho Wan Kwok","Analisa Torres"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1545,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-04-19 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-04-19","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:27:21"}