{"id":"court_sdny_49_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":49,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) United States Attorney Southern District of New York","summary_zh":"保护令申请 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #49（2023年4月19日）。美国检察机关申请保护令规范庭审材料披露，以保护受害人隐私并防止被告人干扰调查；被告人 Kwok 和 Wang 的律师对部分条款提出异议。","summary_en":"Application for Protective Order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #49 (April 19, 2023). Government seeks protective order to govern disclosure of discovery materials citing victim privacy protection and prevention of obstruction; defense counsel object to certain provisions.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007*\n\nApril 19, 2023\n\n**VIA ECF** Hon. Analisa Torres Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n## **Re:** *United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et. al.***, S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government writes to respectfully request that the Court enter the attached proposed Protective Order to facilitate the production of discovery in this case. (Ex. A.) Counsel for Kwok does not object to the entry of a protective order, but objects to one provision of the proposed Protective Order as explained below. Counsel for Wang has identified two provisions to which they object.\n\nThe proposed Protective Order is appropriate in this case for several reasons. *First*, the Government's discovery includes financial and personal identifiable information of victims and third parties. Indeed, the Government intends to produce a significant amount of bank and other financial records from a variety of sources pertaining to many entities. The Government does not believe such information should be freely disseminated, as such dissemination could harm the privacy interests of third parties, as well as interfere with the Government's ongoing investigation. *Second*, as discussed in detail in the Government's briefing in support of Kwok's continued detention, Kwok and his associates are known to obstruct court proceedings. Without appropriate protections, Kwok and his associates can widely disseminate the Government's sensitive discovery materials to interfere with the Government's ongoing investigation, infringe on third parties' privacy, and harm victims. *Third*, and for similar reasons—given that Kwok has previously threatened witnesses and fomented unrest targeted at court-appointed officials and attorneys—the Government believes it is appropriate for the protective order to include an option for certain highly sensitive materials, the disclosure of which could endanger victims, to be marked \"Attorney's Eyes Only.\" The Government does not intend to mark many materials with this designation and has agreed to discuss with defense counsel potential \"Attorney's Eyes Only\" material before designating it as such.\n\nAs noted, Kwok's counsel does not object to the entry of a protective order, but Kwok and Wang's counsel object to certain provisions of the proposed Protective Order. *First*, Wang's counsel objects to the inclusion of an \"Attorney's Eyes Only\" designation on the basis that such designation prevents counsel from obtaining Wang's \"critical assistance in reviewing, understanding, and investigating her case.\" As noted above, the Government submits it is important to include this option for victim safety. *Second*, both Kwok's and Wang's counsel object\n\nto the inclusion of footnote 1, which prohibits prospective lay witnesses from retaining or copying confidential material. (Any prospective lay witnesses' counsel may retain confidential material if deemed necessary by Kwok's and Wang's counsel.) The Government believes this restriction is appropriate because lay witnesses are unlikely to treat sensitive materials with appropriate care. Moreover, defense counsel has not identified how this restriction interferes with their ability to defend their clients, and the Government does not believe it does.\n\nMore generally, in the event a specific issue materializes as a result of the Government designating material as \"Attorney's Eyes Only\" or footnote 1, which the parties are unable to resolve by agreement, the Protective Order allows defense counsel to present the issue to the Court.\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Court should enter the proposed Protective Order.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel Juliana N. Murray Micah F. Fergenson Assistants United States Attorneys (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\nEnclosure","body_zh":"United States Attorney（联邦检察官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building（西尔维奥·J·莫洛大楼）\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n\n2023年4月19日\n\n通过ECF送达\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）法官\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n事由：United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et. al.（美国诉郭文贵等人案），S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府特此致信，恳请法院签署随附的拟议保护令（Protective Order），以便利本案证据开示（discovery）的移交。（附件 A。）郭文贵的辩护律师对签署保护令不持异议，但如下文所述，对拟议保护令的一项条款提出异议。Wang（王）的辩护律师指出了其所异议的两项条款。\n\n在本案中签署拟议保护令是适当的，理由如下。第一，政府的开示证据包含受害者和第三方的财务及个人身份信息。事实上，政府打算移交来自涉及众多实体的多种来源的大量银行及其他财务记录。政府认为此类信息不应随意传播，因为此类传播可能会损害第三方的隐私利益，并干扰政府正在进行的调查。第二，正如政府在支持继续羁押郭文贵的书面陈述中所详细讨论的那样，郭文贵及其同伙具有妨碍法庭程序的已知行为。若缺乏适当的保护措施，郭文贵及其同伙可能会广泛传播政府的敏感开示材料，从而干扰政府正在进行的调查、侵犯第三方隐私并伤害受害者。第三，且出于类似原因——鉴于郭文贵此前曾威胁证人并煽动针对法院指定官员及律师的骚扰动荡——政府认为保护令中包含一项规定是适当的，即允许将某些一旦披露可能危及受害者的极度敏感材料标记为“仅限律师查阅”（Attorney's Eyes Only）。政府不打算将大量材料作此标记，并已同意在将潜在材料标记为“仅限律师查阅”之前与辩方律师进行讨论。\n\n如前所述，郭文贵的律师对签署保护令不持异议，但郭文贵和王的律师对拟议保护令的某些条款提出异议。第一，王的律师反对纳入“仅限律师查阅”的标识，理由是该标识阻碍了律师获取王在“审查、理解和调查其案件方面的关键协助”。如上所述，政府认为出于受害者安全考量，纳入该选项至关重要。第二，郭文贵和王的律师均反对\n\n纳入脚注 1，该脚注禁止预期的非专家证人（lay witnesses）保留或复制保密材料。（若郭文贵和王的律师认为确有必要，任何预期非专家证人的律师均可保留保密材料。）政府认为此项限制是适当的，因为非专家证人不太可能以适当的谨慎态度对待敏感材料。此外，辩方律师并未说明此项限制如何妨碍了他们为委托人进行辩护的能力，政府也不认为会造成此类妨碍。\n\n更一般而言，如果因政府将材料标记为“仅限律师查阅”或因脚注 1 而出现双方无法通过协商解决的具体争议，保护令允许辩方律师将该争议提请法院处理。\n\n基于上述理由，法院应签署拟议的保护令。\n\n谨呈，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗根森）\nAssistants United States Attorneys（助理联邦检察官）\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\n附件","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Torres","Ho Wan Kwok","Analisa Torres","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":592,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:22:33"}