{"id":"court_sdny_53_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":53,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":" United States Attorney Southern District of New York","summary_zh":"联合案件进度信函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #53（2023年4月20日）。政府与被告人就庭审文件交付进度及试讯日程提交联合报告；双方就 discovery 完成期限和试讯控制日期意见不一致。","summary_en":"Joint Letter on Case Schedule — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #53 (April 20, 2023). Government and defense submit joint response regarding discovery and trial schedule; parties propose differing timelines for completion of discovery and trial control date.","body_en":"\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 20, 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. Kwok et al.***, S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government respectfully submits this joint letter on behalf of the parties in response to the Court's April 6, 2023 order. (Dkt. 36). In that order, the Court scheduled a pretrial conference for June 6, 2023, and directed the parties to \"advis[e] the Court of the amount of time the parties anticipate will be needed to complete discovery and propos[e] a control date for trial.\" (*Id.*).\n\n## **The Government's Position**\n\n### A. Discovery\n\nWith respect to discovery, the Government's Rule 16 materials are voluminous and generally include the following categories of materials: subpoena returns, Stored Communications Act warrant returns, seized electronic devices, premises search warrant returns, materials from victims, publicly available materials, and translations of statements by Kwok. The Government will diligently produce these voluminous Rule 16 materials. The Government has already made an initial production of materials and a further production, consisting of over a terabyte of data, has been awaiting entry of a protective order.1 (*See* Dkt. 49). The Government anticipates that it will have substantially completed Rule 16 discovery by the June 6 pretrial conference, with the following qualifications.\n\nThe Rule 16 discovery in this case includes a large number of seized electronic devices. On March 15, 2023, the Government seized, for example, approximately 49 phones, 47 USB\n\n1 The Government sent its proposed protective order to Kwok's counsel on March 27, 2023, and to Wang's counsel on March 29, 2023 (*i.e.*, the same day that Wang was charged in the Superseding Indictment), advising them that the Government would begin productions upon entry of a protective order. The Government received responses from the defense on April 14 and 17, and after the Government made a change on April 18, it filed its application for the entry of the proposed protective order on April 19, 2023. (Dkt. 49).\n\ndrives, 32 computing devices, and 15 hard drives. The Government does not yet know the quantity of data that will be extracted from these (and other) seized devices, but anticipates that it will be voluminous. The contents of the seized devices are in the process of being extracted. Once extracted, [2](#page-1-0) the device extractions will be screened for potentially privileged materials before being made available to the case team for review. [3](#page-1-1) To facilitate a filter team privilege review, on March 27, 2023, the Government requested a list of attorneys and their contact information from Kwok's counsel. Kwok provided a list on April 14, 2023 of 23 law firms and two Mandarin / English interpreters (including co-defendant Wang). The list, however, did not identify which entities or people each of those firms represent, nor did it indicate the time period of the representations. The Government requested that information and awaits it from Kwok's counsel. To date, the Government has not received a list of attorneys from Wang's counsel.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the Government receives additional Rule 16 materials in its active and ongoing investigation, it will continue producing those materials on a rolling basis.\n\nIn light of the foregoing, the defendants' proposal to complete Rule 16 discovery production eight days from today does not reasonably reflect the complexity of this case.\n\n### B. Trial Control Date\n\nWith respect to a control date for trial, the Government respectfully submits that a control date in early Q2 of 2024 is appropriate in this case. The Government estimates that its case at trial, not including any defense cross examination or defense case, would be at least three weeks.\n\nThe Government respectfully requests that the Court set a trial date and pretrial motions schedule at the June 6 conference. The Government respectfully submits that proposed approach will be most efficient, given that an appropriate pretrial motion schedule will depend, in part, on the trial date, which depends, in turn, upon the Court's availability.[4](#page-1-2)\n\n#### **The Defendants' Position**\n\nCurrently, both defendants are detained before trial. Assuming the defendants remain detained, the defense proposes the following **case schedule**:\n\n1. The government fully produces all discovery by April 28;\n\n3 The Government anticipates that much of the device contents will also require translation from Mandarin to English.\n\n4 With respect to the defendants' position below, the Government notes that the Court did not direct the parties to submit a proposed pretrial disclosure schedule, and the parties have not yet had a full opportunity to discuss one. Additionally, the Government notes that the defendants' proposed trial date and schedule for this matter does not account for, among other things, the time necessary for the Government's anticipated motion under the Classified Information Procedures Act or the review of devices seized on March 15, 2023. (*See* Dkt. 52).\n\n2 The Government may not be able to extract data from some devices, and / or the extraction process may take months or longer.\n\n- 2. Defense motions due two months later, by June 30;\n- 3. Set a control date for trial in four months, August 25.\n\nGiven the large volume of discovery and the need for interpreters while we review the materials with our clients to prepare for trial, we ask for pre-trial disclosure well in advance of trial. The defense proposes the following **pre-trial disclosure schedule**:\n\n- 7 weeks before trial: The government provides expert notice for its case in chief.\n- 6 weeks before trial:\n\t- o The government provides its witness list for its case in chief.\n\t- o The government provides detailed 404(b) notice.\n\t- o The government provides Rule 3500 material that is in any language other than English.\n- 4 weeks before trial:\n\t- o The defendants provide expert notice for the defense case.\n\t- o The parties file proposed *voir dire.*\n\t- o The parties file proposed jury instructions (except for defense theory of the case instructions).\n\t- o The parties file motions *in limine.*\n\t- o The government provides exhibit list for its case in chief.\n\t- o The government provides Rule 3500 material that is in English and *Giglio* materials.\n- 3 weeks before trial: The parties file responses to motions *in limine*.\n- 2 weeks before trial: The parties file oppositions to their motions *in limine.*\n- 1 week before trial:\n\t- o The defendants provide witness lists.\n\t- o The defendants provide exhibit lists.\n\n• 3 days before the anticipated start of the defense case: The defendants provide the government material covered by FRCP 26.2.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\n Ryan B. Finkel Micah F. Fergenson Juliana N. Murray Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\nCc: All Counsel (By ECF)","body_zh":"United States Attorney Southern District of New York（美国联邦检察官 纽约南区）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007\n\n2023年4月20日\n\n经由 ECF 送达\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n关于：United States v. Kwok et al.（美国诉郭案等），S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府谨代表双方提交此份联名信，以回复法庭2023年4月6日的命令。（Dkt. 36）。在这一命令中，法庭将审前会议定于2023年6月6日举行，并责成双方“向法庭告知双方预计完成证据开示所需的时间，并就审判提出一个控制日期”。（出处同上）。\n\n政府的立场\n\nA. 证据开示\n\n关于证据开示，政府依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条（Rule 16）需提供的材料数量庞大，大致包括以下几类材料：传票答复材料、《存储通信法》（Stored Communications Act）搜查令答复材料、扣押的电子设备、处所搜查令答复材料、受害者提供的材料、公开可得的材料，以及Kwok（郭文贵）供述的翻译件。政府将勤勉地移交这些庞大的第16条材料。政府已进行了首批材料的移交，而另一批包含超过1TB数据的进一步移交材料，此前一直在等待保护令的签署生效。1（参见 Dkt. 49）。政府预计在6月6日的审前会议前实质上完成第16条项下的证据开示，但存在以下限制条件。\n\n本案中依据第16条需开示的证据包含大量扣押的电子设备。例如，在2023年3月15日，政府扣押了大约49部手机、47个U盘、32台计算设备以及15块硬盘。政府目前尚不清楚将从这些（以及其他）扣押设备中提取的数据量，但预计数量将会非常庞大。扣押设备中的内容目前正在提取过程中。一旦提取完成，2 设备提取物将在提供给办案团队审查之前，先进行潜在特权材料的筛查。3 为便于过滤团队进行特权审查，政府于2023年3月27日向郭的辩护律师索取了一份律师名单及其联系方式。郭于2023年4月14日提供了一份包含23家律师事务所和两名普通话/英语口译员（包括同案被告Wang（王雁平））的名单。然而，该名单既未指明各律所具体代表哪些实体或个人，也未注明代理期限。政府已索取该信息，目前正等待郭的辩护律师提供。截至目前，政府尚未收到王辩护律师提供的律师名单。\n\n此外，在政府积极持续进行的调查中，如收到更多的第16条材料，将继续按滚动方式移交这些材料。\n\n鉴于上述情况，被告提出的自今日起八天内完成第16条证据开示移交的提议，并未合理反映本案的复杂性。\n\nB. 审判控制日期\n\n关于审判的控制日期，政府谨提议将本案的控制日期定于2024年第二季度初较为妥当。政府估计，其在审判阶段的控方举证时间（不包括辩方的任何交叉询问或辩方举证）将至少需要三周。\n\n政府谨请求法庭在6月6日的会议上确定审判日期以及审前动议日程。政府谨认为提议的这一方式效率最高，因为适当的审前动议日程部分取决于审判日期，而审判日期又取决于法庭的排期情况。4\n\n被告的立场\n\n目前，两名被告在审前均处于羁押状态。假设被告继续被羁押，辩方提出以下案件日程：\n\n1. 政府于4月28日前完整移交所有开示证据；\n\n2. 辩方动议在两个月后提交，截止日期为6月30日；\n\n3. 将四个月后的8月25日设为审判控制日期。\n\n鉴于证据开示量巨大，且我们与当事人共同审查材料准备庭审时需要口译员协助，我们请求在审判前尽早完成审前披露。辩方提出以下审前披露日程：\n\n- 审判前7周：政府就其首要举证阶段提供专家证人通知。\n- 审判前6周：\n\t- 政府提供其首要举证阶段的证人名单。\n\t- 政府提供详细的404(b)通知。\n\t- 政府提供除英语以外的任何语言的《第3500条规则》（Rule 3500）材料。\n- 审判前4周：\n\t- 被告就辩方举证提供专家证人通知。\n\t- 双方提交拟议的陪审团选拔（voir dire）问题。\n\t- 双方提交拟议的陪审团指示（辩方案情理论指示除外）。\n\t- 双方提交预先排除证据动议（motions in limine）。\n\t- 政府提供其首要举证阶段的证物清单。\n\t- 政府提供英文的第3500条材料及Giglio材料。\n- 审判前3周：双方对预先排除证据动议提交答辩意见。\n- 审判前2周：双方对各自的预先排除证据动议提交反对意见。\n- 审判前1周：\n\t- 被告提供证人名单。\n\t- 被告提供证物清单。\n\n- 预计辩方举证开始前3天：被告向政府提供《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第26.2条（FRCP 26.2）所涵盖的材料。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗根森）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理美国联邦检察官）\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\n抄送：全体辩护律师（经由 ECF）\n\n1 政府于2023年3月27日向郭的辩护律师、于2023年3月29日向王的辩护律师（即王在替代起诉书中被指控的当天）发送了其拟议的保护令，告知他们政府将在保护令签署生效后开始移交材料。政府于4月14日和17日收到了辩方的回复，在政府于4月18日做出修改后，于2023年4月19日提交了签署拟议保护令的申请。（Dkt. 49）。\n\n2 政府可能无法从某些设备中提取数据，且/或提取过程可能需要数月或更长时间。\n\n3 政府预计设备中的大部分内容还需要从普通话翻译为英语。\n\n4 关于下文被告的立场，政府指出，法庭并未指示双方提交拟议的审前披露日程，且双方尚未有充分机会就此进行讨论。此外，政府指出，被告就本案提议的审判日期和日程并未考虑到（其中包括）政府预期的依据《保密信息程序法》（Classified Information Procedures Act）提出动议所需的时间，以及审查2023年3月15日扣押设备所需的时间。（参见 Dkt. 52）。","key_entities":["Kwok","CIPA","Torres","Analisa Torres","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","Giglio","Classified Information"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":36,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":49,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":52,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1154,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:25:04"}