{"id":"court_sdny_54_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":54,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-04-21","title":"|  | Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT | Document 54  | Filed 04/21/23         | Page 1 of 2 |  |","summary_zh":"保护令 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #54（2023年4月21日作出）。政府申请并法院颁布保护令以便在诉讼中提交发现证据。保护令设定多个保密等级以保护受害人和第三方的财务信息、个人身份信息及进行中的调查材料。","summary_en":"Protective order —— United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Guo Wengui, a/k/a Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #54 (issued April 21, 2023). The Government requested and the Court entered a protective order to facilitate production of discovery materials. The order established multiple confidentiality designations to protect victims' and third parties' financial information, personal identifying information, and ongoing investigation materials.","body_en":"|--|-----------------------|--------------|------------------------|-------------|--|\n|  |                       | U.S. Departm |                        |             |  |\n|  |                       |              |                        |             |  |\n|  |                       |              | United States A        |             |  |\n|  |                       |              | Southern Distr         |             |  |\n|  |                       |              | The Silvio J. Mollo Bu | 4/21/2023   |  |\n\n*One Saint Andrew's P New York, New York 10007*\n\nApril 19, 2023\n\n**VIA ECF**\n\nHon. 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 to 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\n\nBy **April 28, 2023**, Defendants shall file their response, if any, to the Government's proposed protective order, explaining which portions of the proposed order Defendants object to, the reason for the objection, and Defendants' proposed alternative.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 21, 2023 New York, New York\n\nCursive signature or flourish.","body_zh":"美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）\n美国联邦检察官办公室（United States Attorney's Office）\n纽约南区（Southern District of New York）\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\n4/21/2023\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n\n2023年4月19日\n\n通过 ECF 提交\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse\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），案号 S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府特此致信，恭请法院签署随附的保护令（Protective Order）拟议案，以便利本案证据开示材料的调取与移交。（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（王雁平）的辩护律师已指出其提出异议的两项条款。\n\n拟议保护令在本案中是适当的，原因如下。第一，政府开示的证据材料包含受害者和第三方的财务信息及个人身份信息。事实上，政府拟调取并移交大量涉及多个实体的不同来源的银行记录和其他财务记录。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述的那样，众所周知郭文贵及其同伙存在妨碍法院诉讼程序的行为。如果没有适当的保护措施，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、侵犯第三方的隐私并伤害受害者。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乱——政府认为保护令中包含一个选项是适当的，即允许将某些一旦披露可能会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）。政府无意将大量材料作此标记，并已同意在将潜在材料指定为“仅限律师查阅”之前与辩方律师进行沟通协商。\n\n如前所述，郭文贵的律师对签署保护令不持异议，但郭文贵和王雁平的律师对拟议保护令的某些条款提出异议。第一，王雁平的律师反对纳入“仅限律师查阅”的标识，理由是该标识阻止了律师在“审查、理解和调查其案情时获得王雁平的关键协助”。如上所述，政府认为为了受害者的安全，包含该选项至关重要。第二，郭文贵和王雁平的律师均反对纳入脚注 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。（如果郭文贵和王雁平的律师认为有必要，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对敏感材料给予妥善保管。此外，辩护律师并未说明此项限制如何干扰了他们为当事人辩护的能力，政府也不认为会产生此类干扰。\n\n更广泛地讲，如果因政府将材料指定为“仅限律师查阅”或因脚注 1 而产生具体争议且双方无法协商达成一致，保护令允许辩护律师将该争议提请法院裁决。\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\n美国联邦检察官\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel\nJuliana N. Murray\nMicah F. Fergenson\n助理美国联邦检察官\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\n随附附件\n\n被告应于 2023年4月28日 之前就政府提出的拟议保护令提交答复意见（如有），说明被告对拟议保护令的哪些部分提出异议、异议理由以及被告提出的替代方案。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2023年4月21日\n纽约州纽约市\n\n草签或花押签名。","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Torres","Ho Wan Kwok","Analisa Torres","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":677,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-21 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-21","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:23:00"}