{"id":"court_sdny_60_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":60,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-04-28","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) 147 WEST 25TH STREET, 12TH FLOOR\\NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001\\CHAUDHRYLAW.COM","summary_zh":"修改请求函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #60（2023年4月28日）。被告 Yanping Wang 的律师提出三项修改请求，要求在保护令中增列口译员为指定人员、调整高度机密材料的限制条件、移除仅供律师审阅的限制以允许被告审查相关材料。法院批准该请求。","summary_en":"Motion for Amendment — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Miles Guo, Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #60 (April 28, 2023). Defense counsel for defendant Yanping Wang requested amendments to the proposed protective order: inclusion of interpreters as Designated Persons, modification of restrictions on Highly Confidential Material, and removal of Attorneys' Eyes Only restrictions to allow defendant review of materials. The court approved the request.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n147 WEST 25TH STREET, 12TH FLOOR\\NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001\\CHAUDHRYLAW.COM\n\nApril 28, 2023\n\n# *Via* **ECF**\n\nHon. Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\n## *Re: United States v. Yanping Wang***, S1 1:23-cr-00118-AT Request for Court Order for Amendment of the Proposed Protective Order**\n\nDear Hon. Judge Torres:\n\nAlong with Lipman Law PLLC, we represent Defendant Yanping Wang in the abovereferenced matter. On April 19, 2023, the government requested the Court to enter a Protective Order to facilitate the production of discovery in this case, noting our objections to two provisions of the proposed Protective Order. On April 21, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Ms. Wang to file her response by April 28, 2023, including an explanation of any objections to the proposed Protective Order, the reason for such objections, and any alternative proposal.\n\nWe write to request: (i) an amendment to Paragraph 7(e) of the Proposed Protective Order to include interpreters as Designated Persons authorized to receive and review Confidential Material and Highly Confidential Material necessary for purposes of defending this action; (ii) an amendment to Paragraph 8 of the proposed Protective Order so that the restrictions on Highly Confidential Material are the same as Confidential Material for Designated Persons and apply only to Ms. Wang; and (iii) an amendment to Paragraph 9 of the Proposed Protective Order to remove the \"Attorneys' Eyes Only\" restriction, thus allowing Ms. Wang to review the protected materials with her counsel but maintaining all of the restrictions relating to Highly Confidential Material.<sup>1</sup>\n\n<sup>1</sup> Counsel for Defendant Ho Wan Kwok advised that Mr. Kwok joins in the requests contained in Sections I and II of this letter.\n\nHON. ANALISA TORRES\n\n### **I. The Court Should Order an Amendment to Paragraph 7(e) of the Proposed Protective Order to Include Interpreters as Designated Persons Authorized to Receive and Review Confidential Material and Highly Confidential Material Necessary for the Purposes of Defending This Action**\n\nThe discovery materials in this case are expected to contain a significant volume of documents in Mandarin, and many of these documents may only be comprehensible with the assistance of Mandarin interpreters. These interpreters are likely to play a critical role in facilitating effective communication between the defense team and Ms. Wang as well as ensuring that the defense team can fully comprehend the content of the Mandarin documents. For these reasons, it is also essential that the defense team be able to communicate freely with the interpreters it will employ. Without the inclusion of interpreters in the list of Designated Persons in Paragraph 7(e) of the Proposed Protective Order, thus, the defense team will be severely hindered in its ability to represent Ms. Wang effectively. Therefore, to facilitate an effective representation of our client, we respectfully request that the Court modify Paragraph 7(e) of the Proposed Protective Order to explicitly include interpreters as Designated Persons.\n\n### **II. The Court Should Order an Amendment To Paragraph 8 Of The Proposed Protective Order So That The Restrictions On Highly Confidential Material Are The Same As Confidential Material For Designated Persons And Apply Only To The Defendant**\n\nParagraph 8 contains several restrictions on the handling of Highly Confidential Material, including requirements that it be reviewed only at the offices of defense counsel in the presence of counsel or any member of the defense team, that copies not be retained outside of those offices, and that notes not be made outside of those offices. We request that these restrictions apply only to Ms. Wang and not to anyone else, including prospective witnesses and members of the defense team, such as attorneys, experts, consultants, paralegals, investigators, support personnel, and secretarial staff. This will enable the defense team to collaborate effectively and prepare the case while ensuring that the Highly Confidential Material remains secure and not compromised.\n\nThe government argues that the restrictions on Highly Confidential Material are necessary because lay witnesses are unlikely to treat sensitive materials with appropriate care. That concern is speculative, and, in any event, can be addressed with proper instruction and admonition as well as by informing the relevant persons that the information they receive is subject to a Protective Order of the Court. Furthermore, the government's argument that defense HON. ANALISA TORRES\n\ncounsel has not identified how this restriction interferes with their ability to defend their client is myopic. The government ignores Ms. Wang's strong constitutional interest in effective collaboration and communication within the defense team, to wit: to provide effective assistance to our client, it is essential that members of the defense team have access to the Highly Confidential Material in a manner that allows for easy and speedy collaboration. This is particularly true here given the complexity and scale of the case at hand.\n\n#### **III. The Court Should Order an Amendment to Paragraph 9 of the Proposed Protective Order to Remove the \"Attorneys' Eyes Only\" Restriction, Thus Allowing Ms. Wang to Review the Protected Materials with Her Counsel**\n\nParagraph 9, which addresses \"Restrictions on Attorneys' Eyes Only Materials,\" keeps us from effectively representing our client by preventing us from obtaining her critical assistance in reviewing, understanding, and investigating her case. We ask that the Court order to modify this section to treat these materials in the same manner as \"Highly Confidential Material.\"\n\nAs the Supreme Court has long held, a defendant's constitutional right to counsel \"requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings.\" *Powell v. Alabama*, 287 U.S. 45, 69 (1932). Among other things, the Court has held that it was a constitutional violation of a right to counsel to deprive a defendant of access to counsel during an overnight recess in the trial. *Geders v. United States*, 425 U.S. 80, 96 (1976). Similarly, the Court has held that a defendant's constitutional right to be present at his trial requires \"sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.\" *Dusky v. United States*, 80 S. Ct. 788, 789 (1960) (per curiam).\n\nThere is precedent for the Department of Justice acting in conformity with these constitutional concerns. The United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York had previously agreed to such a modification in *United States v. Castricone*, No. 120-CR-00133 (LJV) (MJR), 2021 WL 841405 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2021). In *Castricone*, the defendant filed a motion to modify a protective order, which had been entered with the consent of the parties. The protective order required the government to disclose certain documents and recordings to the defense counsel with the condition that they not be disclosed to the defendant or disseminated to the public and be provided \"for attorney's eyes only.\" The defendant asserted that he is entitled to discovery of these documents and recordings under Rule 16, which expressly provides that records must be made available for inspection and copying by a defendant. The defendant therefore requested that the court modify the protective order to allow him access to the discoverable materials with a continued prohibition against public\n\ndissemination. The government \"consent[ed] to modifying the protective order to remove the 'for attorney's eyes only' restriction, thus allowing defendant to review the protected materials with his counsel, but not possess them.\" *Id.* at \\*2. The court agreed that \"the protective order should be modified to allow defendant to view the materials, as consented to by the Government, but [would] not allow defendant to possess or retain any of the protected materials. Accordingly, an amended protective order [was] issued.\" *Id.*\n\nWe ask for a similar modification to Paragraph 9 of the Proposed Protective Order to remove the \"Attorneys' Eyes Only\" restriction, thus allowing Ms. Wang to review the protected materials with her counsel but maintaining all the restrictions relating to Highly Confidential Material. Here, the Court should consider the critical importance of Ms. Wang's review and assistance in understanding and interpreting any documents in Mandarin contained within the discovery. The sheer expected volume of documents in Mandarin and the potential need to identify the handwriting of people only Ms. Wang can identify underscore the critical nature of her assistance to the defense team. The defense team cannot rely only on third-party interpreters, translators, or experts to accurately identify the authors of these documents. In addition, the fact that the documents may contain specific cultural or linguistic references (and possibly regional variations) that are difficult to discern for non-native speakers highlights the need for Ms. Wang to be able to review the materials with her counsel. Without her review and assistance, the defense team may miss critical pieces of evidence or misunderstand their significance. Allowing Ms. Wang to review and assist in the review of these materials, therefore, is essential to defense counsel's ability to be effective.\n\nThe requested amendments are indispensable for us to provide effective assistance to our client. The proposed Protective Order in its current form puts us at risk of breaching our ethical obligation to perform a zealous and thorough investigation in defending our client. The \"Attorneys' Eyes Only\" restriction in particular imposes an onerous barrier to the defense team's ability to effectively represent Ms. Wang in this case. This restriction prevents her from providing critical assistance in reviewing and understanding her case, which is a fundamental aspect of the defense team's investigation and preparation.\n\nWith respect to any materials which may be provided to defense counsel in a SCIF, we would be bound by those rules but would seek to share the content of those materials with our client for the reasons stated above.\n\nHON. ANALISA TORRES\n\n#### **Conclusion**\n\nIn light of the above, we write to request: (i) an amendment to Paragraph 7(e) of the Proposed Protective Order to include interpreters as Designated Persons authorized to receive and review Confidential Material and Highly Confidential Material necessary for the purposes of defending this action; (ii) an amendment to Paragraph 8 of the proposed Protective Order so that the restrictions on Highly Confidential Material are the same as Confidential Material for Designated Persons and apply only to Ms. Wang; and (iii) an amendment to Paragraph 9 of the Proposed Protective Order to remove the \"Attorneys' Eyes Only\" restriction, thus allowing Ms. Wang to review the protected materials with her counsel but maintaining all of the restrictions relating to Highly Confidential Material.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/*\n\nPriya Chaudhry\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nHON. ANALISA TORRES, U.S.D.J.\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nCc: AUSA Juliana N. Murray (*via* ECF) AUSA Micah Fergenson (*via* ECF) AUSA Ryan Finkel (*via* ECF)","body_zh":"147 WEST 25TH STREET, 12TH FLOOR\\NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001\\CHAUDHRYLAW.COM\n\n2023年4月28日\n\n通过 ECF\n\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n事由：United States v. Yanping Wang（美国诉王雁平案），S1 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n请求法院下达修改拟议保护令的命令\n\n尊敬的 Torres 法官阁下：\n\n我们与 Lipman Law PLLC 共同代表上述案件中的被告 Yanping Wang（王雁平）。2023年4月19日，政府请求法院签署一项保护令，以便利本案开示证据的移交，并指出了我们对拟议保护令两项条款的异议。2023年4月21日，法院发布命令，要求王女士在2023年4月28日之前提交答复，包括说明对拟议保护令的任何异议、该等异议的理由以及任何替代方案。\n\n我们特此致信请求：(i) 修改拟议保护令第 7(e) 段，将口译员列为有权接收和查阅为本案辩护目的所必需的机密材料和高度机密材料的指定人员；(ii) 修改拟议保护令第 8 段，使对指定人员的高度机密材料限制与机密材料相同，且仅适用于王女士；以及 (iii) 修改拟议保护令第 9 段，删除“仅限律师查阅”的限制，从而允许王女士与其辩护律师一起查阅受保护的材料，但保留与高度机密材料相关的所有限制。1\n\n1 被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的辩护律师告知，郭先生附议本信第一节和第二节所载的请求。\n\nHON. ANALISA TORRES\n\n一、法院应当裁定修改拟议保护令第 7(e) 段，将口译员列为有权接收和查阅为本案辩护目的所必需的机密材料和高度机密材料的指定人员\n\n预计本案的开示材料中包含大量中文普通话文件，且其中许多文件可能只有在中文普通话口译员的协助下才能被理解。这些口译员很可能在促进辩护团队与王女士之间的有效沟通，以及确保辩护团队能够完全理解中文普通话文件的内容方面发挥关键作用。出于这些原因，辩护团队能够与其聘用的口译员自由沟通也是至关重要的。因此，如果拟议保护令第 7(e) 段的指定人员名单中不包含口译员，辩护团队有效代表王女士的能力将受到严重阻碍。因此，为了便利对我们当事人的有效代理，我们谨请求法院修改拟议保护令第 7(e) 段，明确将口译员列为指定人员。\n\n二、法院应当裁定修改拟议保护令第 8 段，使对指定人员的高度机密材料限制与机密材料相同，且仅适用于被告\n\n第 8 段载有若干关于处理高度机密材料的限制，包括要求仅能在辩护律师办公室内且在辩护律师或辩护团队任何成员在场的情况下查阅该材料、不得在这些办公室之外保留副本，以及不得在这些办公室之外做笔记。我们请求这些限制仅适用于王女士，而不适用于任何其他人，包括潜在证人和辩护团队成员，如律师、专家、顾问、律师助理、调查员、辅助人员和秘书人员。这将使辩护团队能够有效开展协作并准备案件，同时确保高度机密材料保持安全且不被泄露。\n\n政府辩称，对高度机密材料施加限制是必要的，因为外行证人不太可能以适当的谨慎态度对待敏感材料。这种担忧纯属推测，无论如何，都可以通过适当的指导和告诫，以及告知相关人员其收到的信息受法院保护令约束来解决。此外，政府辩称辩护律师未说明该限制如何妨碍其为当事人辩护的能力，这种观点是目光短浅的。政府忽视了王女士在辩护团队内部进行有效协作和沟通的重大宪法利益，即：为了向我们的当事人提供有效协助，辩护团队成员必须能够以易于且迅速协作的方式获取高度机密材料。鉴于目前手头案件的复杂性和规模，在本案中尤其如此。\n\n三、法院应当裁定修改拟议保护令第 9 段，删除“仅限律师查阅”的限制，从而允许王女士与其辩护律师一起查阅受保护的材料\n\n专门针对“仅限律师查阅材料之限制”的第 9 段，阻止我们获得当事人在查阅、理解和调查其案件方面的关键协助，从而阻碍我们有效代理当事人。我们请求法院下令修改本节，以对待“高度机密材料”相同的方式对待这些材料。\n\n正如最高法院长期以来所认定的，被告享有获得律师协助的宪法权利“要求在诉讼程序的每一步都有律师的指导之手”。Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69 (1932)。除其他事项外，法院已认定，在审判期间的过夜休庭期间剥夺被告与律师接触的机会构成了对获得律师协助权的宪法侵犯。Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 96 (1976)。同样，法院认定，被告在审判时出庭的宪法权利要求其“目前具有足够的能力，能够以合理程度的理性理解与其律师进行商商”。Dusky v. United States, 80 S. Ct. 788, 789 (1960) (per curiam)。\n\n司法部此前已有符合这些宪法关切的先例。United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York（纽约西区联邦检察官办公室）此前曾在 United States v. Castricone 案，No. 120-CR-00133 (LJV) (MJR), 2021 WL 841405 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2021) 中同意了此类修改。在 Castricone 案中，被告提出修改保护令的动议，该保护令此前是在双方当事人同意的情况下签署的。该保护令要求政府向辩护律师披露某些文件和录音，条件是不得向被告披露或向公众传播，并以“仅限律师查阅”的方式提供。被告主张，根据第 16 条规则，其有权开示这些文件和录音，该规则明确规定必须向被告提供记录供其查阅和复制。因此，被告请求法院修改保护令，允许其获取可开示的材料，同时继续禁止向公众传播。政府“同意修改保护令以删除‘仅限律师查阅’的限制，从而允许被告与其律师一起查阅受保护的材料，但不得占有这些材料”。同上，第 *2 页。法院同意“应当修改保护令以允许被告查看材料，正如政府所同意的那样，但不会允许被告占有或保留任何受保护的材料。据此，法院发布了一份经修正的保护令”。同上。\n\n我们请求对拟议保护令第 9 段进行类似的修改，删除“仅限律师查阅”的限制，从而允许王女士与其辩护律师一起查阅受保护的材料，但保留与高度机密材料相关的所有限制。在此，法院应考虑王女士在理解和翻译开示材料中所包含的任何中文普通话文件方面的查阅和协助具有关键重要性。中文普通话文件预计数量庞大，且可能需要辨认只有王女士才能辨认的人的笔迹，这突显了她对辩护团队协助的关键性质。辩护团队不能仅仅依赖第三方口译员、翻译人员或专家来准确辨认这些文件的作者。此外，这些文件可能包含特定文化或语言上的典故（以及可能的地域差异），这些对于非母语人士而言很难辨别，这一事实凸显了王女士能够与其律师一起查阅材料的必要性。如果没有她的查阅和协助，辩护团队可能会遗漏关键证据或误解其重要性。因此，允许王女士查阅并协助查阅这些材料，对于辩护律师能够进行有效辩护至关重要。\n\n所请求的修改对于我们向当事人提供有效协助是必不可少的。目前形式的拟议保护令使我们面临违反我们在为当事人辩护时进行热诚且彻底调查的职业道德义务的风险。特别是“仅限律师查阅”的限制对辩护团队在本案中有效代理王女士的能力构成了繁重的障碍。该限制阻止了她在查阅和理解其案件方面提供关键协助，而这是辩护团队进行调查和准备工作的基础方面。\n\n关于可能在敏感信息隔离设施（SCIF）中向辩护律师提供的任何材料，我们将受这些规则的约束，但基于上述原因，我们将寻求与我们的当事人分享这些材料的内容。\n\nHON. ANALISA TORRES\n\n结论\n\n鉴于上述情况，我们特此致信请求：(i) 修改拟议保护令第 7(e) 段，将口译员列为有权接收和查阅为本案辩护目的所必需的机密材料和高度机密材料的指定人员；(ii) 修改拟议保护令第 8 段，使对指定人员的高度机密材料限制与机密材料相同，且仅适用于王女士；以及 (iii) 修改拟议保护令第 9 段，删除“仅限律师查阅”的限制，从而允许王女士与其辩护律师一起查阅受保护的材料，但保留与高度机密材料相关的所有限制。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/\n\nPriya Chaudhry\n\n特此裁定。\n\nHON. ANALISA TORRES, U.S.D.J.（美国联邦地区法官阿娜丽莎·托雷斯阁下）\n\n_________________________________\n\n抄送：\nAUSA Juliana N. Murray（联邦助理检察官朱莉安娜·N·默里，通过 ECF）\nAUSA Micah Fergenson（联邦助理检察官米卡·弗格森，通过 ECF）\nAUSA Ryan Finkel（联邦助理检察官瑞安·芬克尔，通过 ECF）","key_entities":["Torres","Analisa Torres","Je","Kwok","Yanping Wang","RICO","Ho Wan Kwok","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1748,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:27:50"}