{"id":"court_sdny_61_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":61,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":" United States Attorney Southern District of New York","summary_zh":"政府答复函 —— 美国诉 Kwok 等人案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118（2023年4月30日）。美国检察官办公室回应被告人关于拟议保护令条款修改的请求，就 Yanping Wang 和被告人的要求（包括允许翻译人员作为指定人、保密材料存放位置、律师眼部条款）提出政府立场。","summary_en":"Government Response Letter — United States v. Kwok et al., SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 (April 30, 2023). The United States Attorney's Office responds to defendants' requests for modifications to a proposed protective order, addressing whether interpreters may be designated persons, whether counsel may retain highly confidential materials outside office locations, and whether attorney's eyes-only provisions should apply.","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 30, 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 writes in response to Yanping Wang's April 28, 2023 letter concerning the Government's proposed protective order.\n\n*First*, both defendants request that the Court add \"interpreters\" as \"Designated Persons\" in paragraph 7(e) of the proposed protective order. The Government does not object to this request. Attached in Exhibit A is a modified proposed protective order to include this change.\n\n*Second*, both defendants request that the Court permit their counsel to retain \"Highly Confidential\" material in locations other than their offices. The Government does not object to \"Designated Persons\" retaining \"Highly Confidential\" material in their offices or homes. To the extent the defense intends to transport sensitive material to other locations, the parties can discuss such proposals. The Government intends to be flexible about this issue. The proposed order in Exhibit A is modified in accord with the foregoing. [1](#page-0-0)\n\n*Third*, only defendant Wang objectsto the Attorney's Eyes-Only provision in the protective order. This provision remains appropriate, particularly given the documented history of obstruction by defendant Kwok and his associates.\n\n*Fourth*, in Exhibit A the Government has added paragraph 16, which would require the defendants to notify the Government at least ten business days before producing materials pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests. The Government has already received a blanket\n\n1 The Government continues to believe that lay-witnesses should *not* be permitted to *permanently* possess Confidential material, which includes financial information of victims and third parties. (The proposed order permits lay-witness counsel to retain such material, if necessary.) Defense counsel does not identify how such a commonsense restriction interferes with their ability to prepare a defense. To the extent a particular unrepresented lay witness seeks to retain possession of Confidential material, the parties can discuss whether such request is appropriate, and the defense can seek the Court's permission in the event of a disagreement. Blanket permission for all lay witness to retain Confidential material is not warranted.\n\nrequest for duplicate discovery from a purported Kwok associate who claims that the Government's discovery is relevant to another legal matter. The defendants, and their associates, should not be permitted to circumvent the protective order's protections through the use of civil lawsuits. This proposed provision in no way impacts the substantive rights of the defendants or their counsel. It merely requires that advance notice be provided to afford the Government an opportunity to quash a subpoena if the Government deems it appropriate.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\nRyan 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（联邦检察官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n\n2023年4月30日\n\n通过 ECF\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉联邦法院）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n事由：United States v. Kwok et al.（美国 诉 郭等），案号 S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府谨以此函回应 Yanping Wang（王雁平）于2023年4月28日就政府拟议的保护令所提交的信函。\n\n第一，两名被告均请求法院在拟议保护令第 7(e) 段中将“口译员/翻译员”列为“指定人员”。政府对此项请求不持异议。附件 A 中附有包含此项修改的修正后拟议保护令。\n\n第二，两名被告均请求法院允许其律师将“高度机密”材料保存在其办公室以外的地点。政府不反对“指定人员”在其办公室或住所保存“高度机密”材料。如果辩方意图将敏感材料转移至其他地点，各方可对此类提议进行协商。政府打算在此问题上保持灵活性。附件 A 中的拟议命令已根据前述内容进行了相应修改。[1]\n\n第三，仅被告王对保护令中的“仅限律师查阅”条款提出异议。该条款依然是适当的，尤其是考虑到被告 Kwok（郭文贵）及其同伙已有记录在案的妨碍司法历史。\n\n第四，在附件 A 中，政府增加了第 16 段，该段将要求被告在根据传票、法院命令或其他请求提供材料前至少十个工作日通知政府。政府此前已收到一份一揽子\n\n[1] 政府依然认为，不应允许非专家证人（普通证人）永久持有包含受害者及第三方财务信息在内的“机密”材料。（拟议命令允许非专家证人的代理律师在必要时保留此类材料。）辩护律师并未说明为何这种常识性限制会妨碍他们准备辩护的能力。如果某一特定的无代理律师的非专家证人寻求继续持有“机密”材料，各方可以讨论该请求是否适当，且在出现分歧时，辩方可寻求法院许可。给予所有非专家证人保留“机密”材料的一揽子许可并无依据。\n\n由一名声称政府开示证据与另一法律事项相关的所谓郭氏同伙提出的重复开示证据请求。不应允许被告及其同伙通过民事诉讼规避保护令的保护措施。这一拟议条款绝不会影响被告或其律师的实质性权利。它仅仅要求提供预先通知，以便在政府认为适当时有机会申请撤销传票。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\n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·弗格森）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\n助理联邦检察官\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\n抄送：全体律师（通过 ECF）","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Torres","Yanping Wang","Analisa Torres","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":495,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:21:57"}