{"id":"court_sdny_805_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":805,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2026-02-20","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK","summary_zh":"法官驳回动议 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #805（2026年2月20日）。被告要求法院在判刑阶段重新审查根据《分类信息程序法》(CIPA) Section 4 提供的机密材料。法官认为虽然判刑程序允许考虑更广泛范围的信息，但这不足以重新开启发现程序，且动议提交不及时，予以驳回。","summary_en":"Denial of Motion for Reconsideration of Classified Information —— United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo), SDNY case 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #805 (February 20, 2026). Defendant requested that the Court review classified materials disclosed under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) Section 4 in the sentencing context. The Court denied the motion, holding that although sentencing allows consideration of broader information than trial, this does not provide grounds to relitigate discovery proceedings, and the motion was untimely filed.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nDefendant, Miles Guo, requests that the Court “review the [Classified Information\nProcedures Act (‘CIPA’)] Section 4 material and compel disclosure to cleared defense counsel\n[of] those items material or helpful to [Guo] in the sentencing context.”  Mot. at 2, ECF No. 783;\nsee also ECF Nos. 793, 795 (Government’s Responses); ECF No. 796 (Guo’s Reply).  For the\nreasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.\n\nI. Background\n\nCIPA Section 4 permits the Court to “authorize the United States to delete specified items\nof classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through\ndiscovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the\ninformation for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts\nthat the classified information would tend to prove.”  18 U.S.C. app. § 4.\n\nCIPA “neither creates new discovery rights nor expands the rules of discovery governing\nthe admissibility of evidence.”  United States v. Alshahhi, 628 F. Supp. 3d 449, 453 (E.D.N.Y.\n2022).  In evaluating the Government’s motion under CIPA, the district court, therefore, first\ndetermines whether certain information is discoverable.  United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 80\n(2d Cir. 2008).  Then, it determines whether the “state-secrets privilege applies” to the\ninformation and has been properly invoked.  Id.  Finally, it determines “whether the information\nis helpful or material to the defense” and exercises its discretion in compelling disclosure.  Id.\n\nOn April 18, 2024, the Court issued a decision on the Government’s ex parte CIPA\nSection 4 motion in this case and in 18 Cr. 118-3.  See CIPA Section 4 Order, ECF No. 294.1  In\nthat decision, after extensive briefing and a careful in camera review of the materials, the Court\nfound that “[m]any of the materials [we]re . . . not discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373\nU.S. 83 (1963) . . . or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16” and were, therefore, properly\nwithheld from discovery.  Id. at 4.  For the remaining materials, the Court either: (1) approved\nthe Government’s redactions, “finding that the redactions omitted information that did not affect\n\n1 Guo’s motion references a separate order entered at ECF No. 363.  See Mot. at 4.  The order filed at ECF No. 363\nrelated to motions and proceedings under CIPA Sections 5 and 6(a) and concerned Guo’s ability to ask a trial\nwitness about certain classified information during cross-examination.  See generally ECF No. 363.  Because Guo’s\nmotion asks the Court to “review the CIPA Section 4 material,” the Court does not construe Guo as moving for\nreconsideration of the order at ECF No. 363, and to the extent that Guo is moving for reconsideration of that order,\nthe Court finds no reason to reopen and relitigate that prior order.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n-against-\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nORDER\nHO WAN KWOK A/K/A “MILES GUO,”\n                                  Defendant.\nUSDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #:  _________________\nDATE FILED: _2/20/2026___\n\n---\n\n2\n\nDefendants’ ability to present their defenses”; (2) approved substitutions, “holding that the\nsubstitutions would provide Defendants with substantially the same ability to present their\ndefenses”; (3) determined after an ex parte hearing that the requested deletions were proper as\nthe deleted material was “cumulative of unclassified discovery”; or (4) approved further\nsubstitutions provided after the ex parte hearing on the grounds that the substitutions “provided\nDefendants with substantially the same ability to assert their defenses.”  Id. at 4–5.\n\nII. Discussion\n\nGuo now asks the Court to revisit its CIPA Section 4 order, arguing, first, that Brady and\nother discovery obligations apply to sentencing proceedings and therefore require the Court’s\nreexamination of CIPA Section 4 material at sentencing, and second, that because more\ninformation may be “relevant” during a Court’s sentencing proceedings than is relevant at trial, a\nsecond review of the Section 4 materials is warranted.  See Mot. at 2–3.  The Court is not\npersuaded.\n\nFirst, even though a defendant’s right to receive disclosure from the Government under\nRule 16 and Brady does not vanish upon his conviction, the Court has already examined his right\nto disclosure in this case and found that much of the CIPA Section 4 material was, in fact, not\ndiscoverable under Rule 16 or Brady.  See CIPA Section 4 Order at 4.  Nothing in Guo’s motion\ngives the Court reason to reconsider its holding that the bulk of these materials is not\ndiscoverable.  For the substitutions that the Court did order, and the materials that the Court\nfound not relevant and helpful to the defense, Guo merely argues that the Court’s analysis of\nwhat is “relevant and helpful” under CIPA naturally becomes a “vastly different exercise” once a\ndefendant faces sentencing.  See Mot. at 3.  But that does not establish a right to have the Court\nreexamine discovery at sentencing.  The Court reiterates its prior holding that the material\nredacted from the substitutions did not deprive Guo of substantially the same ability to present\nhis defense.  Indeed, the Government’s briefing addressed—and the Court already considered—\nmaterials potentially relevant for sentencing mitigation.  See Initial CIPA Section 4 Mot., ECF\nNo. 210.  Guo identifies no authority establishing a right to have the Court reexamine each of its\nprior holdings concerning redacted information at sentencing.  See Mot. at 3 (citing cases\ndescribing CIPA procedures generally).2\n\nSecond, to the extent that Guo argues that the Court’s discovery orders, including its\nCIPA Section 4 order, failed to consider whether discoverable material would have been\n“relevant or helpful” for sentencing purposes, the Court construes those arguments as a motion\nfor reconsideration of those orders.  See, e.g., Mot. at 4 (“renew[ing]” requests that this Court\ndenied in a February 21, 2024 Order, ECF No. 243, “in the broader context of sentencing”).\n“Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed\nsparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.”  United States\nv. Baldeo, No. 13 Cr. 125, 2015 WL 252414, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2015) (internal quotation\n\n2 United States v. Stewart held that a district court correctly refused to compel materials during discovery under\nCIPA and otherwise upheld the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentences at issue.  590 F.3d 93,\n130–32, 134 (2d Cir. 2009).  United States v. Aref concerned an appeal of a conviction and a defendant’s rights\nduring pretrial discovery.  See 533 F.3d at 76, 78.  United States v. Dumeisi likewise concerned a challenge to a\nconviction.  424 F.3d 566, 574 (7th Cir. 2005).  CIPA was not raised in the context of sentencing in these cases.\n\n---\n\n3\n\nmarks and citation omitted), aff’d, 615 F. App’x 26 (2d Cir. 2015).  “[A] motion for\nreconsideration ‘is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues . . .  or otherwise taking a second bite\nat the apple.’”  United States v. Lisi, No. 15 Cr. 457, 2020 WL 1331955, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.\nMar. 23, 2020) (quoting Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d\nCir. 2012)).  Indeed, “[t]he standard for granting such a motion is strict.”  United States v.\nGoldberg, No. 12 Cr. 864, 2021 WL 2444548, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2021) (citation omitted).\n\nGuo’s motion fails to meet that strict standard.  His sole argument is that sentencing\nproceedings are a “broader context” than trial.  Although a Court may consider more information\nin determining sentence than a jury would in determining guilt, without more, this fact is not a\nsufficient basis to relitigate the scope of discovery and reopen CIPA proceedings, for the reasons\ndiscussed above.\n\nMoreover, such a motion for reconsideration has not been brought within a reasonable\ntime and would further delay resolution of this case.  Guo fails to explain why he did not seek\nreconsideration of the Court’s CIPA orders earlier.  Local Criminal Rule 49.1(b) provides that a\nparty may file “[a] motion for reconsideration . . . within fourteen (14) days after the Court’s\ndetermination of the original motion.”  Although Guo’s motion does hinge on the fact that the\ncase is now in sentencing proceedings, the Court notes that Guo failed to make his motion within\n14 days of entry of the jury’s verdict—or, in fact, within any reasonable time at all.  See Jury\nVerdict, ECF Nos. 394–95 (July 18, 2024).  Guo instead brings this motion almost eighteen\nmonths after trial concluded and after sentencing proceedings have been adjourned numerous\ntimes at his request, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 512, 719, 782.\n\nAccordingly, Guo’s motion is DENIED.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to\nterminate the motion at ECF No. 783.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated:  February 20, 2026\n\n New York, New York","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n-against-（诉）\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nORDER（裁定）\n\nHO WAN KWOK A/K/A “MILES GUO,”（郭文贵，又名“Miles Guo”）\nDefendant.（被告人。）\n\nUSDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #: _________________\nDATE FILED: _2/20/2026___\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge（地区法官阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）：\n\n被告人 Miles Guo（郭文贵）请求本院“审查《Classified Information Procedures Act》（《机密信息程序法》，简称‘CIPA’）第4条材料，并强制向获得安全许可的辩护律师披露对[郭文贵]在量刑阶段具有实质性或有帮助的项目”。动议第2页，ECF No. 783；亦见 ECF Nos. 793, 795（政府方的答辩）；ECF No. 796（郭文贵的答辩回复）。基于下述理由，该动议予以驳回（DENIED）。\n\nI. 背景\n\nCIPA第4条允许法院“授权合众国从根据《Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure》（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》）在证据开示中应向被告人提供的文件中删除特定的机密信息项，以该等机密文件的信息摘要进行替代，或以承认机密信息倾向于证明的相关事实的陈述进行替代”。18 U.S.C. app. § 4。\n\nCIPA“既未创设新的证据开示权利，亦未扩大规范证据可采性的证据开示规则”。United States v. Alshahhi, 628 F. Supp. 3d 449, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 2022)。因此，地区法院在评估政府方依据CIPA提出的动议时，首先确定某些信息是否属于可开示信息。United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2008)。随后，法院确定“国家秘密特权是否适用”于该信息且是否已被正当主张。同上。最后，法院确定“该信息对辩护方是否有帮助或具有实质性”，并在强制披露方面行使其自由裁量权。同上。\n\n2024年4月18日，本院就本案及 18 Cr. 118-3 案中政府方单方面的CIPA第4条动议作出了裁决。见 CIPA Section 4 Order（CIPA第4条裁定），ECF No. 294。¹ 在该裁决中，经过广泛的简报和对材料的仔细不公开审查（in camera review）后，本院认定“许多材料……依据 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)……或《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条不属于可开示范围”，因此正当地从证据开示中予以扣留。同上，第4页。对于其余材料，本院要么：(1) 批准了政府方的涂黑遮盖（redactions），“认定涂黑遮盖省略了不影响被告人提出其辩护能力的信息”；(2) 批准了替代文本，“裁定替代文本将为被告人提供实质上相同的提出其辩护的能力”；(3) 在单方面听证后确定所请求的删除是正当的，因为被删除的材料与“未分类开示材料具有累积性（cumulative）”；或 (4) 批准了单方面听证后提供的进一步替代文本，理由是这些替代文本“为被告人提供了实质上相同的提出其辩护的能力”。同上，第4–5页。\n\n¹ 郭文贵的动议提到了在 ECF No. 363 作出的单独裁定。见动议第4页。在 ECF No. 363 提交的裁定涉及 CIPA 第5条和第6(a)条下的动议和程序，并涉及郭文贵在交叉询问期间就某些机密信息向出庭证人提问的能力。参见 ECF No. 363。由于郭文贵的动议请求本院“审查CIPA第4条材料”，本院不认为郭文贵是在动议请求对 ECF No. 363 的裁定进行重新审议，且就郭文贵请求对该裁定进行重新审议而言，本院认为没有理由重新开启并重新审理先前的该项裁定。\n\nII. 讨论\n\n郭文贵现请求本院重新审视其CIPA第4条裁定，理由首先是：Brady 规则及其他证据开示义务适用于量刑程序，因此要求法院在量刑时对CIPA第4条材料进行重新审查；其次，由于在法院量刑程序中可能“相关”的信息比在审判中相关的信息更多，因此对第4条材料进行第二次审查是合理的。见动议第2–3页。本院未被说服。\n\n首先，尽管被告人根据第16条和 Brady 规则从政府方获取披露的权利并不因其被定罪而消失，但本院已在本案中审查了其获取披露的权利，并认定大部分CIPA第4条材料实际上根据第16条或 Brady 规则并不属于可开示范围。见 CIPA第4条裁定第4页。郭文贵动议中的任何内容均未给本院提供重新审议其“这些材料的大部分不可开示”这一裁定的理由。对于本院确实下令替代的材料以及本院认定对辩护方不相关且无帮助的材料，郭文贵仅主张一旦被告人面临量刑，本院在CIPA下对何为“相关且有帮助”的分析自然就成为了一项“截然不同的工作”。见动议第3页。但这并未确立在量刑时要求法院重新审查证据开示的权利。本院重申先前的裁定，即从替代文本中涂黑遮盖的材料并未剥夺郭文贵提出其辩护的实质上相同能力。事实上，政府方的书面意见已涉及——且本院已考虑——可能与量刑酌定从轻（sentencing mitigation）相关的材料。见 Initial CIPA Section 4 Mot.（初始CIPA第4条动议），ECF No. 210。郭文贵未指出任何确立在量刑时要求法院重新审查其先前关于涂黑信息的每项裁定的权利的法律依据。见动议第3页（引用的案例仅对CIPA程序进行了概括性描述）。²\n\n² United States v. Stewart 案认定地区法院在CIPA下的证据开示期间拒绝强制提供材料是正确的，并在其他方面维持了所涉刑罚的程序和实质合理性。590 F.3d 93, 130–32, 134 (2d Cir. 2009)。United States v. Aref 案涉及对定罪的上诉以及被告人在审前证据开示期间的权利。见 533 F.3d at 76, 78。United States v. Dumeisi 案同样涉及对定罪的质疑。424 F.3d 566, 574 (7th Cir. 2005)。在这些案例中，均未在量刑阶段提及CIPA。\n\n其次，就郭文贵主张本院的证据开示裁定（包括其CIPA第4条裁定）未能考虑可开示材料就量刑目的而言是否曾属于“相关或有帮助”而言，本院将这些论点解释为对这些裁定提出重新审议的动议。见，例如，动议第4页（“在更广泛的量刑背景下”，“重新提出”本院在2024年2月21日裁定 ECF No. 243 中驳回的请求）。“重新审议法院先前的裁定是一种非同寻常的救济措施，出于终局性以及节约稀缺司法资源的利益考量，应谨慎使用。” United States v. Baldeo, No. 13 Cr. 125, 2015 WL 252414, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2015)（内部引号和引文省略），aff’d, 615 F. App’x 26 (2d Cir. 2015)。“重新审议动议‘不是重新审理旧问题……或换种方式再次尝试的工具。’” United States v. Lisi, No. 15 Cr. 457, 2020 WL 1331955, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2020)（引用 Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012)）。事实上，“准予该等动议的标准是严格的。” United States v. Goldberg, No. 12 Cr. 864, 2021 WL 2444548, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2021)（引文省略）。\n\n郭文贵的动议未能满足这一严格标准。他唯一的论点是量刑程序是比审判“更广泛的背景”。基于上述讨论的理由，尽管法院在确定量刑时可以考虑比陪审团在认定有罪时所考虑的更多的信息，但在没有其他理由的情况下，这一事实不足以成为重新审理证据开示范围并重新开启CIPA程序的充分依据。\n\n此外，该重新审议动议并未在合理时间内提出，并将进一步拖延本案的解决。郭文贵未能解释为何此前未就本院的CIPA裁定寻求重新审议。《Local Criminal Rules》（《本地刑事诉讼规则》）第49.1(b)条规定，当事人可在“法院对原始动议作出裁定后十四 (14) 天内”提交“重新审议动议”。尽管郭文贵的动议确实取决于本案目前处于量刑程序这一事实，但本院注意到郭文贵未能在陪审团作出裁决记录之日起14天内提出其动议——或者事实上，未在任何合理时间内提出。见 Jury Verdict（陪审团裁决），ECF Nos. 394–95（2024年7月18日）。郭文贵反而在审判结束近十八个月后、且在量刑程序应其请求被推迟多次之后才提出本动议，见，例如，ECF Nos. 512, 719, 782。\n\n据此，郭文贵的动议予以驳回（DENIED）。谨指示法院书记官终止 ECF No. 783 项下的动议。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2026年2月20日\n\n纽约州纽约市","key_entities":["Guo","CIPA","Brady","Classified Information","Miles Guo","Torres","Analisa Torres","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":210,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":243,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":294,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":363,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":783,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":796,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1431,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-02-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-02-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:15:23"}