{"id":"court_sdny_823_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":823,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2026-03-23","title":"SDNY ECF 823","summary_zh":"法院裁定 — 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #823（2026年3月23日）。法院准许被告人依据联邦刑事诉讼规则第17条(c)向其前律师申请传票以获取文件的请求，驳回检察机关的撤销动议，并规定了传票回执日期和后续陈述书补充期限。","summary_en":"Court order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #823 (March 23, 2026). The court grants defendant's Rule 17(c) subpoena application seeking documents from his purported former attorney, denies the Government's motion to quash, and sets parameters for the subpoena's return date and supplemental briefing deadlines.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n-against-\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nORDER\nMILES GUO,\nDefendant.\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\nBy ex parte letter dated November 12, 2025, Guo moved for the issuance of a Rule 17(c)\nsubpoena seeking documents from his purported former attorney, which he claims would be\nrelevant to his sentencing submission.  See Def. Ltr. I, ECF No. 815.  In response to an ex parte\nCourt order, on January 27, 2026, Guo supplemented his application to detail with more\nspecificity the relevance and necessity of the materials he seeks, as well as the information\ncontained or believed to be contained within the materials.  See Def. Ltr. II, ECF No. 816.  By\norder dated March 11, 2026, the Court determined that there is not good cause to consider the\napplication ex parte and, accordingly, ordered Guo to serve the Government with the ex parte\nletters and order concerning his application and to file his letters on the docket.1  See ECF\nNo. 814.  The Court also ordered the Government to respond to the application.  See id.  The\nGovernment moves to quash Guo’s application because it fails to meet the standard for\nRule 17(c) subpoenas, as set forth in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and it would\nfurther delay the resolution of this case.  See Gov’t Ltr. Mot. at 1, ECF No. 819.\nFirst, the Government has not established any legitimate interest of its own in the\nsubpoena, and its motion to quash is, therefore, denied.  “[T]he Government can move to quash\nsubpoenas issued for the records of non-parties only on the basis of the Government’s own\nlegitimate interests and not on the basis of the victim’s interests.”  United States v. Ray, 337\nF.R.D. 561, 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).  The Government makes arguments under the Nixon standard\nregarding the volume and relevancy of the records but fails to identify how it has any interest in\nthe documents Guo seeks.  See Gov’t Ltr. Mot. at 2 (contending that Guo’s application seeks\n“voluminous records” that are “plainly irrelevant to Guo’s sentencing,” and that the subpoena,\ntherefore, “fails to meet the Nixon standard”).  Neither does the Government assert any interest\nin the documents that concern Guo’s conversations with the Government; instead, the\nGovernment merely argues that such materials “were produced long ago in pretrial discovery” or\nare “aimed at irrelevant details.”  Id.; see, e.g., United States v. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 552,\n560 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (denying the Government’s motion to quash and finding that although “the\nGovernment may have collected some of the responsive documents in its own investigation, it\n. . . does not claim any work product privilege [or] . . . any other privilege or proprietary interest\nin these documents”).  Although the Court agrees that the Government has an interest in\n1 By sealed letter dated March 13, 2026, Guo requested to maintain the unredacted letters under seal.  Because the\nCourt finds that sealing the documents will protect “law enforcement interests,” Virgil v. Finn, No. 22 Civ. 3169,\n2025 WL 694450, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2025), sealing of the unredacted letters is warranted.  The Court also\nfinds that the proposed redactions in the letters filed at ECF Nos. 815 and 816 are “narrowly tailored to serve that\ninterest.”  Id. (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)).\n3/23/2026\n\n---\n\n2\n\npreventing further delay of the resolution of this case, see Gov’t Ltr. Mot. at 1, the Court finds\nthat the below parameters on the subpoena’s return date will prevent any such unreasonable\ndelay.\n\nSecond, the Court finds that Guo’s application, with the modifications below, complies\nwith Rule 17(c) and grants the application accordingly.  Under Rule 17(c), subpoenas must be\n(1) relevant; (2) admissible; and (3) specific.  United States v. Barnes, 560 F. App’x 36, 39–40\n(2d Cir. 2014) (citing Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699–700).  The party issuing the subpoena must show:\n“(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable\nreasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly\nprepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to\nobtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is\nmade in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing expedition.’” Nixon, 418 U.S. at\n699–700.  The party seeking the subpoena must also “be able to reasonably specify the\ninformation contained or believed to be contained in the documents sought.”  United States v.\nCole, No. 19 Cr. 869, 2021 WL 912425, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021) (citation omitted); see\nalso Ray, 337 F.R.D. at 573 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (collecting cases).\n\nFirst, the subpoena is evidentiary and relevant because it seeks information related to\n“mitigation” arguments Guo intends to make at sentencing with regard to the Court’s\nconsideration of his history and characteristics under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  See Def, Ltr. II at 2–\n4.  Second, Guo has established that these documents are not otherwise procurable because they\nwere prepared or otherwise maintained by someone he claims is his former attorney, and that\nperson, over the past six months, “has refused to provide any documents or other information\nwith respect to his [purported] representation of []Guo.”  Def. Ltr I at 1–2.  Third, Guo has\nexplained that the materials he seeks may be crucial to mitigation arguments he intends to make\nat sentencing.  Def. Ltr. II at 4–5.  Fourth, in response to a Court order, Guo has demonstrated\nthat he is looking for a specific set of materials, see id. at 5, and so the Court, therefore, holds\nthat the request is not merely a “fishing expedition,” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700, is made in good\nfaith to prepare for sentencing, and specifies the information contained or believed to be\ncontained in the documents sought.  See also United States v. RW Pro. Leasing Servs. Corp., 228\nF.R.D. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (“A request is generally sufficiently specific where it limits\ndocuments to a reasonable period of time and states with reasonable particularity the subjects to\nwhich the documents relate.”)\n\nGuo’s application is, therefore, GRANTED, subject to the limitation that the subpoena\nseek only documents mentioned on page 5 of Guo’s January 27, 2026 letter, or documents\nreflecting information mentioned on that page.  See Def. Ltr. II at 5.  By March 23, 2026, Guo\nshall serve the subpoena.  As stated above, however, the Court shares the Government’s concern\nregarding a potential delay in the resolution of this case.  Accordingly, Guo is directed to set the\nsubpoena’s return date to be March 30, 2026.  Guo may supplement his sentencing submission\nby April 3, 2026, and the Government may file any supplemental response by April 7, 2026.\nGuo’s request for an extension in time to respond to the Government’s motion to quash, see ECF\nNo. 821, is DENIED as moot.\n\n---\n\n3\n\nThe Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 815–\n816, 819, and 821.\n\nSO ORDERED.\nDated: March 23, 2026\n            New York, New York","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n诉\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n裁定\nMILES GUO（郭文贵），\n被告人。\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n通过日期为 2025年11月12日 的单方信函，郭请求签发一项《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 17(c) 条（Rule 17(c)）传票，以向其据称的前任律师调取文件，他声称这些文件将与其量刑意见书相关。参见 Def. Ltr. I, ECF No. 815。根据法院的一项单方命令，郭于 2026年1月27日 补充了其申请，更具体地详细说明了其所寻求材料的相关性和必要性，以及这些材料中所包含或被认为包含的信息。参见 Def. Ltr. II, ECF No. 816。通过日期为 2026年3月11日 的裁定，法院认定不存在以单方方式审理该申请的正当理由，因此命令郭向政府送达有关其申请的单方信函及裁定，并将其信函提交至案卷记录中。¹ 参见 ECF No. 814。法院还命令政府对该申请作出回应。参见同上。政府提出动议，请求撤销（quash）郭的申请，理由是该申请未能符合 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 中阐述的第 17(c) 条传票标准，且会进一步拖延本案的解决。参见 Gov’t Ltr. Mot. at 1, ECF No. 819。\n\n首先，政府并未确立其自身对该传票享有任何合法利益，因此其撤销动议予以驳回。“政府仅能基于政府自身的合法利益，而不能基于受害人的利益，动议撤销针对非当事人记录签发的传票。” United States v. Ray, 337 F.R.D. 561, 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)。政府根据 Nixon 标准就记录的数量和相关性提出了论点，但未能说明其对郭所寻求的文件享有何种利益。参见 Gov’t Ltr. Mot. at 2（主张郭的申请寻求“大量记录”，这些记录“显然与郭的量刑无关”，因此该传票“未能符合 Nixon 标准”）。政府亦未对涉及郭与政府对话的文件主张任何利益；相反，政府仅辩称此类材料“早在审前证据开示中即已提供”或“旨在针对不相关的细节”。同上；参见，例如，United States v. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 552, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)（驳回政府的撤销动议，并认定尽管“政府可能在自身的调查中收集了部分响应性文件，但其……并未主张任何工作成果特权[或]……对这些文件的任何其他特权或所有权利益”）。尽管法院赞同政府在防止本案解决遭到进一步拖延方面享有利益，参见 Gov’t Ltr. Mot. at 1，但法院认定，下文对传票应诉答复日期（return date）设定的参数将防止任何此类不合理的拖延。\n\n¹ 通过日期为 2026年3月13日 的密封信函，郭请求对未涂黑删减的信函维持封存状态。鉴于法院认定封存文件将保护“执法利益”，Virgil v. Finn, No. 22 Civ. 3169, 2025 WL 694450, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2025)，因此对未涂黑删减信函进行封存是有充分理由的。法院亦认定，在 ECF Nos. 815 和 816 提交的信函中拟议的涂黑删减是“为服务该利益而严格量身定制的”。同上（援引 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)）。\n3/23/2026\n\n其次，法院认定，在作出以下修改的情况下，郭的申请符合第 17(c) 条的规定，据此准许该申请。根据第 17(c) 条，传票必须具有：(1) 相关性；(2) 可采性；以及 (3) 特定性。United States v. Barnes, 560 F. App’x 36, 39–40 (2d Cir. 2014)（援引 Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699–700）。发出传票的一方必须证明：“(1) 该文件具有证据价值且具有相关性；(2) 尽到应有谨慎也无法在审判前合理地以其他方式获取这些文件；(3) 若不在审判前进行此类调取和查阅，该当事人便无法妥善准备审判，且未能获得此类查阅可能造成不合理拖延审判的倾向；以及 (4) 该申请是出于善意提出的，并非旨在进行一般性的‘摸底调查’（fishing expedition）。” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699–700。寻求传票的一方还必须“能够合理指明所寻求文件中包含或被认为包含的信息”。United States v. Cole, No. 19 Cr. 869, 2021 WL 912425, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021)（引文省略）；亦见 Ray, 337 F.R.D. at 573 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)（汇集判例）。\n\n第一，该传票具有证据价值且具有相关性，因为其寻求的信息与郭在量刑时就法院根据 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 考量其历史和特征所拟提出的“酌情从轻（mitigation）”辩解理由有关。参见 Def. Ltr. II at 2–4。第二，郭已证明这些文件无法以其他方式获取，因为它们是由其声称的前任律师准备或以其他方式保管的，而在过去的六个月中，该人“拒绝提供任何关于其[据称]代理郭先生的文件或其他信息”。Def. Ltr. I at 1–2。第三，郭已说明其所寻求的材料对其拟在量刑时提出的从轻辩解理由可能至关重要。Def. Ltr. II at 4–5。第四，针对法院的命令，郭已证明其所寻找的是一套特定的材料，参见同上，第5页，因此法院认定该请求不仅非单纯的“摸底调查”，Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700，而且是出于为量刑做准备的善意提出的，并具体指明了所寻求文件中包含或被认为包含的信息。亦见 United States v. RW Pro. Leasing Servs. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)（“如果一项请求将文件限制在合理的时间范围内，并以合理的明确性陈述了与文件相关的主题，则通常具有充分的特定性。”）\n\n因此，郭的申请予以准许（GRANTED），但受限于以下限制：该传票仅得调取郭 2026年1月27日 信函第5页中提及的文件，或反映该页提及信息的文件。参见 Def. Ltr. II at 5。郭应于 2026年3月23日 之前送达该传票。然而，如前所述，法院同样对本案解决可能受到的拖延抱有与政府相同的关切。因此，指示郭将该传票的应诉答复日期设定为 2026年3月30日。郭可在 2026年4月3日 之前补充其量刑意见书，政府可在 2026年4月7日 之前提交任何补充回应。郭关于延长回应政府撤销动议期限的请求，参见 ECF No. 821，因已无实际意义（as moot）予以驳回（DENIED）。\n\n谨此指示法院书记官终结 ECF Nos. 815–816、819 和 821 的动议。\n\n特此裁定。\n日期：2026年3月23日\n            纽约州纽约市","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1190,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-03-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-03-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:13:28"}