{"id":"court_sdny_88_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":88,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-06-20","title":"| | Case 1:2","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------|---|\n| 1
2 | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------x | | | | |\n| | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, | | | New York, N.Y. | |\n| | v. | | | 23 Cr. 118 (AT) | |\n| | HO WAN KWOK,
YANPING WANG, | | | | |\n| | Defendant. | | | | |\n| | ------------------------------x | | | | |\n| | | | 1:10 p.m. | June 6, 2023 | |\n| | Before: | | | | |\n| | | HON. ANALISA TORRES, | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | U.S. District Judge | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | APPEARANCES | | | |\n| BY: | DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
RYAN B. FINKEL
JULIANA MURRAY
MICAH FERGENSON | | | | |\n| | Assistant United States Attorneys | | | | |\n| BROWN RUDNICK, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Kwok
BY:
STEPHEN COOK
BY:
NATASHA M. ERTZBISCHOFF | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| BY: | CHAUDHRYLAW PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant Wang
PRIYA CHAUDHRY | | | | |\n| | ALSO PRESENT:
DANIEL HARTENSTINE, Classified Information Security Officer
BRENDA CHEN, Mandarin Interpreter | | | | |\n| | | | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | | |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nfiles, and over 2 million pages. We have produced approximately 37 electronic devices that have been extracted pursuant to search warrants. The government estimates that we will substantially complete our production in the next two to three weeks with the exception, your Honor, of the devices that were seized on March 15th, 2023. The logistics of extracting and processing those devices for production will take somewhat longer. We are going to be producing those on a rolling basis, in fact we expect to produce an additional 16 devices, hopefully by the end of this week. But, to complete all of those devices, we anticipate it will take up to eight weeks.\n\nWe also note, your Honor, that our investigation is ongoing and we expect to be acquiring additional materials as we continue to investigate. We will, of course, produce those materials as is appropriate to do so on a rolling basis.\n\nTHE COURT: Are there any applications?\n\nMR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, in terms of the order of business for today, I think that the Court, if it chooses to do so, should set a pretrial motion schedule and potentially a trial date. With respect to a trial date, the government estimates a case-in-chief of approximately four weeks. We anticipate that the defense, but don't know for sure, that the defense will also have a case which obviously would extend the length of a trial.\n\nThe government is sort of looking at, of course\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n25\n\n1\n\naccording to the Court's availability and schedule, the second week in March. We think that would enable enough time for discovery to be completed, the defense to review the discovery, and the defense to file any pretrial motions. In addition, your Honor, with respect to pretrial motions as we have notified your clerk, the government would ask to submit its ex parte CIPA brief on December 15, 2023. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7\n\nTHE COURT: The Court will not be able to start trial until April the 8th and you are expecting about four weeks for the case-in-chief.\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n20\n\n21\n\nFrom the defense, would you be able to make an April 8 date for trial? 11 12\n\nMR. COOK: Yes, your Honor, we could make an April 8 date, however we would request the earliest possible trial date. My client wants a speedy trial and would request a trial date along the lines of what we proposed to the Court earlier in April.\n\nTHE COURT: I am setting the trial for April 8. How long do you think your portion would last? 18 19\n\n> MR. COOK: Two to three weeks, your Honor. THE COURT: All right.\n\nWith respect to a CIPA motion, you have requested what date for submission? 22 23\n\nMR. FINKEL: December 15, your Honor. THE COURT: You shall submit that by December 15th. 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nAnything further, further applications? MR. FINKEL: Well, your Honor, the government would move to exclude time until April 8, and in addition, ask that the Court set a pretrial motion schedule for the defense for pretrial motions, motions other than motions in limine in advance of trial. The government believes such motions should be scheduled to be submitted by the defense in the fall, to make sure there is enough time for the government to respond to what it expects to be voluminous motions, and the Court has had an opportunity to review them and, if necessary, schedule a hearing. THE COURT: When can you have your motions ready? MR. COOK: Your Honor, I believe November 15th would be sufficient time. THE COURT: How long for the government's opposition? MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, the government asks for three weeks. THE COURT: All right, then. So the opening brief on November the 15th; opposition papers on the 6th of December; and the reply on the 20th of December. Anything further? MR. COOK: Yes, your Honor. We filed a letter motion regarding laptop access to discovery for our client. It is currently pending before your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nHonor. We have served the Bureau of Prisons. We just wanted 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\nto raise the issue with your Honor, we have discussed it with the government. We intend on having further discussions with the Bureau of Prisons, however we believe that it would be helpful in those discussions if we had some sense from the Court that access to a laptop for both the defendants while in BOP and MDC, given the volume of discovery, would be deemed appropriate. I am not asking for an advisory opinion but just a sense from the Court that that would be permissible.\n\nTHE COURT: I will hear from the government.\n\nMR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, we defer to the Court in terms of what the Court prefers here. The government has engaged with BOP and helped facilitate communications between the defense and BOP and will continue to do so.\n\nWe understand from BOP that there are several procedures that defendants should undertake before laptops are provided, that's BOP's position. The government will help ensure that the defense can facilitate those steps in order to reach the point, if at all, that a laptop should be provided.\n\nSo our view, your Honor, is we take no position on this, other than we will continue to help the defendants and their counsel facilitate access to discovery in BOP.\n\nTHE COURT: So you are asking for something which is outside of the normal BOP protocol? 22 23\n\nMR. COOK: Correct, your Honor. The BOP procedure, as we understand it, first of all, is they simply decline those 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n25\n\n7\n\nrequests unless it is immediately prior to trial for purposes of reviewing 3500 material. That will not be sufficient time for my client to review the voluminous discovery in this case. In addition, they require a showing, as I understand it, of inability for my client to sufficiently review material on the MDC provided computer. That will take time. Apparently they want to show that over a period of weeks he has been unable to access it sufficiently. We know already it is not sufficient and we are trying to expedite the process.\n\nTHE COURT: I am persuaded by what you have said and so I am going to grant the application.\n\nMR. COOK: Thank you, your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Anything further?\n\nMR. FINKEL: There are two other agenda items.\n\nFirst, your Honor, defendant Wang filed a motion for bail yesterday, I believe. The government would like until June 20th to respond to that. We discussed that with Ms. Chaudhry. I don't believe there is objection to it. Ms. Chaudhry, I understand, would also like an opportunity to reply. And then the second piece of business, your Honor, is the government moves to exclude time until April 8, 2024, so that the defendants may have an opportunity to review discovery, prepare for trial, contemplate motion practice, and discuss potential dispositions with the government. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nTHE COURT: So is it the case that you don't oppose\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| | N665kwoC | |\n| 1 | THE COURT: Yes. | |\n| 2 | MS. CHAUDHRY: Thank you. | |\n| 3 | THE COURT: It applies to both. | |\n| 4 | MS. CHAUDHRY: Thank you. | |\n| 5 | THE COURT: All righty, then. The matter is | |\n| 6 | adjourned. | |\n| 7 | o0o | |\n| 8 | | |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Finkel","Kwok","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Fergenson","Murray","Yanping Wang","Torres","Analisa Torres","Classified Information"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1683,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-06-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-06-20","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:57:27"}