Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 810

摘要

Defense Reply · Adjournment and Rule 17 Ex Parte Disclosure

This two-page letter, dated February 27, 2026 from John F. Kaley of Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack, replies in brief to the government's same-day opposition (ECF No. 809) to the defense's 30-day adjournment request (ECF No. 807) and to the government's separate letter (ECF No. 808) seeking disclosure of the ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoena materials in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT).

Response on the Court's Deliberative Process

The defense begins by rejecting the government's framing that the defense complains about the length of time during which the Court has exercised its deliberative process to consider the Rule 17(c) subpoena. Counsel state: "That may be the Government's characterization, [but] it certainly is not ours. We are not presumptuous as to the many matters on the Court's docket."

Response on the Rule 17(c) Subpoena

The defense emphasizes:

• The Rule 17(c) subpoena seeks direct evidence of certain matters which are important to place before the Court to set forth the full history and characteristics of Mr. Guo;
• It is surprising that the government would seek to truncate counsel's ability to do that.

Response on Ex Parte Disclosure

On the government's separate request (Dkt. 808) for disclosure of the ex parte Rule 17(c) application materials, the defense argues:

• There is no reason for the government to be provided with a copy at this time;
• The necessity for the privileged information and documents sought by the subpoena is plain from the subpoena and the surrounding submissions;
• Ordinary ex parte protections appropriate to sentencing discovery should remain in place.

The Court ultimately addresses the ex parte issue in case-doc-814 (March 11, 2026), finding no good cause for continued ex parte handling and ordering service of the materials on the government.