Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 815

法庭文件 · 2026-03-13 · 8 页 · United States District Court · S.D.N.Y.

Rule 17(c) subpoena applicationex parte sealed motionformer attorney 2014-2018Nixon standardMartin v. Valley National Bankclient fileDratel & LewisFBI hack investigation

Mr. Guo’s lawyers ask the court to issue a Rule 17(c) subpoena to obtain documents from his former attorney related to that attorney’s prior representation of him, arguing the materials are relevant to sentencing and have been refused despite repeated requests.

摘要

Defense Letter Motion · Original Rule 17(c) Subpoena Application

This eight-page document, docketed March 13, 2026, is the original ex parte and under-seal letter motion (dated November 12, 2025) by which Mr. Guo's defense team — Joshua L. Dratel, John F. Kaley, and Melinda Sarafa — first applied for a Rule 17(c) subpoena directed at Mr. Guo's purported former attorney in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), 23 Cr. 118 (AT).

Relief Sought

The motion asks the Court to issue a subpoena duces tecum under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), for documents in the possession of the former attorney related to his prior legal representation of Mr. Kwok. A copy of the proposed subpoena is attached for the Court's signature.

Factual Predicate

The motion represents that the former attorney represented Mr. Guo during approximately 2014–2018 in matters that the defense believes have bearing on Mr. Guo's sentencing. Despite repeated requests during the past six months from Mr. Guo's current defense counsel, the former attorney has refused to provide any documents or other information about his representation of Mr. Guo. The defense cites:

Videos and social-media posts from the relevant period — including a video in which the former attorney specifically identifies himself as Mr. Guo's attorney and the person to be contacted in the event anything untoward were to happen to Mr. Guo;
Information provided by others, including lawyers familiar with the prior representation;
The fact that during the relevant period, the FBI investigated a hack of the former attorney's electronic devices.

Legal Authority Cited

The motion relies on:

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c): "A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates."
United States v. Winner, 641 F.2d 825, 833 (10th Cir. 1981); United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010); Kent v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 430 F. Supp. 2d 946 (D.S.D. 2006); 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 271 — confirming Rule 17(c) subpoenas may issue "for a preliminary examination, a grand jury investigation, a deposition, for determination of an issue of fact raised by a pretrial motion, or for posttrial motions";
Martin v. Valley National Bank of Arizona, 140 F.R.D. 291, 320 (S.D.N.Y. 1991): "[h]aving been hired to serve the client, the attorney cannot fairly be authorized to subvert the client's interests by denying to the client those work papers to which the client de[serves]." The defense argues that under both federal and state law, work papers and other documents related to an attorney's representation belong to the client and may not be withheld by former counsel.

Closing

Mr. Guo is left with one alternative: intervention by this Court in the form of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. The motion concludes by requesting the Court to issue the subpoena to compel production of all documents possessed by the former attorney related to his representation of Mr. Guo and to which Mr. Guo is entitled.

查看原始文档 ↗

Summary