Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 819

摘要

Government Motion to Quash · Rule 17(c) Subpoena

This three-page letter motion, dated March 17, 2026 from the Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to the case, asks Judge Analisa Torres to quash Mr. Guo's Rule 17(c) subpoena directed at his purported former attorney in United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT).

Government's Arguments

The motion rests on two principal grounds:

Nixon Standard Not Met

Under United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), Rule 17(c) document subpoenas may only seek records that are relevant, admissible, and specific. The government argues that the subpoena fails on each prong:

• The subpoena seeks voluminous records from a lawyer Mr. Guo claims represented him between 2014 and 2018;
• The records sought are either plainly irrelevant to sentencing or cumulative of materials Guo has long possessed;
• The government cites United States v. Barnes, 560 F. App'x 36, 39–40 (2d Cir. 2014), for the Nixon-based four-part test.

Further Delay of Sentencing

The government argues that resolving the subpoena would further delay the long-deferred sentencing, citing the Court's prior order at Dkt. 805 (denying another of Guo's motions for sentencing discovery) where the Court emphasized that granting the motion "would further delay resolution of the case."

Sentencing Schedule Concern

The motion asks that, in any event, the subpoena dispute not be permitted to delay the then-scheduled April 27, 2026 sentencing — referencing the Court's earlier order at Dkt. 814 directing the government to file this response and noting that the response is being filed in the same order that scheduled the April 27 sentencing date.

Rule 17(c) Framework Recited

The motion walks through:

• Rule 17(c) document subpoenas seek records that are relevant, admissible, and specific;
• Courts considering Rule 17(c) subpoenas in connection with sentencing proceedings have adopted Nixon's trial-focused test to require that the materials be unobtainable through other means and admissible at the sentencing proceeding.

Disposition

The Court denies the motion to quash and grants Mr. Guo's subpoena (with scope limits) at case-doc-823, finding the government lacked a legitimate interest of its own in subpoena materials directed at a third-party former attorney.