Cheng v. Guo
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-05678
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cheng v. Guo, Judge Failla declined to resume Guo’s deposition, finding no current Fifth Amendment waiver, and converted the next conference to telephone.
Logan Cheng and Wengui Guo, particularly their discovery and privilege disputes in the case.
What happened
In Cheng v. Guo, Logan Cheng sought more time for discovery after Wengui Guo’s deposition raised the need for third-party discovery. Cheng also argued that Guo had waived protections against self-incrimination and attorney-client confidentiality.
The court reviewed Guo’s written explanation and the deposition transcript. It found that Guo had reasonable cause to fear that answering certain questions could provide evidence for a criminal prosecution, and it concluded that the standard for waiving the protection against self-incrimination had not been met.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered that Guo’s deposition would not resume at that time. She reserved the attorney-client confidentiality issue for a later conference, stated that Cheng had not shown a basis for finding a waiver, and converted the April 29 conference to a telephone proceeding.
The detailed version
- Cheng v. Guo · No. 1:20-cv-05678
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
Wengui Guo was deposed on April 1, 2021. During the deposition, the parties asked the court to resolve disputes about Guo’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege, which protects a person from being compelled to provide potentially self-incriminating information. The court held a telephone conference and requested a private submission from Guo explaining the basis for his assertions of the privilege. Guo submitted that material on April 15, 2021.
On April 2, Logan Cheng asked for more time to complete discovery, explaining that Guo’s testimony showed a need for discovery from third parties. Cheng argued that Guo’s testimony waived both his Fifth Amendment privilege and his attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications between a client and lawyer. Guo opposed the request. The court temporarily paused the discovery deadline while it reviewed the deposition transcript and Guo’s private submission.
Court’s Analysis
After reviewing the materials, the court concluded that Guo had reasonable cause to fear that answering the disputed questions would provide the government with evidence that could support a criminal prosecution. The court also considered Cheng’s arguments that Guo had waived his Fifth Amendment privilege. Its current view was that the standard for finding such a waiver had not been met.
The court separately stated that it would address the alleged waiver of attorney-client privilege at the upcoming conference. Its present view was that Cheng had not provided a basis for finding that Guo waived that privilege.
Ruling
The court stated that it would not order Guo’s deposition to resume at that time. It did not issue a final ruling in the text provided on the attorney-client-privilege issue. The court also converted the April 29, 2021 conference to a telephone proceeding.
Disposition
The order did not state a separate grant or denial of Cheng’s request for additional discovery time in the text provided. It ruled that Guo’s deposition would not resume at that time and changed the format of the scheduled conference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.