US Says Florida Man's Attempt to Amend Protective Order Attempt to Avoid Discovery Limits
The U.S. opposed Florida man Zhe "John" Liu's motion to amend the protective order in a customs penalty suit seemingly to allow Liu to review documents produced by the U.S. The government said the protective order doesn't need to be amended since it supplies the defendant with the "full ability to review the materials provided to him in discovery," adding that Liu "conjures a dilemma where none exists" and his reasoning appears to be pretextual for gaining evidence he isn't entitled to "under the governing criminal discovery rules" (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The customs penalty case, filed in July 2022, was stayed in December pending resolution of a separate and ongoing criminal investigation of Liu. The U.S. alleges that Liu operated a scheme via a series of companies that imported steel wire hangers that were given false countries of origin.
Previously, Liu filed a motion to amend the protective order to give his criminal counsel access to the record in the civil customs penalty case. That motion was denied, prompting the motion to amend.
The "difficult to understand" motion is merely another attempt to provide Liu's counsel in the separate criminal proceeding with access to the information in the civil customs case, the U.S. said. The first motion was a blatant attempt at skirting the rules barring criminal attorneys from accessing civil discovery, the government argued. The second motion seeks to modify the order to allow him to review documents produced by the U.S.
The protective order is meant to "outline the conditions of disclosure" of confidential information and not the information's "review by the receiving party," the brief said. In no way does the order bar Liu from examining public information given to him, contrary to what he says, the U.S. argued. In addition, since Liu's counsel is not prevented from discussing with Liu the government's discovery documents, Liu's claim that the absence of this confidential information has harmed him "is without any basis in fact, whatsoever," the U.S. said.
The government criticized Liu's "gamesmanship" whereby he asked for the continuation of the stay while demanding that the "Court release materials from the Protective Order entirely." Liu's reasoning "is self-contradicting and apparently pretextual," the brief said.