| As Quant Prosecuted for
Stealing Source Code of Headlands
Limited Closure of Hearings
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
Sept 1 – Back in January
2025 SDNY prosecutors
announced an Indictment
charging CHEUK FUNG RICHARD HO
with theft and attempted theft
of trade secrets. The
charges in the Indictment
arose from HO’s alleged scheme
to steal trade secrets from
his former employer, a global
quantitative trading firm.
That firm was Headlands
Technologies LLC.
On September 12,
2025 Ho was before U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Jannette A. Vargas.
Inner City Press was there,
and live tweeted:
Judge: Where are
we on discovery?
AUSA: We've
seized the AWS files of Mr.
Ho's firm, 15 TB.
Judge: Can you do
AI search?
AUSA: We don't
currently have that
capability. But we think a
June 2026 trial is doable
Ho's Skadden
lawyer: My client says he
wrote the source code. All we
have from the Government is 61
snippets
Judge: A 3 week
trial is set is set to start
July 13, 2026.
On November 7,
2025 the US Attorney's Office
filed to quash subpoenas Ho
filed, saying they do not meet
the Nixon standard.
Jump cut to
August 2026, when the US
Attorney's Office proposed to
seal the courtroom not only
for portions of the trial, but
also for the Daubert expert
hearings. Inner City Press
immediately filed opposition,
now on CourtListener here.
Note that
previous attempts in SDNY to
seal the courtroom have been
opposed, and transparency
safeguards imposed were only
belated and partially complied
with, see here.
And here.
This is an ongoing project,
including in other
Districts.
On August 18 Ho's
lawyers also opposed sealing,
and first noted: "A member of
the Press has likewise
formally opposed the
Government's motion to close
the courtroom under the First
Amendment, see Docket No. 152"
- Inner City Press' opposition
to unsealing. Full 16
page memo by Ho's lawyers on
Patreon here.
On August 21 a
non-party was directed to file
a declaration supporting
sealing - under seal: "ORDER
as to Cheuk Fung Richard Ho:
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1835(b), Nonparty-1 is
authorized to file under seal
a declaration in support of
the Government's motion to
close the courtroom for
portions of the upcoming
Daubert hearings and
trial. (Signed by Judge
Jeannette A. Vargas on
8/21/2026) ."
On August 25
Judge Vargas denied Ho's
motion for a bill of
particulars, saying in part
that the indictment is
detailed enough.
On August 31
Judge Vargas denied a request
to change the timing and
sequence of the Daubert
hearing. But will it, as the
US Attorney's Office has
requested, be sealed?
An answer came on
September 1, just after Inner
City Press orally opposed
sealing of Judge Vargas'
courtroom in another case,
Cumulus v. Nielsen) -
"received an objection to the
contemplated court closure
from a member of the press.
ECF No. 152 ('Lee Opp’n' or
'Press Opposition'). [T]he
Court will authorize limited
closure of the courtroom
during the Daubert hearings
and trial, as set forth
further herein. ... The
breadth of the closure will be
as narrowly tailored as
reasonably possible under the
circumstances. Most members of
the public will be excluded
during the contemplated court
closure, including
representatives from Firm-3,
one of the alleged victims in
this case. The Court, however,
will permit representatives
from Firm-1 and its counsel to
remain present during these
closed sessions.
The Court will
also entertain an application
from the Defendant to have
family members or other
specified individuals present
in the courtroom during this
testimony, should one be made.
The breadth of
the closure will be further
limited by the public release
of any portions of the
transcripts from closed
sessions that does not reveal
Confidential Information. The
parties shall review
transcripts of the closed
court sessions, and inform the
Court within one week of the
conclusion of the hearing or
trial of any non-proprietary
information in the sealed
portions of the transcript
that can be unsealed and made
available to the public." On
delay, at cost. But it's a
start.
Watch this
site.
The case is USA
v. Ho, 1:25-cr-3 (Vargas)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
