{"id":"court_ctb_1002_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1002,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT )","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n)\n\n)\n\nIN RE:\n\nIN RE: ) CASE No. 22-50073\n\nHO WAN KWOK, )\n\nDEBTOR, )\n\n**\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_)\n\n# **MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA TO WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY**\n\nThe Bankruptcy Trustee served Williams & Connolly LLP (\"Williams & Connolly\") with a third-party subpoena on September 22, 2022. Exhibit (\"Ex.\") 1. All but four of the subpoena requests seek documents from Mr. Kwok's client file, which was returned to Mr. Kwok's counsel of record in this matter—Lawall & Mitchell, LLC —back in January 2021. *See* Ex. 2. Williams & Connolly retained a copy of that client file, but it would be unduly burdensome for Williams & Connolly to review that file for responsive documents and privilege when Mr. Kwok, who is a party to this action, has all of the documents in question. Williams & Connolly thus respectfully requests that the Court quash Requests 1–2, 6–13 and 15–21, all of which are directed to that client file. Williams & Connolly does not seek to quash Requests 3–5 and 14, which call for documents that are not part of the client file.\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. The Subpoena Must Be Quashed (in Part) as Unduly Burdensome.**\n\nThird-party subpoenas must not impose an undue burden on the receiving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv) (a court must quash a subpoena that \"subjects a person to undue burden\"); *BuzzFeed, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Just.*, 318 F. Supp. 3d 347, 356 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing *Watts v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n*, 482 F.3d 501, 508 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) (same). In evaluating undue burden, courts must consider Rule 26's bar on discovery that \"can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i); *Watts,* 482 F.3d at 508–09 (holding that the standards in Rule 26 determine when a discovery request creates an undue burden). Where \"more convenient [or] less burdensome\" sources exist, \"those alternatives should be explored first.\" *Diamond Servs. Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP*, 339 F.R.D. 334, 339 (D.D.C. 2021) (alteration in original) (*quoting Saperstein v. Palestinian Auth. (In re Subpoena to Goldberg)*, 693 F. Supp. 2d 81, 88 (D.D.C. 2010).\n\nThus, for example, in *Diamond Services Management Company, LLC*, the court quashed a third-party subpoena on an outside law firm because the plaintiffs could have sought the same information from the defendant during discovery or \"subpoena[ed] relevant information . . . from the parties closest to the litigants: Barnes & Thornburg and Scheef & Stone,\" the defendant's current counsel. 339 F.R.D. at 340. The court held that either alternative obviated \"the more serious 'unwanted burden thrust upon' the non-party Respondents,\" by the plaintiff's subpoena. *Id.* (*quoting Watts*, 482 F.3d at 509); *see also Hughes v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.*, 507 F. Supp. 3d 384, 406 (D. Conn. 2020) (granting protective order against subpoenas that are \"cumulative and duplicative and seek information that is more conveniently obtained from [the defendant] than from the non-parties\").\n\nMoreover, \"concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs\" in a Rule 45 inquiry. *Watts,* 482 F.3d at 509 (citation omitted). Rule 45 requires courts to \"protect a[ny] person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii). Thus, \"absent a showing that plaintiff either cannot obtain—or in fact *has not*  obtained—ample discovery on the essential elements of her claim[s]\" without subpoenaing a thirdparty, courts must avoid imposing \"costly search[es]\" on third-parties*. Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.*, 281 F.R.D. 85, 96 (D. Conn. 2012). Here, there is no good reason to impose the extraordinary burden of producing Mr. Kwok's file and parsing the terms of the parties' Consent Order to determine what documents are now considered privileged on Williams & Connolly, a third-party that had no role in negotiating the Consent Order and which is not a party to this proceeding.\n\nThere is no question that Mr. Kwok, who is a party to this matter and whose counsel of record, Lawall & Mitchell LLC, possesses the relevant documents, is a more convenient and less burdensome source of the documents than Williams & Connolly. Indeed, it will be far less burdensome for the attorneys of record, who negotiated the Consent Order on privilege, to review the files and make decisions about which documents remain privileged as to Mr. Kwok, and which documents are now within the Trustee's privilege. Thus, Rules 26 and 45 demand that the Trustee seek Mr. Kwok's file from Mr. Kwok and his attorneys of record, rather than from Williams & Connolly. *See also Burlodge Ltd. v. Standex Int'l Corp. (In re Motion To Compel Compliance with Subpoena Direct to Dep't of Veterans Affs.)*, 257 F.R.D. 12, 19 (D.D.C. 2009) (quashing subpoena and refusing to modify it \"because of the absence of any showing that the information sought is not available from other sources\").\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, Williams & Connolly respectfully requests that the Court quash Requests 1–2, 6–13 and 15–21 of the subpoena served on September 22, 2022.\n\nDATED: October 20, 2022\n\nDATED: October 20, 2022 **WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP** By: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nSamuel Davidoff WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n)\n\n)\n\n关于：\n\n关于： ) 案号：22-50073\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， )\n\n债务人， )\n\n_________________________________\n\n_________________________________)\n\n撤销向 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY 送达的第三方传票的动议\n\n破产受托人于 2022年9月22日 向 Williams & Connolly LLP（威廉姆斯与康诺利有限责任合伙律师事务所，以下简称“Williams & Connolly”）送达了第三方传票。见证物（“Ex.”）1。除四项外，传票中的所有要求均旨在调取郭先生的客户案卷，而该案卷早在 2021年1月 便已归还给郭先生在本案中的记录在案代理律师事务所——Lawall & Mitchell, LLC。参见 Ex. 2。Williams & Connolly 保留了该客户案卷的一份副本，但在郭先生作为本诉讼当事人已持有全部涉案文件的情况下，要求 Williams & Connolly 审查该案卷以找出响应性文件及审查特权信息将构成过重负担。因此，Williams & Connolly 谨请求法院撤销针对该客户案卷的第 1–2 项、第 6–13 项以及第 15–21 项要求。Williams & Connolly 并不寻求撤销第 3–5 项和第 14 项要求，因其调取的文件不属于该客户案卷的一部分。\n\n抗辩理由\n\nI. 传票因构成过重负担而必须（部分）予以撤销。\n\n第三方传票不得对接收方强加过重负担。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv)（法院必须撤销“令受传票人承受过重负担”的传票）；BuzzFeed, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 318 F. Supp. 3d 347, 356 (D.D.C. 2018)（引用 Watts v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 482 F.3d 501, 508 (D.C. Cir. 2007)）（同上）。在评估过重负担时，法院必须考虑《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 26 条关于禁止获取“能够通过其他更便利、负担更轻或成本更低来源获取”的证据开示的规定。Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)；Watts, 482 F.3d at 508–09（裁定第 26 条的标准决定了证据开示要求何时构成过重负担）。在存在“更便利[或]负担更轻”的来源时，“应当首先探索这些替代途径”。Diamond Servs. Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, 339 F.R.D. 334, 339 (D.D.C. 2021)（原文改动）（引自 Saperstein v. Palestinian Auth. (In re Subpoena to Goldberg), 693 F. Supp. 2d 81, 88 (D.D.C. 2010)）。\n\n因此，例如在 Diamond Services Management Company, LLC 一案中，法院撤销了一项向外部律师事务所发出的第三方传票，因为原告本可以在证据开示程序中向被告索取相同的信息，或者“向最接近诉讼当事方的人员：Barnes & Thornburg 以及 Scheef & Stone”（即被告现任代理律师）“送达传票索取相关信息……”。339 F.R.D. at 340。法院认定，无论哪种替代途径，都可以免除原告传票“强加给非当事人答辩人的更为严重的‘不必要负担’”。同上（引自 Watts, 482 F.3d at 509）；另见 Hughes v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 507 F. Supp. 3d 384, 406 (D. Conn. 2020)（针对“累赘且重复、且所调取的信息从[被告]处比从非当事人处获取更为便利”的传票签发保护令）。\n\n此外，“在第 45 条审查中评估相互冲突的需求平衡时，对强加给非当事人的不必要负担的关切是一个应给予特殊考量的因素”。Watts, 482 F.3d at 509（引用略）。第 45 条要求法院“保护任何既非当事人亦非当事人管理人员的人免受因遵从传票而产生的重大费用支出”。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii)。因此，“若无证据证明原告如果不向第三方发出传票就无法获取——或实际上未能获取——关于其诉由基本要件的充分证据开示”，法院必须避免向第三方强加“成本高昂的检索”。Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 281 F.R.D. 85, 96 (D. Conn. 2012)。在本案中，毫无充分理由向 Williams & Connolly 强加提供郭先生案卷以及解析各方当事人《同意令》条款以确定哪些文件现被视为享有特权的非同寻常的负担，因为 Williams & Connolly 属于第三方，既未参与《同意令》的谈判，亦非本案程序的当事人。\n\n毫无疑问，郭先生作为本案当事人，其记录在案代理律师 Lawall & Mitchell LLC 持有相关文件，相比 Williams & Connolly 而言是更便利且负担更轻的文件来源。事实上，由曾就特权事宜参与《同意令》谈判的记录在案律师来审查案卷并决定哪些文件对郭先生仍享有特权、哪些文件现属于受托人的特权范围，其负担要轻得多。因此，第 26 条和第 45 条要求受托人应向郭先生及其记录在案律师索取郭先生的案卷，而非向 Williams & Connolly 索取。另见 Burlodge Ltd. v. Standex Int'l Corp. (In re Motion To Compel Compliance with Subpoena Direct to Dep't of Veterans Affs.), 257 F.R.D. 12, 19 (D.D.C. 2009)（“因未证明所寻求的信息无法从其他来源获取”而撤销传票并拒绝对其予以修改）。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，Williams & Connolly 谨请求法院撤销于 2022年9月22日 送达的传票中的第 1–2 项、第 6–13 项以及第 15–21 项要求。\n\n日期：2022年10月20日\n\n日期：2022年10月20日 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 签署人：__________________________\n\nSamuel Davidoff WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 电话：(202) 434-5000 传真：(202) 434-5029","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":898,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:36:25"}