{"id":"court_ctb_1046_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1046,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                             | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n|                                                                  | :      |                         |  |\n| Debtors.1                                                        | :<br>: | Jointly Administered    |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x      |                         |  |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR, MEI GUO, HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC, HING CHI NGOK, GREENWICH LAND LLC, LAMP CAPITAL LLC, AND GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the Individual Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"), hereby files this motion (the \"Motion to Compel\") for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\"), and Rules 2004 and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") compelling the Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), Hing Chi Ngok (\"Ngok\"), Greenwich Land LLC (\"Greenwich Land,\" together with the Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK USA, and Ngok, the \"Noncompliant Respondents\"), Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\") and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring,\" and together with Lamp Capital the \"Defaulting Respondents\" and\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Individual Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\ncollectively with the Noncompliant Respondents, the \"Respondents\") to comply with this Court's Rule 2004 Orders<sup>2</sup> and with the subpoenas (the \"Subpoenas\")<sup>3</sup> the Trustee issued pursuant to such orders. In support of the Motion to Compel, the Trustee submits the *Declaration of Avram E. Luft in Support of Motion to Compel* (the \"Luft Declaration\"),<sup>4</sup> and respectfully states as follows:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. Since his appointment, the Trustee has been conducting an investigation at the Court's direction to identify potential assets of the Individual Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\") notwithstanding the Individual Debtor's contention that he has virtually no assets to his name. Because this Chapter 11 Case has already been pending for nearly eight months, and history has shown that the Individual Debtor has a propensity to move his assets outside the reach of his creditors, it is critically important that the Trustee's investigation proceed expeditiously and free from obstruction. The Trustee's primary means of conducting the investigation thus far has been by seeking document productions pursuant to the Rule 2004 Orders, entered on August 16, 2022, which granted the Trustee's applications for Rule 2004 discovery and authorized service of the Subpoenas in connection therewith. Unfortunately, the Respondents have not complied with the Subpoenas and are either impeding the Trustee's investigation or failing to respond altogether.\n\n2. Specifically, as set forth herein, the Noncompliant Respondents have refused to produce—or, in some cases, even search for—whole categories of documents that are critical to\n\n<sup>2</sup> The term \"Rule 2004 Orders\" shall mean the Court's (i) *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Discovery with respect to various Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor* [ECF No. 756] (the \"Advisor 2004 Order\"), (ii) *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Examination of Ho Wan Kwok* [ECF No. 757] (the \"Individual Debtor 2004 Order\"), and (iii) *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor*  [ECF No. 758] (the \"Associated Entity 2004 Order\").\n\n<sup>3</sup> A copy of each Subpoena is attached to the Luft Declaration (as defined herein) at **Exhibits B-1 to B-7**.\n\n<sup>4</sup> The Luft Declaration is being filed contemporaneously herewith.\n\nthe Trustee's investigation. Most egregiously, the Noncompliant Respondents have refused to search for documents and communications concerning potential Estate assets that may be held by the Individual Debtor's relatives, known associates, or shell companies. Despite such potential assets being the *raison d'etre* of the Trustee's investigation, the Noncompliant Respondents have adopted the hyper-technical position that document searches concerning such assets are not required because the potential assets—e.g., bank accounts, real or personal property, ownership interests in a trust or commercial enterprise, among other potential valuable assets—are purportedly not owned or controlled by the Individual Debtor and, thus, are not relevant to the administration of his estate.\n\n3. By taking this position, the Noncompliant Respondents create a world in which virtually no responsive documents even exist because, in their view, the Individual Debtor does not admit to having any assets beyond the paltry amount listed on his schedules, and, as his acknowledged assets are the only ones that can be the target of the 2004 discovery, there are no assets to be investigated. Accepting the Noncompliant Respondents' position would effectively prevent any investigation by the Trustee into the Individual Debtor's assets and leave his creditors to accept his implausible assertions that he is dead broke, despite courts having found the Individual Debtor to be hiding assets through shell companies while continuing to live the life of a billionaire.\n\n4. The calculated absurdity of the Noncompliant Respondents' position is exemplified by a position taken by counsel for the Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK USA, in response to a hypothetical posed by the Trustee. Specifically, counsel have said they would *not agree* to search for or produce documents related to a hypothetical asset identical to the *Lady May*—if another such yacht existed—because it would be the position of the Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK\n\nUSA that the Individual Debtor does not presently own or control such asset.<sup>5</sup> This discovery position is indefensible. One of the most fundamental purposes of a Rule 2004 investigation is to identify assets that, although ostensibly belonging to others, may actually be property of the estate. This is especially true here, where the New York Supreme Court has already determined that the Individual Debtor has engaged in efforts to hide his wealth through a network of shell companies and otherwise. The Noncompliant Respondents must search for and produce the requested documents.\n\n5. In addition, certain Noncompliant Respondents have been unwilling to produce documents in the files of advisors and agents that are plainly within their control. Specifically, the Individual Debtor, HK USA and Mei Guo have sought to restrict their document search obligations to only those documents in their physical possession. Their discovery obligations, however, are not so limited. They must search for not only documents in their possession but also documents in the files of agents, advisors, and other parties whom they control. Documents in the files of such parties are critical to the Trustee's investigation because the Individual Debtor has used numerous law firms and advisors over the years to assist him in carrying out transactions, including transactions involving potential Estate assets, and it is his (and the other Respondents') obligation to make sure documents held by such advisors are searched in response to the Trustee's subpoena.<sup>6</sup>\n\n<sup>5</sup> The Individual Debtor's counsel has stated that the only difference from a discovery standpoint between the actual *Lady May* and a hypothetical second yacht is that the *Lady May* has already been discovered by the Individual Debtor's creditors, whereas the hypothetical second yacht is still unknown to the creditors. This would result in an untenable outcome. The Trustee need not know the results of his investigation *a priori* in order to gain access to the discovery (from the Individual Debtor) for the same investigation.\n\n<sup>6</sup> Although the Trustee has separately subpoenaed a number of law firms and advisors under Bankruptcy Rule 2004, the requests to the Individual Debtor are not identical to those served on the various advisors. Furthermore, additional advisors unknown to the Trustee who, thus, have not been identified and served with a subpoena, must be identified by the Individual Debtor and their documents collected and searched.\n\n6. Relatedly, certain Noncompliant Respondents have failed to satisfy their obligation to ensure that all sources of potentially responsive documents have been identified and adequately searched. Specifically, counsel for the Individual Debtor has informed the Trustee that their search for responsive documents consisted of simply asking the Individual Debtor (or his other advisors) whether certain categories of responsive documents exist. Counsel then took the response they received at face value, without performing a further search or investigation, even where the stated response defied common sense. These search efforts are not sufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\n7. Rather, the law in the Second Circuit is clear that simply relying on a client's representation that it has no potentially relevant information falls far short of satisfying counsel's obligation to ensure that the client identifies sources of relevant information, searches such sources, and preserves all relevant information. This is particularly true where the client's assertions are not credible. Here, the Individual Debtor's representations to his counsel (as communicated to the Trustee) include that he: (i) does not use a computer or e-mail communications; (ii) has two iPhones, but after his search he did not identify any responsive documents on either iPhone; (iii) has no office or hard copy documents of any nature; (iv) has no responsive text or other digital messages, despite admitting to using digital messaging applications to communicate with business associates (including in a prior affidavit he submitted in support of his claims against UBS); (v) has no documents related to any expense or transfer of funds to him, despite stating that his lavish lifestyle is paid for by funds from sources other than his own assets; and (vi) has only *approximately forty-six total responsive documents* **(**the documents the Trustee has received in discovery to date<sup>7</sup> ) in his custody, possession, or control. <sup>8</sup> These representations are simply not believable and cannot be accepted at face value. Consistent with their obligations under the Federal Rules, counsel for the Individual Debtor must conduct their own search and review of their clients' files for potentially responsive documents.\n\n8. In addition to his obligations under the Federal Rules, section 521(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code requires the Individual Debtor to \"surrender to the trustee all property of the estate and recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, relating to property of the estate.\" The Individual Debtor has not made any effort to comply with this obligation, but rather has frustrated the Trustee's investigation and thereby undermined the purpose of the statute by refusing to conduct basic searches for documents potentially related to property of the estate.\n\n9. In addition, the Individual Debtor has also refused to produce (i) a copy of all of his passports (and pages within such passports) and (ii) any documents predating the Individual Debtor fleeing China in late 2014 or early 2015, when certain of the Individual Debtor's assets in China may have been seized by the Chinese government. Because the Individual Debtor and entities related to him control assets outside of the United States—the Individual Debtor has admitted as much in YouTube videos and other venues—it is critical for the Trustee to understand where such assets may be located, including based on the Individual Debtor's travel. The Individual Debtor must be compelled to produce his passports. Moreover, the Individual Debtor must be compelled to search for and produce documents dated on or after February 5, 2012, which\n\n<sup>7</sup> The documents include, among others, the following: (i) eight checks from the U.S. Treasury or the State of New York; (ii) three litigation financing agreements; (iii) four *publically available* court documents; (iv) fifteen Federal or New York State tax documents; and (v) two promissory notes.\n\n<sup>8</sup> Mei Guo has produced nineteen documents to the Trustee. HK USA has produced in the aggregate 372 documents to the Trustee. Counsel to the Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK USA has represented that no further responsive documents are likely to be produced.\n\nis one outer limit for the statute of limitations concerning fraudulent transfer claims against the Individual Debtor.\n\n10. Finally, the Trustee also seeks relief against the Defaulting Respondents for failure to comply in any way with the Trustee's Subpoenas. Specifically, the Defaulting Respondents, despite having been served with Subpoenas via process server, have failed to (i) communicate or meet and confer with the Trustee, despite multiple attempts by the Trustee to do so, (ii) serve responses and objections, or (iii) produce any responsive documents. The Defaulting Respondents must be compelled to comply with their discovery obligations.\n\n### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n## **I. Trustee's Rule 2004 Motions, Orders, and Subpoenas**\n\n11. On July 28, 2022 the Trustee filed motions for Rule 2004 discovery as to the Individual Debtor (the \"Individual Debtor 2004 Motion\"),<sup>9</sup> various legal and financial advisors to the Individual Debtor (the \"Advisors\"),<sup>10</sup> and various entities and individuals affiliated with the Individual Debtor (the \"Associated Entities\") <sup>11</sup> (collectively, the \"Initial 2004 Motions\").\n\n12. On August 5, 2022, the Individual Debtor filed his *Limited Objection* to Rule 2004 Motions [ECF No. 703] (the \"Limited Objection\"), stating at the outset that the \"Debtor agrees that the Trustee may take Rule 2004 examinations of the Debtor\" and conceding that the \"only issue before the Court [was] whether the Trustee may serve the Proposed Subpoenas—which he can—subject to the Debtor's . . . right to seek to quash the Proposed Subpoenas based on their scope or other grounds.\" (ECF No. 703 at 1-3). The Individual Debtor objected to the Individual\n\n<sup>9</sup> *See* [ECF No. 636].\n\n<sup>10</sup> *See* [ECF No. 637].\n\n<sup>11</sup> *See* [ECF No. 638].\n\nDebtor 2004 Motion only to the extent it sought, among other relief, \"to . . . compel the production of a particular scope of documents requested by the Trustee[.]\" (*Id.* at 5).\n\n13. On August 16, 2022, the Court entered the Rule 2004 Orders, [ECF Nos. 756, 757, and 758], authorizing the Trustee to examine the Respondents pursuant to Rule 2004 and serve the Subpoenas and document requests attached thereto. The Rule 2004 Orders directed the Respondents to, among other things: (i) \"produce all documents within 30 days of the service of the Subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee[,]\" and (ii) \"ensure that all documents and other information, including without limitation in any electronic format . . . are available for production . . . [and] are not destroyed.\" (ECF Nos. 756 at 1, 757 at 1, and 758 at 2). 12\n\n14. Between August 19, 2022, and August 23, 2022 counsel to the Trustee served the Subpoenas on the Respondents.<sup>13</sup> The Subpoenas directed the Respondents to produce documents responsive to between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) requests for production (the \"Requests\") concerning the Individual Debtor's acts, conduct, and/or property, among other topics related to the Individual Debtor's financial condition and affairs. 14\n\n## **II. Background Regarding Respondents**\n\n15. Each of the Respondents is an important discovery target who is likely to have information highly relevant to Trustee's investigation. The Individual Debtor is of course a critical source of information given his role as the debtor in this case, notwithstanding his assertions to\n\n<sup>12</sup> On September 7, 2022, the Trustee submitted his first supplemental motion for Rule 2004 discovery with respect to additional professionals, persons and entities related to the Individual Debtor, and relevant financial institutions. *See* [ECF No. 839]. On September 21, 2022 the Court entered an order granting the First Supplemental 2004 Motion. *See* [ECF No. 866].\n\n<sup>13</sup> *See* Luft Decl., Ex. C-1 (Aug. 19, 2022 correspondence); C-2-C-5 (affidavits of service for service of subpoenas on Ngok, Greenwich Land, Lamp Capital, and Golden Spring).\n\n<sup>14</sup> The Requests are attached as Exhibit A to each of the Subpoenas. *See* n. 3 *supra*.\n\ndate that he has virtually no documents to produce to the Trustee. The remainder of the Respondents are (i) related persons and/or Associated Entities or (ii) advisors to the Individual Debtor. These parties are uniquely situated to have information directly related to the issues the Trustee is investigating, as follows:\n\n- **Mei Guo** is the Individual Debtor's daughter (the \"Daughter\") who purportedly owns HK USA and Eastern Profit Corporation, a Hong Kong Entity that Judge Liman of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, in his 2021 decision in the case of *Eastern Profit Corp. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, found to be, \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Individual Debtor<sup>15</sup> allegedly used to \"protect his confidentiality and anonymity.\"<sup>16</sup>\n- **HK USA** is purportedly owned by the Individual Debtor's Daughter. HK USA holds title to the *Lady May*, a 150-foot luxury yacht that was found to be beneficially owned by the Individual Debtor. In Adversary Proceeding 22-05003 in this case, the Trustee has taken the position that HK USA is the alter ego of the Individual Debtor and that the *Lady May* was received by HK USA pursuant to an actual fraudulent transfer effectuated by the Individual Debtor to protect the *Lady May* from creditors. HK USA's expenses (including its legal fees) have been paid for by Golden Spring and Lamp Capital, entities that, as noted below, are purportedly owned by the Individual Debtor's son. HK USA has no income, bank account, directors, officers, or employees. HK USA has also shared an address with the Individual Debtor and other Individual Debtor-linked entities. In the Individual Debtor's Chapter 11 Case, the Individual Debtor and HK USA currently are represented by the same counsel.\n- **Ngok** is allegedly the Individual Debtor's wife who purportedly owns Greenwich Land, an entity which is the registered owner the Individual Debtor's residence on Taconic Road in Greenwich, Connecticut.\n- **Greenwich Land** is purportedly owned by Ngok. Greenwich Land is the registered owner of the Individual Debtor's residence on Taconic Road in Greenwich, Connecticut. On April 26, 2022, Greenwich Land sold a second property on Ferncliff Road in Cos Cob, Connecticut. The authorized signatory for Greenwich Land on the warranty deed in connection with the transfer is Max Krasner, who is an associate of the Individual Debtor with a number of roles at Individual Debtoraffiliated entities. Greenwich Land's address at 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065 has been used as the address of the Individual Debtor and numerous affiliated entities, including Golden Spring and HK USA.\n\n<sup>15</sup>  *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC,* No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631 at \\*1.\n\n<sup>16</sup>  *Id.* at \\*7 (\"During negotiations, [Kwok] requested that, to protect his confidentiality and anonymity, he would not sign or be a party to the Agreement but that a separate entity would sign and be a party.\").\n\n- **Lamp Capital** is purportedly owned by the Individual Debtor's son. Lamp Capital's sole member is Infinity Treasury Management, Inc., of which the Individual Debtor's son is the purported sole shareholder; the Individual Debtor's associate Max Krasner is director and officer; and the Individual Debtor's associate Daniel Podhaskie is a former director and officer. Lamp Capital also funded a \\$1 million retainer for the Individual Debtor's initial chapter 11 bankruptcy counsel, Brown Rudnick.\n- **Golden Spring** is purportedly owned by the Individual Debtor's Son. Golden Spring was established and funded through a transfer of funds from one of the Individual Debtor's bank accounts in Hong Kong to the bank account of Golden Spring in New York in 2015. The Individual Debtor has testified that Golden Spring has been paying his living expenses since 2015. Golden Spring has also been paying the fees of the Individual Debtor's counsel and millions of dollars of maintenance fees associated with the Individual Debtor's apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel in Manhattan. Golden Spring's president, Yan Ping (\"Yvette\") Wang (\"Ms. Wang\") has testified that Golden Spring is the Individual Debtor's \"family office.\" Golden Spring's address at 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065 has been used as the address of the Individual Debtor and numerous affiliated entities, including HK USA and Greenwich Land. Importantly, Golden Spring has already twice filed notices of appearance in this case, on March 28, 23003 [EDF 139] and March 31, 2022 [ECF 149].<sup>17</sup>\n\n# **III. Noncompliant Respondents' Responses and Objections to Subpoenas**, **Discovery Conferences, and Document Productions**\n\n# **A. The Individual Debtor, HK USA, and Mei Guo.**\n\n16. On September 2, 2022, the Individual Debtor served Responses and Objections to\n\nthe document requests attached to the Trustee's Subpoena (the \"Individual Debtor's Responses and Objections\").<sup>18</sup> In the Individual Debtor's Responses and Objections, the Individual Debtor puts forth multiple objections that improperly impede the Trustee's investigation. First, he contends without any support that the \"breadth\"<sup>19</sup> of certain Requests is so burdensome that no search is appropriate. Second, he takes issue with Requests that seek information concerning \"non-\n\n<sup>17</sup> The order granting Golden Spring's motion to withdraw its appearance was entered on August 17, 2022. [ECF 760].\n\n<sup>18</sup> The Individual Debtor's Responses and Objections are attached to the Luft Declaration as **Exhibit D-1**.\n\n<sup>19</sup> *See* Luft Decl., Ex. D-1, Individual Debtor's Responses and Objections to Request Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 27.\n\ndebtor\" <sup>20</sup> entities or potential assets or liabilities that the Individual Debtor asserts he does not have legal custody, possession, or control over, submitting that no documents of this nature will be searched for or produced because such assets are allegedly not estate assets and thus would have no relevance to this case. Third, he refuses to search for or produce any documents predating his fleeing China in late 2014 or early 2015. In response to the Subpoenas, Mei Guo and HK USA submitted responses and objection to the Trustee's counsel in substantially the same form as the Individual Debtor, and on many of the same bases.\n\n17. Counsel to the Trustee and counsel to the Individual Debtor, HK USA, and Mei Guo (as noted above, the same counsel represents all three parties) held discovery conferences on September 9, 2022, September 15, 2022, and September 22, 2022. At these conferences, counsel to the Individual Debtor, HK USA, and Mei Guo reiterated the position of such parties that they need not produce documents related to assets purportedly belonging to non-debtor entities, with the only exception being that they would produce documents related to assets over which a dispute of ownership presently exists (e.g., the *Lady May*). Counsel to the Trustee stated its disagreement with this position.\n\n18. During their conferences, the parties also discussed the Individual Debtor's obligation to search for and produce documents from the files of his advisors and others holding documents on his behalf and the date range for the Requests. Counsel to the Individual Debtor expressed its view that the Trustee's subpoenas to the Individual Debtor's Advisors obviated the need for the Individual Debtor (and for HK USA and Mei Guo) to search for and review documents in the possession of, for example, legal counsel, based on the Individual Debtor's representation that such advisors would produce all documents related to the Individual Debtor in their possession\n\n<sup>20</sup> *Id.* at Request Nos. 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 30.\n\nto the Trustee. Counsel to the Trustee explained, however, that because such documents are in the control of the Individual Debtor and the Subpoena to the Individual Debtor covers different and additional topics not directed to the Advisors, the Individual Debtor must search for and produce non-duplicative documents of advisors, including advisors unknown to the Trustee. Counsel to the Individual Debtor also reiterated the Individual Debtor's position that he would not search for or produce documents predating the Individual Debtor leaving China in late 2014 or early 2015, and the Trustee's counsel expressed disagreement with that position.\n\n19. Finally, the parties also discussed the sources of potential responsive documents of the Individual Debtor. Counsel to the Individual Debtor explained that the Individual Debtor does not use a computer or e-mail and does not know how to use a computer, but he has two iPhones. Counsel also represented that the Individual Debtor searched his iPhones and did not identify any responsive documents. Counsel further stated that, based on the Individual Debtor's representations, the Individual Debtor has no documents related to Golden Spring, an entity purportedly owned by the Individual Debtor's son and which purportedly pays all his living expenses, no documents related to his son or his son's business more generally, and no documents related to any one of numerous associated entities. The Trustee also probed the Individual Debtor's assertion that he has no documents related to any business interests because he is not presently engaged in any business. To test this assertion, the Trustee asked how the Individual Debtor could claim to have no business activity given that his music is currently for sale on iTunes, and given this, he must have related documentation. The Individual Debtor's counsel could not answer the question.\n\n20. Following the above discussions, over the last several weeks, including into October 2022, the Trustee and his counsel have engaged in further discussions with the Individual\n\nDebtor's counsel, regarding Subpoena and document production issues, including without limitation issues related to privilege disputes. These discussions have resulted in the recent production of documents from certain of the Individual Debtor's advisors, but they have not resolved any of the disputes between the Trustee and the Individual Debtor addressed herein.\n\n21. To date, the Individual Debtor, HK USA, and Mei Guo have produced hardly any documents to the Trustee. On August 30, 2022, the Individual Debtor made a production of 14 documents, consisting primarily of corporate documents related to Genever Holdings Corporation. On September 16, 2022, the Individual Debtor produced 32 additional documents, consisting primarily of tax returns, government stimulus checks, and litigation funding agreements, for a total of *46 documents*. On September 19, 2022, HK USA and Mei Guo produced 18 and 19 documents, respectively, to the Trustee, including contracts with third parties, organizational documents, and screenshots of iPhone digital messages (\"iMessages\"). Notably, of the 19 seemingly hand-selected iMessages produced by Mei Guo, eighteen related to innocuous scheduling conversations between Mei Guo and the former captain of the *Lady May*. On September 30, 2022, HK USA produced an additional 354 documents and communications, including e-mail messages, documents related to the *Lady May*, and certain publicly available court pleadings. HK USA's second production did not include any documents related to the Individual Debtor's use of the *Lady May*, the costs and expenses of maintaining the yacht, who bore those costs, and/or how the yacht was acquired and with funds from what entity.\n\n### **IV. Ngok and Greenwich Land**\n\n22. The Trustee served Greenwich Land and Ngok with Subpoenas on August 22, 2022 and August 23, 2022, respectively. Both Greenwich Land and Ngok had a deadline of\n\nSeptember 6, 2022 to serve objections to the subpoenas and a deadline of September 21, 2022 for the production of documents. The Trustee did not receive timely objections for either party.\n\n23. On September 16, 2022, counsel for the Trustee and counsel for Ngok discussed, among other things, the Subpoena served on Ngok. During that meet and confer, counsel for Ngok asked whether the Trustee would accept service of responses and objections to the Subpoena. Counsel for the Trustee indicated that counsel for Ngok could send her responses and objections, but the Trustee was reserving all rights as to deadlines that already passed.\n\n24. On September 23, 2022, counsel for Ngok served untimely objections to the Subpoena (the \"Ngok Objections\").<sup>21</sup> The Ngok Objections objected to, among other things, requests for information which it characterized as \"beyond the scope permitted of a Rule 2004 examination\" such as those requests which \"seek[] information related to the Debtor's Family, Associated Entities, and Associated Individuals without sufficient limitation to information concerning the Debtor.\" <sup>22</sup> On September 30, 2022, counsel for the Trustee and counsel for Ngok met and conferred to discuss the Ngok Objections. Counsel for the Trustee noted that the Trustee is entitled to investigate potential assets of the Individual Debtor that may be held by people or entities other than the Individual Debtor, and that the Trustee's investigation is not limited to what few assets that the Individual Debtor himself admits to owning, or exclusively to communications or documents connected to the Individual Debtor, rather than to the Individual Debtor's Family, Associated Individuals, and Associated Entities.\n\n25. On October 13, 2022 and October 17, 2022, counsel for the Trustee emailed counsel for Ngok inquiring about, among other things, Ngok's production of documents. That same day,\n\n<sup>21</sup> A copy of the Ngok Responses and Objections is attached to the Luft Declaration as **Exhibit E**.\n\n<sup>22</sup> *See* Luft Decl., Ex. E, Ngok Objections at 2.\n\nNgok submitted her Motion requesting an extension (the \"Extension Motion\") for the time to produce documents in response to the Subpoena up to and including November 10, 2022.\n\n26. On October 20, 2022, counsel for the Trustee spoke with counsel for Ngok, who stated that he was now counsel to both Ngok and Greenwich Land (collectively, the \"Ngok Parties\"), and reached an agreement resolving the Extension Motion on the following terms:\n\n- the Ngok Parties would produce documents in connection with formation of Greenwich Land, its funding, acquisition of any property (notably the two homes), the sale of any property (notably the Fern Cliff residence), and the source and location of any funds for the acquisition of any property or sale of any property; and\n- Ngok would not object to the search of documents related to Greenwich Land, and Greenwich Land would not object to the search of documents regarding Ngok.\n\n27. The Ngok Parties, however, maintained their objections to searching for documents related to Individual Debtor's Family, Associated Individuals, or Associated Entities (other than Greenwich Land), and the Trustee reserved all his rights in response to such objections.\n\n## **V. Discovery From Other Subpoena Recipients**\n\n28. Contemporaneously with his discussions with the Noncompliant Respondents, the Trustee has been discussing Subpoenas with and receiving documents from other parties, including current and former advisors to the Individual Debtors. Certain of these other parties, including Melissa Francis and Aaron Mitchell, both counsel for the Individual Debtor, as well as other members of the Individual Debtor's family and his associates, originally adopted certain of the same positions as the Noncompliant Respondents, including the position that they would not search for and produce documents related to assets that ostensibly belong to persons other than the Individual Debtor.\n\n29. The Trustee was originally planning to file this motion to compel against some or all of these other parties, but he further met and conferred with such parties to see if disputes could be resolved consensually. The Trustee is pleased to report that, through discussions that have occurred up until the date of this filing, he has—for the time being—resolved his issues with many of these parties without needing the assistance of the Court. For example, both Ms. Francis and Mr. Mitchell agreed within the past week to drop their objection to searching for documents related to assets over which the Individual Debtor's family and associates claim ownership.\n\n## **VI. Defaulting Respondents' Failure to Respond to Subpoenas**\n\n30. The Defaulting Respondents are Lamp Capital and Golden Spring. The Trustee\n\nhas served each with a Subpoena, but none has responded. Specifically:\n\n- The Trustee served Lamp Capital via process server on August 23, 2022 at a Delaware address for its registered agent. Lamp Capital's deadline to serve objections was on September 6, 2022, and its deadline for the production of documents was September 22, 2022. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from Lamp Capital. Counsel for the Trustee sent two letters to the registered agent of Lamp Capital to follow up on the Subpoena: the first on September 13, 2022, and the second on October 19, 2022. Counsel for the Trustee has received no response to either correspondence.\n- The Trustee served Golden Spring via process server on August 22, 2022 at a Delaware address for its registered agent. Golden Spring's deadline to serve objections was on September 6, 2022, and its deadline for the production of documents was September 21, 2022. The Trustee has not received any objections or document productions from Golden Spring. The Trustee sent two letters to the registered agent of Golden Spring to follow up on the Subpoena: the first on September 13, 2022, and the second on September 30, 2022. Counsel for the Trustee received no response to either correspondence.\n\n# **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n31. The Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334.\n\nVenue is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to, *inter alia*, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (O).\n\n### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n32. The Trustee seeks entry of the Proposed Order (1) compelling the Noncompliant Respondents to comply with the Rule 2004 Orders by searching for and producing documents related to potential estate assets, regardless of whether other parties claim to own such assets;<sup>23</sup> (2) compelling the Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK USA to search for and produce documents from February 5, 2012 forward, unless another timeframe is indicated by a Request; and (3) compelling the Individual Debtor to (i) search for and produce documents of advisors that are within his control, including all current and former law firms, accountants, and other advisors and agents; and (ii) perform, through counsel, a further investigation, consistent with the Federal Rules, for additional sources of responsive documents and electronically stored information and certify the results of such investigation to the Trustee in writing; and (4) holding the Defaulting Parties in civil contempt for failing to respond to the Subpoenas.\n\n## **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n# **I. All Noncompliant Respondents Must Produce Information Related to Individual Debtor-Controlled Assets**\n\n33. The Trustee is tasked with investigating the Individual Debtor's assets and affairs for the benefit of the Individual Debtor's creditors. Assets related to the Individual Debtor, but that the Individual Debtor or other third-parties assert are *not* owned or controlled by the Individual Debtor are precisely the potential Estate assets and property the Trustee must identify and investigate. The Noncompliant Respondents' refusal to search for any documents related to such\n\n<sup>23</sup> This includes all documents responsive to Individual Debtor Request Nos. 1-26 and 28, and all documents responsive to Mei Guo/HK USA Request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 through 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20, which seek information concerning the identification of potential Estate assets or other property in which the Individual Debtor may hold an interest.\n\nassets based upon their view that a non-debtor's purported ownership of such assets precludes the Trustee's investigation is baseless.\n\n34. \"The purpose of a Rule 2004 examination is to assist a party in interest in determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets, examining transactions and assessing whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Grp. Ltd.*, Case No. 16-13625-JLG, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). This includes revealing the nature and extent of the estate and in discovering assets of the debtor that may have been intentionally or unintentionally concealed. *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996); *see also In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC*, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016) (\"Legitimate goals of Rule 2004 examinations include discovering assets, examining transactions, and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred.\") (internal quotation and citation omitted)); *id.* (noting that \"[u]nlike traditional discovery, which narrowly focuses on the issues germane to the dispute, the scope of Rule 2004 is broad and unfettered, and has been likened to a fishing expedition and an inquisition\") (internal citations and punctuation omitted); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b) (authorizing scope of 2004 examinations \"relat[ing] . . . to . . . property . . . and financial condition of the debtor, or to *any matter* which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate\") (emphasis added).\n\n35. Here, the Trustee's Requests, including those seeking information concerning known and unknown assets that may be Estate property, fall squarely within the universe of appropriate areas for inquiry under Bankruptcy Rule 2004. The Trustee's Requests for information regarding assets ostensibly owned by relatives, known associates, or related entities are especially appropriate given the Individual Debtor's history of using such persons and entities as repositories of his assets and enablers of his lifestyle. Indeed, multiple courts have already determined that the Individual Debtor hides his assets in shell companies and through his family members. *See, e.g.*, *Eastern Profit Corp.,* 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (Eastern Profit is \"in essence, a shell corporation for\" the Debtor\"); Final Contempt Decision at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181 (Individual Debtor had made \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\").\n\n36. The Individual Debtor's position that he need not search for documents related to these assets is absurd, as it would deprive the Trustee of information centrally relevant to his investigation and to the administration of this case. For example, as noted above, the Individual Debtor's position would allow him to not produce documents related to another asset like the *Lady May* on the basis that someone else (*e.g.*, his daughter) claims to own the asset. It would also allow the Individual Debtor to avoid producing documents in his possession that relate to entities (such as Golden Spring) that have been funding his expenses. These documents are plainly relevant and must be produced.\n\n37. While the Individual Debtor and others may believe that particular assets do not belong to the Individual Debtor, that bald assertion cannot prevent the Trustee from conducting his investigation to arrive at his own conclusions. If the Trustee eventually decides to bring legal action to determine the true ownership of an asset, it will be up to the Court—not to the Individual Debtor or anyone else—to determine whether or not an asset is property of the Estate. Accordingly, the Noncompliant Respondents must be compelled to search for and produce documents concerning potential estate assets, regardless of whether those assets ostensibly belong to others at this time.\n\n#### **II. Individual Debtor Must Search For Responsive Documents Beyond His Possession**\n\n38. In responding to a subpoena for documents, a party \"served with a subpoena must 'conduct a reasonable and diligent search for responsive documents.'\" *Universitas Educ. v. Benistar,* No. 3:20-cv-738, 2022 WL 860411, at \\*3 (D. Conn. Mar. 22, 2022) (citation omitted); *see also* Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Gathering documents from a single source without making an \"effort to find responsive documents\" from other sources is not a diligent search. *Universitas Educ.*, 2022 WL 860411, at \\*3 (citation omitted). At bottom, \"perfection is not required. However, litigation is not a game, and parties cannot engage in halfhearted or ineffective efforts to identify and produce relevant documents.\" *Top Jet Enters. v. Kulowiec,* No. 21-MC-789 (RA) (KHP), 2022 WL 280459, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2022) (citations omitted).\n\n39. A subpoena recipient must search for and produce documents within its control but not in its immediate possession. \"[T]he vast majority of federal cases [ ] hold[ ] that Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows document requests to be made as to items in the responding party's possession, custody, or control, enables a party seeking discovery to require production of documents beyond the actual possession of the opposing party if such party has retained any *right or ability to influence* the person in whose possession the documents lie.\" *N. Mariana Islands v. Millard*, 287 F.R.D. 204, 209 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original); *see also Lopez v. Florez*, No. 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT, 2013 WL 1151948, \\* 2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013) (\"A responding party has an affirmative duty to reasonably seek information requested under Rule 34(a) from its agents or others under its control.\").\n\n40. \"If the producing party has the legal right or the practical ability to obtain the documents, then it is deemed to have 'control,' even if the documents are actually in the possession of a non-party.\" *In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig.*, 236 F.R.D. 177, 180 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n2006) (quoting *Riddell Sports Inc. v. Brooks*, 158 F.R.D. 555, 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)); *Bank of N.Y. v. Meridien BIAO Bank Tanz. Ltd*., 171 F.R.D. 135, 146 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (same); *see also Annunziato v Collecto, Inc.*, 304 F.R.D. 360, 363 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (finding that where a non-party was an agent of a party, the principal-agent relationship established the necessary control such that party-principal had the \"right, authority or practical ability to obtain [ ] documents from [the] nonparty to the action\"); *Gruss v. Zwirn*, 296 F.R.D. 224, 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding that \"control\" of documents does not require legal ownership or physical possession).<sup>24</sup>\n\n41. In this case, the Individual Debtor has refused to comply with his duty to search for and produce documents in the possession of his advisors over which he has control. All the Individual Debtor has said he is willing to do is simply not instruct those of his advisors who received separate Subpoenas to not respond to such Subpoenas. The fact that the Trustee has also served Subpoenas on certain of the Individual Debtor's advisors, however, does not displace the Individual Debtor's own obligations to search documents within his control in response to the Subpoena served on him. Unless the Individual Debtor does so, the Trustee will not receive all of the documents to which he is entitled. This is so both because the Trustee's requests to the Individual Debtor are different than his requests to his advisors and also because the Trustee is not aware of (and therefore has not subpoenaed) all of the Individual Debtor's relevant advisors. The Trustee must rely on the Individual Debtor to identify the entire universe of his advisors who may have responsive documents—including advisors not presently known to the Trustee—and collect and search their documents as necessary.<sup>25</sup>\n\n<sup>24</sup> Furthermore, a New York state court has already disposed of the Individual Debtor's argument that he need not search, review, and produce documents that he asserts are outside of his possession. (*See generally* May 27,2021 Hr'g Tr. 10:4-8, (Ostrager, J), *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 652077/2017 (movant entitled to have discovery of non-Debtor entity funding Debtor's expenses)).\n\n<sup>25</sup> The same standard applies to agents of Mei Guo and HK USA, and any documents in such agents' possession are controlled by Mei Guo and HK USA, and must be searched accordingly.\n\n42. To be clear, to the extent an advisor who separately received a Subpoena produces all documents in its possession concerning the Individual Debtor, the Trustee is not asking that the Individual Debtor search for and reproduce duplicative documents, nor does the Trustee have any objection to the Individual Debtor and his advisor coordinating to avoid duplication of efforts. The Individual Debtor, however, has an independent obligation to ensure that all documents responsive to his Subpoena are produced to the Trustee, even if those documents are in the possession of his advisors. The Court should order the Individual Debtor to comply with this obligation.\n\n# **III. Counsel to the Individual Debtor Must Ensure Compliance With Discovery Obligations**\n\n43. In addition to the Individual Debtor's refusal to search the files of his agents and advisors, counsel for the Individual Debtor has failed to adequately identify and search various of his own sources of potentially responsive documents. In many cases, all counsel has done is simply ask the Individual Debtor (or his other advisors) whether he has various types of responsive documents—such as emails, text messages, and other electronic communications—and accepted his responses at face value. This is not enough to comply with counsel's discovery obligations on behalf of their client.\n\n44. At the outset of any litigation, counsel for a party has a duty to understand the ways in which their client stores documents and information, whether in traditional physical media or electronically. *See, e.g.*, *Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC*, 229 F.R.D. 422, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (\"*Zubulake V*\") (explaining that, to comply with discovery obligations, \"counsel must become fully familiar with her client's document retention policies . . . [and] data retention architecture,\" and must also communicate with \"'key players' in the litigation in order to understand how they stored information\"). \"A party *and her counsel* must make certain that all sources of potentially relevant information are identified and placed 'on hold' . . . .\" *Id.* (emphasis added); *see also In*  *re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig.,* 244 F.R.D. 179, 197-98 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (\"The preservation obligation runs first to counsel, who has 'a duty to advise his client of the type of information potentially relevant to the lawsuit and of the necessity of preventing its destruction.'\"). Once the information is placed on hold, \"[c]ounsel must take affirmative steps to monitor compliance so that *all sources of discoverable information are identified and searched*.\" *Id.* at 195 (emphasis added); *see also Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Resources Corp*., No. 05 Civ. 4837, 2006 WL 1409413, at \\*5-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006) (emphasizing counsels' affirmative duty to search for sources of electronic information). Importantly, \"counsel's obligation is not confined to a request for documents; the duty is to search for *sources* of information.\" *Id.* at \\*5 (emphasis in original).\n\n45. Here, counsel for the Individual Debtor has informed the Trustee that counsel relied on the Individual Debtor's statements that, outside of documents already produced to the Trustee, the only sources of responsive information the Individual Debtor has in his possession are two cell phones and that the Individual Debtor searched those phones and determined they contain no responsive documents. Counsel's unchecked reliance on the Individual Debtor's statements is not sufficient to comply with their discovery obligations, as counsel has an independent duty to oversee an adequate search of all potential sources of responsive documents in the Individual Debtor's custody, possession, or control. This is especially true where, as here, the client's statements are dubious at best.\n\n46. While, ordinarily, \"a party's good faith averment that the items sought simply do not exist, or are not in his possession, custody, or control, should resolve the issue of failure of production since one cannot be required to produce the impossible,\" a court must \"evaluate[] [the producing party's] efforts 'in light of the full record in the case,' including [any] demonstrated history of frustrating discovery efforts in the past.\" *Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C. v. Brady,* No.\n\n19-CV-10236 (JMF), 2021 WL 621206, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2021). Here, based on, among other things, the Individual Debtor's vast business interests, his sprawling web of affiliated entities and known associates, and the constant stream of social media and other digital content he puts out on a daily basis, it is simply not credible that two cell phones are the *only* sources of potentially responsive electronic documents in the Individual Debtor's custody, possession, or control and that neither phone contains a *single* document responsive to the Subpoena.<sup>26</sup> Nor is it believable that the Individual Debtor has only a grand total of only *forty-six responsive documents* in his custody, possession or control. *See id.* (where the court, given defendant's \"history in [the] case\" was \"understandably suspicious\" of defendant's \"conclusory assertion\" where defendant only managed to produce \"a meager twenty-two documents\" yet asserted the he had \"exhausted the universe of responsive documents\").<sup>27</sup>\n\n47. In summary, counsel cannot accept the Individual Debtor's representations regarding his lack of responsive documents at face value but must instead perform a diligent search by obtaining and searching all sources of potentially responsive information and ensure that all\n\n<sup>26</sup> Indeed, the Individual Debtor has, in the past, admitted to using numerous cell phones simultaneously. *See*  Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions, Docket No. 107 at ¶ 17 (The Individual Debtor noting that the retains ownership of his own \"clothing and mobile phones.\"); VICE News, \"Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption*,* YouTube\" (original air date on HBO, Nov. 15, 2017), http (In this video, the Individual Debtor shows multiple cellphones of his, and claims the Chinese Communist Party has hacked some of his phones).\n\n<sup>27</sup> The Individual Debtor's stated lack of almost any documents, if taken at face value, also raises very serious questions of spoliation. Not only has this case been pending since February 2022, but prior to it, the Individual Debtor was embroiled in countless lawsuits, most notably those involving his dealings with PAX, UBS and other business transactions. For each of these litigations, the Individual Debtor had an obligation to ensure that no relevant documents were destroyed and that all such documents were maintained. The Individual Debtor's assertion of having no more than 46 documents total seems to strongly suggest that the Individual Debtor has not complied with his preservation requirements. To give a concrete example, in the UBS litigation there were allegations by the Individual Debtor that he had WhatsApp messages that were relevant evidence in that matter. Yet, when asked why such documents had not been produced in response to the Subpoena in this case, counsel for the Individual Debtor stated they no longer existed, despite the fact that the litigation with UBS is ongoing. To the extent the Individual Debtor has not complied with his document preservation requirements, and has allowed for spoliation of his documents, the Trustee reserves all rights, including to seek an adverse inference as to what information the missing documents contained.\n\nattendant data is preserved and produced. This means, for example, that counsel must (i) image and search electronically the entire content of the Defendants' two iPhones for responsive documents; (ii) inquire and understand the location of documents counsel know must exist somewhere—e.g. records of the funds used to pay for the Individual Debtor's lavish lifestyle, documents related to the music, crypto and other business interests that he frequently openly discusses on social media; and (iii) either (a) run searches of all other potential sources of responsive documents or (b) certify under oath all the steps they have taken to determine that the Individual Debtor has no other such sources, including without limitation other electronic devices (such as laptops or tablets), email accounts, messaging and social media accounts (such as WhatsApp, iMessage, and Facebook), and hard copy documents. *See generally CFTC v. Main & Prospect Capital, LLC,* No. 2:19-cv-09736-DSF-AFMx, 2020 WL 11303655, at \\*3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020) (requiring party, and counsel, to certify under oath that document production included all non-privileged responsive documents in party's custody, possession, or control); *Kaur v. Alameida*, No. CV F 05 276 OWW DLB, 2007 WL 1449723, \\*2 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2007) (ordering defendants to conduct additional search for responsive documents and reminding defendants and counsel \"of their duty under Rule 34 to conduct a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in effort to obtain responsive documents\").\n\n## **IV. Individual Debtor Must Produce all Passports, Including all Pages Thereof, and Must Search for Documents Dated February 5, 2012 or Later**\n\n48. The Individual Debtor holds himself out as owning real and personal property throughout the world. All of the Individual Debtor's passports and pages within, whether current or expired and regardless of the nation or nation-state of issuance, are relevant and critical to the Trustee's investigation into where potential Estate assets may be located, hidden, or moved by the Individual Debtor.\n\n49. Counsel to the Individual Debtor has stated that a tax document that has been produced to the Trustee includes the *first page* of the Individual Debtor's passport, and that counsel intends to stand on its objection regarding producing the entirety of the Individual Debtor's passport. The Trustee, however, did not request the Individual Debtor's passport information to catalogue the Individual Debtor's passport number or similar information. The Trustee needs the remainder of the passport pages to understand where the Individual Debtor has been and, therefore, where his assets and property may be located.\n\n50. The Individual Debtor has provided no justification for his refusal to produce this information to the Trustee. To the extent the Individual Debtor believes his passport and travel history constitute confidential information, he can avail himself of the protections of the protective order in this case. The Court must compel the production of the Individual Debtor's passports.\n\n51. In addition, the Court must compel the Individual Debtor to produce documents dated February 5, 2012 or later (unless another time period is indicated by a Request) and not permit him to limit his production to documents post-dating his fleeing China in late 2014 and/or early 2015. The Individual Debtor's proposed date limitation is arbitrary and has the potential to exclude relevant documents. The Individual Debtor must instead be required to search for documents dated as early as February 5, 2012, which documents are plainly relevant to fraudulent transfer claims that may be brought as a result of the Trustee's investigation.\n\n#### **V. The Defaulting Parties Should be Held in Civil Contempt**\n\n52. As discussed above, the two Defaulting Parties—Lamp Capital and Golden Spring—are all closely connected to the Individual Debtor, his property, and his business dealings and are therefore highly likely to have documents relevant to the Trustee's investigation. None of these parties, however, has responded in any way to the Trustee's Subpoenas.\n\n53. Rule 45(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that \"[f]ailure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued.\" *In re Corso*, 328 B.R. 375, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting FRCP 45(e)) (quotations omitted); *PaineWebber Inc. v. Acstar Ins. Co.*, 211 F.R.D. 247, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (\"Where a party fails to object to a subpoena and also fails to comply, it may be held in contempt, pursuant to Rule 45[(e)]\") (internal quotations omitted).\n\n54. In order to hold a party in civil contempt, \"the court need only (1) have entered a clear and unambiguous order, (2) find it established by clear and convincing evidence that the order was not complied with, and (3) find that the alleged contemnor has not clearly established his inability to comply with the terms of the order.\" *Huber v. Marine Midland Bank*, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995) (*citing N.A. Sales Co. v. Chapman Indus. Corp.*, 736 F.2d 854, 857 (2d Cir. 1984)).\n\n55. In a civil contempt proceeding, a finding of contempt will be upheld so long as the order violated \"is clear and unambiguous, the proof of non-compliance [with the order] is clear and convincing, and the contemnor was not reasonably diligent in attempting to comply.\" *Corso*, 328 B.R. at 385 (quoting *United States v. Local 1804–1, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn.*, 44 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir.1995) (quotations omitted) (alterations in original)).\n\n56. Additionally, a party that fails to timely respond or object to a subpoena within the mandated period is not permitted to raise objections at a later time. *See Corso*, 328 B.R. at 384-85 (\"Because [the subpoenaed party] did not raise any timely objections to the Trustee's subpoena, or move to quash it in a timely manner [it] waived its right to object to the Subpoena.\").\n\n57. Finally, courts have found that a party that fails to respond or object to a subpoena may be sanctioned for that failure. *See PaineWebber Inc.*, 211 F.R.D. at 249 (\"Where a party fails to object to a subpoena and also fails to comply, it may be held in contempt, pursuant to Rule\n\n45[(e)], **and sanctions may therefore be imposed**.\") (internal quotations omitted and emphasis added); *Corso*, 328 B.R. at 385-86 (upholding bankruptcy court's sanction of a party which made \"no effort\" to comply with a Rule 2004 subpoena). Specifically, courts in the Second Circuit have awarded attorneys' fees where a party fails to comply with a subpoena. *See Gucci Am., Inc. v. Li*, No. 10-CV-4974 (RJS), 2015 WL 7758872, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2015) (\"[C]ourts in this Circuit have awarded attorneys' fees where a party or a non-party willfully fails to comply with a subpoena.\").\n\n58. Here, service of the document requests attached to the Subpoenas on the Defaulting Parties has occurred, and despite their awareness of the Subpoenas, the Defaulting Parties have made no effort whatsoever to comply with the documents requests attached to the Subpoenas. *See id.* (affirming bankruptcy court's Contempt Order where service of subpoena was clear and unambiguous and no effort was made to comply). Accordingly, the Court should issue an order (i) holding the Defaulting Parties in civil contempt of Court, (ii) preventing them from raising any objections to the Subpoenas, and (iii) ordering them to pay the Trustee's attorneys' fees related to this motion.\n\n#### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n59. The Trustee has not previously sought the relief requested herein from this or any other court.\n\n#### **CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL**\n\n60. As set forth above, counsel for the Trustee has conferred with counsel for the Noncompliant Respondents in good faith via e-mail and in virtual conferences in an effort to resolve this dispute, which efforts were unsuccessful.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the Proposed Order granting the relief requested in this Motion to Compel and such other relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: October 28, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **Exhibit A – Proposed Order**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |  |\n|                                                                  | :      |                         |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                             | :      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.1                                                        | :<br>: | Jointly Administered    |  |\n|                                                                  | :      |                         |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |        |                         |  |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER COMPELLING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR, MEI GUO, HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC, HING CHI NGOK, GREENWICH LAND LLC, LAMP CAPITAL LLC, AND GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS**\n\nUpon consideration of the Motion seeking an order compelling the Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\"), Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), Hing Chi Ngok (\"Ngok\"), Greenwich Land LLC (\"Greenwich Land,\" together with the Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK USA, and Ngok, the \"Noncompliant Respondents\"), Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\") and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring,\" and together with Lamp Capital the \"Defaulting Respondents\" and collectively with the Noncompliant Respondents, the \"Respondents\") to comply with the Court's *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Examination of Ho Wan Kwok* [ECF No. 757] (the \"Individual Debtor 2004 Order\") and *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor* [ECF No. 758] (together with the Individual Debtor 2004 Order, the \"Rule 2004 Orders\") and with the subpoenas (the \"Subpoenas\") the Trustee issued pursuant to the Rule 2004 Orders, after notice and a hearing, *see* 11 U.S.C. § 102(1), it appearing that cause exists to grant the requested relief as conditioned hereafter; it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED**: The Motion is granted as set forth below.\n\n**ORDERED**: The Respondents are not entitled to object to the Trustee's Subpoenas and/or refuse to search for and produce documents on the grounds that the Trustee has requested information related to assets allegedly belonging to persons or entities other than the Individual Debtor, including without limitation his family members and associated entities. Any such objections to the Subpoenas or document requests on this basis are overruled. The Respondents\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Individual Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nshall search for and produce all documents formerly withheld on this basis within 3 days of entry of this Order.\n\n**ORDERED**: The Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK USA must search for and produce documents in response to the Trustee's Subpoena dated February 5, 2012 or later, unless a Request specifies a different time period. The Individual Debtor shall produce all documents formerly withheld based on his objection to this time period within 3 days of entry of this Order.\n\n**ORDERED**: The Individual Debtor must search for and produce documents in response to the Trustee's Subpoena that are within his custody, possession, or control, including documents in the files of his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors. The Individual Debtor is not entitled to refuse to produce responsive documents on the grounds that documents in the possession of his counsel, advisors, and agents are not within his custody, possession, or control and/or that the production of such documents should instead be made by such counsel, advisors, and agents, and all such objections on this basis are hereby overruled. The Individual Debtor shall produce all documents formerly withheld based on such objections within 3 days of entry of this Order.\n\n**ORDERED**: Within 14 days of entry of this Order, the Individual Debtor shall file a sworn declaration describing in detail the document collection, search, and review actions taken by him and his counsel in response to the Individual Debtor 2004 Order and Subpoena, including without limitation a detailed description of the processes that he and his counsel performed to (i) identify all of the Individual Debtor's electronic devices; all online document repositories to which he has access; all social media, email, and other accounts associated with electronic documents; all bank accounts and related account statements; and all other potential sources of responsive hard copy and electronic documents that may exist; and (ii) search the foregoing sources for responsive documents, including without limitation for documents responsive to the Requests related to expenses or money transfers, to assets or financial or business transactions or records related to the Individual Debtor's family or Associated Entities, and to business interests associated with the Individual Debtor.\n\n**ORDERED**: Within 3 days of entry of this Order, in the event the Defaulting Parties remain unresponsive to the Subpoenas, the Defaulting Parties shall be in civil contempt of Court, shall be estopped from raising any objections to the Subpoenas, and shall be required to pay the Trustee's attorneys' fees related to this Motion.\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2022\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。1　:\n:　合并管理\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第 11 章受托人请求作出命令，强制个人债务人、MEI GUO（郭美）、HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC、HING CHI NGOK（鄂庆芝）、GREENWICH LAND LLC、LAMP CAPITAL LLC 及 GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. 遵守规则 2004 传票的动议\n\nLuc A. Despins 以其作为获任命管理个人债务人第 11 章案件（以下简称“第 11 章案件”）的第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，特此根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（以下简称“联邦规则”）第 26 条和第 37 条，以及《联邦破产程序规则》（以下简称“破产规则”）第 2004 条和第 9016 条，提交本动议（以下简称“强制动议”），请求作出一项实质上采用随附作为附件 A 的形式（以下简称“拟议命令”）的命令，强制个人债务人、Mei Guo、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（以下简称“HK USA”）、Hing Chi Ngok（以下简称“Ngok”）、Greenwich Land LLC（以下简称“Greenwich Land”；其与个人债务人、Mei Guo、HK USA 及 Ngok 合称“未遵守规定的答复方”）、Lamp Capital LLC（以下简称“Lamp Capital”）及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（以下简称“Golden Spring”；其与 Lamp Capital 合称“未答复的答复方”，并\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）（以下简称“个人债务人”）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（以下简称“Genever BVI 债务人”）。受托人和 Genever BVI 债务人的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n与未遵守规定的答复方合称“答复方”）遵守本院的规则 2004 命令2，以及受托人依照该等命令签发的传票（以下简称“传票”）3。为支持强制动议，受托人提交 Avram E. Luft 支持强制动议的声明（以下简称“Luft 声明”）4，并谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 自获任命以来，受托人一直依照本院指示开展调查，以识别个人债务人财产（以下简称“财产”）的潜在资产，尽管个人债务人主张其名下实际上没有任何资产。由于本第 11 章案件已持续近八个月，且历史表明个人债务人有将其资产转移至债权人追索范围之外的倾向，受托人的调查迅速且不受阻碍地推进至关重要。迄今为止，受托人开展调查的主要方式是根据于 2022 年 8 月 16 日作出的规则 2004 命令请求提交文件；该等命令准许受托人就规则 2004 调查提出的申请，并授权就此送达传票。遗憾的是，答复方并未遵守传票，且要么阻碍受托人的调查，要么完全未作答复。\n\n2. 具体而言，如下文所述，未遵守规定的答复方拒绝提交——或者在某些情况下甚至拒绝检索——对受托人调查至关重要的整类文件，直至\n\n2 “规则 2004 命令”一词系指本院的：(i) 《准许第 11 章受托人就债务人的各类法律及财务顾问进行规则 2004 调查的命令》[ECF No. 756]（以下简称“顾问 2004 命令”）；(ii) 《准许第 11 章受托人对 Ho Wan Kwok 进行规则 2004 询问的命令》[ECF No. 757]（以下简称“个人债务人 2004 命令”）；以及 (iii) 《准许第 11 章受托人就与债务人有关联的各类实体及个人进行规则 2004 调查的命令》[ECF No. 758]（以下简称“关联实体 2004 命令”）。\n\n3 每份传票的副本均作为附件 B-1 至 B-7 附于 Luft 声明（如下文所定义）。\n\n4 Luft 声明与本动议同时提交。\n\n受托人的调查。最为严重的是，未遵守规定的答复方拒绝检索有关可能由个人债务人的亲属、已知关联人或空壳公司持有的潜在财产资产的文件和通信记录。尽管该等潜在资产正是受托人调查的存在理由，未遵守规定的答复方却采取一种过度技术化的立场，即有关该等资产的文件检索并非必要，因为该等潜在资产——例如银行账户、不动产或动产、信托或商业企业中的所有权权益，以及其他潜在的有价值资产——据称并非由个人债务人拥有或控制，因此与其财产的管理无关。\n\n3. 采取该立场，未遵守规定的答复方构建了一个几乎不存在任何答复性文件的世界，因为依其观点，个人债务人并不承认除其清单上列出的微薄金额外拥有任何资产，而且由于其已承认的资产是唯一可成为 2004 调查对象的资产，因此不存在可供调查的资产。接受未遵守规定的答复方的立场，将实际上阻止受托人对个人债务人的资产进行任何调查，并使其债权人只能接受其难以置信的断言，即其身无分文，尽管法院已认定个人债务人通过空壳公司隐藏资产，同时继续过着亿万富翁的生活。\n\n4. 未遵守规定的答复方立场的蓄意荒谬性，体现在个人债务人、Mei Guo 和 HK USA 的律师针对受托人提出的一项假设所采取的立场。具体而言，律师称，其不会同意检索或提交与一项假设资产有关的文件；若存在另一艘与 Lady May（“梅夫人号”）相同的游艇，其理由是个人债务人、Mei Guo 和 HK USA 的立场将是，个人债务人目前并不拥有或控制该资产。5 该调查立场毫无可辩护之处。规则 2004 调查最根本的目的之一，是识别虽表面上属于他人、但实际上可能构成财产财产的资产。在本案中尤其如此，因为 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）已认定个人债务人曾通过由空壳公司构成的网络及其他方式试图隐藏其财富。未遵守规定的答复方必须检索并提交所请求的文件。\n\n5. 此外，某些未遵守规定的答复方一直不愿提交显然在其控制范围内的顾问和代理人档案中的文件。具体而言，个人债务人、HK USA 和 Mei Guo 试图将其文件检索义务限制于仅其实际持有的文件。然而，其调查义务并不限于此。他们不仅必须检索其持有的文件，还必须检索其所控制的代理人、顾问及其他方档案中的文件。该等当事方档案中的文件对受托人的调查至关重要，因为个人债务人多年来一直使用众多律师事务所和顾问协助其完成交易，包括涉及潜在财产资产的交易，而其（及其他答复方）有义务确保为回应受托人的传票而检索该等顾问持有的文件。6\n\n5 个人债务人的律师已表示，从调查角度而言，实际存在的 Lady May 与假设中的第二艘游艇之间唯一的区别在于，Lady May 已被个人债务人的债权人发现，而假设中的第二艘游艇仍不为债权人所知。这将导致不可接受的结果。受托人无须为获得用于同一调查的调查材料（来自个人债务人），而事先知晓其调查结果。\n\n6 尽管受托人已根据破产规则第 2004 条另行向若干律师事务所和顾问送达传票，但向个人债务人提出的请求与向各顾问送达的请求并不相同。此外，受托人尚未知悉、因而尚未识别并送达传票的其他顾问，必须由个人债务人识别，并收集和检索其文件。\n\n6. 相关地，某些未遵守规定的答复方未能履行其确保已识别并充分检索所有潜在答复性文件来源的义务。具体而言，个人债务人的律师告知受托人，其对答复性文件的检索仅包括询问个人债务人（或其其他顾问）某些类别的答复性文件是否存在。律师随后不经进一步检索或调查，便按表面含义接受其所获答复，即使所述答复有悖常理亦然。根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》，该等检索工作并不充分。\n\n7. 相反，第二巡回区的法律明确规定，仅仅依赖客户关于其不具有任何潜在相关信息的陈述，远不足以满足律师确保客户识别相关信息来源、检索该等来源并保全所有相关信息的义务。在客户的陈述不可信时，这一点尤其如此。在本案中，个人债务人向其律师作出的陈述（如转达给受托人）包括：(i) 其不使用电脑或电子邮件通信；(ii) 其有两部 iPhone，但在其检索后，两部 iPhone 中均未发现任何答复性文件；(iii) 其没有办公室或任何性质的纸质文件；(iv) 其没有答复性的短信或其他数字信息，尽管其承认使用数字消息应用程序与商业关联人通信（包括在其先前为支持其对 UBS 主张而提交的一份宣誓书中）；(v) 其没有与支付给其的任何费用或资金转移有关的文件，尽管其称其奢华生活方式由其自身资产以外来源的资金支付；以及 (vi) 其保管、持有或控制的答复性文件总数仅约为四十六份（即受托人迄今在调查中收到的文件7）。8 该等陈述根本不可信，不能按表面含义予以接受。依照其在《联邦规则》下的义务，个人债务人的律师必须自行检索和审查其客户的档案，以查找潜在答复性文件。\n\n8. 除《联邦规则》下的义务外，《破产法典》第 521(a)(4) 条要求个人债务人“向受托人交付所有财产财产和记录的信息，包括与财产财产有关的账簿、文件、记录和文书。”个人债务人未作出任何努力以履行该义务，反而拒绝就可能与财产财产有关的文件进行基本检索，从而阻挠受托人的调查，并因此破坏该法条的目的。\n\n9. 此外，个人债务人还拒绝提供：(i) 其所有护照（及该等护照内的页面）的副本；以及 (ii) 任何早于个人债务人于 2014 年末或 2015 年初逃离中国的文件；届时，个人债务人在中国的某些资产可能已被中国政府扣押。由于个人债务人及与其有关联的实体控制着美国境外的资产——个人债务人已在 YouTube 视频及其他场合承认这一点——受托人必须了解该等资产可能位于何处，包括根据个人债务人的旅行情况加以判断。必须责令个人债务人提供其护照。此外，必须责令个人债务人搜索并提供日期为 2012 年 2 月 5 日当日或之后的文件，该日期是针对个人债务人的欺诈性转让请求权适用诉讼时效的一个最外期限。\n\n7 该等文件包括但不限于如下文件：(i) 八张由美国财政部或纽约州开具的支票；(ii) 三份诉讼融资协议；(iii) 四份可公开获得的法院文件；(iv) 十五份联邦或纽约州税务文件；以及 (v) 两份本票。\n\n8 Mei Guo（郭美）已向受托人提供十九份文件。HK USA 已合计向受托人提供 372 份文件。个人债务人、Mei Guo 和 HK USA 的律师已表示，不太可能再提供其他回应性文件。\n\n10. 最后，受托人还就未履行受托人传票的任何要求而寻求针对违约被申请人的救济。具体而言，尽管已通过送达人员向违约被申请人送达传票，违约被申请人仍未：(i) 与受托人沟通或进行会谈协商，尽管受托人曾多次尝试进行该等沟通或协商；(ii) 送达答复及异议；或 (iii) 提供任何回应性文件。必须责令违约被申请人履行其证据开示义务。\n\n事实背景\n\nI. 受托人的 Rule 2004 动议、命令及传票\n\n11. 2022 年 7 月 28 日，受托人就个人债务人提交了 Rule 2004 证据开示动议（“个人债务人 2004 动议”），9 就个人债务人的各类法律及财务顾问（“顾问”）10，以及就与个人债务人有关联的各类实体及个人（“关联实体”）11，提交了 Rule 2004 证据开示动议（合称“初始 2004 动议”）。\n\n12. 2022 年 8 月 5 日，个人债务人提交了其对 Rule 2004 动议的有限异议 [ECF No. 703]（“有限异议”），其开篇即称“债务人同意受托人可对债务人进行 Rule 2004 审查”，并承认“法院面前的唯一问题是，受托人是否可送达拟议传票——他可以送达——但须受制于债务人……基于拟议传票的范围或其他理由申请撤销拟议传票的权利。” (ECF No. 703 at 1-3)。个人债务人仅在个人债务人 2004 动议寻求（其中包括）“……强制提供受托人所请求的特定范围文件[。]”的范围内，对该动议提出异议。(Id. at 5)。\n\n9 见 [ECF No. 636]。\n\n10 见 [ECF No. 637]。\n\n11 见 [ECF No. 638]。\n\n13. 2022 年 8 月 16 日，法院作出 Rule 2004 命令，[ECF Nos. 756, 757, and 758]，授权受托人依照 Rule 2004 审查被申请人，并送达所附传票及文件请求。Rule 2004 命令指示被申请人，其中包括：(i) “在送达传票后 30 日内，或在受托人同意的其他期限内，提供所有文件[，]”；以及 (ii) “确保所有文件及其他信息，包括但不限于以任何电子格式……均可供提供……[且]不被毁灭。” (ECF Nos. 756 at 1, 757 at 1, and 758 at 2)。12\n\n14. 2022 年 8 月 19 日至 2022 年 8 月 23 日期间，受托人的律师向被申请人送达了传票。13 该等传票要求被申请人提供回应介于二十一 (21) 项至三十 (30) 项文件提供请求（“请求”）的文件；该等请求涉及个人债务人的行为、举止和/或财产，以及其他与个人债务人财务状况及事务有关的主题。14\n\nII. 关于被申请人的背景情况\n\n15. 每一名被申请人均为重要的证据开示对象，极可能掌握与受托人调查高度相关的信息。鉴于个人债务人在本案中作为债务人的角色，尽管其迄今声称实际上没有文件可提供给受托人，其当然仍是重要的信息来源。其余被申请人是：(i) 关联人士和/或关联实体；或 (ii) 个人债务人的顾问。如下所述，该等当事人处于独特地位，能够掌握与受托人正在调查的问题直接相关的信息：\n\n- Mei Guo（郭美）是个人债务人的女儿（“女儿”），据称拥有 HK USA 和 Eastern Profit Corporation（一家香港实体）。纽约南区联邦地区法院（U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York）的 Liman 法官（Judge Liman）在其于 2021 年就 Eastern Profit Corp. v. Strategic Vision US LLC 一案作出的裁决中认定，Eastern Profit Corporation“实质上是”个人债务人的一家空壳公司15，据称被用于“保护其保密性和匿名性”。16\n\n- HK USA 据称由个人债务人的女儿拥有。HK USA 持有 Lady May（一艘 150 英尺豪华游艇）的所有权；该游艇被认定由个人债务人享有受益所有权。在本案对抗程序 22-05003 中，受托人主张 HK USA 是个人债务人的另一自我，并且个人债务人为保护 Lady May 免受债权人追索而实施实际欺诈性转让，HK USA 正是据此取得 Lady May。HK USA 的费用（包括其律师费）一直由 Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital 支付；如下所述，该等实体据称由个人债务人的儿子拥有。HK USA 没有收入、银行账户、董事、高管或雇员。HK USA 还曾与个人债务人及其他与个人债务人有关联的实体共用地址。在个人债务人的 Chapter 11 案件中，个人债务人与 HK USA 目前由同一律师代理。\n\n- Ngok（恩戈克）据称是个人债务人的妻子，并据称拥有 Greenwich Land；该实体是个人债务人位于 Connecticut 州 Greenwich 市 Taconic Road 住所的登记所有人。\n\n- Greenwich Land 据称由 Ngok 拥有。Greenwich Land 是个人债务人位于 Connecticut 州 Greenwich 市 Taconic Road 住所的登记所有人。2022 年 4 月 26 日，Greenwich Land 出售了其位于 Connecticut 州 Cos Cob 市 Ferncliff Road 的第二处房产。与该转让有关的担保契据上，Greenwich Land 的授权签署人为 Max Krasner，其为个人债务人的关联人士，并在个人债务人关联实体中担任多个职务。Greenwich Land 位于 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065 的地址，曾被用作个人债务人及众多关联实体的地址，包括 Golden Spring 和 HK USA。\n\nEastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631 at \\*1.\n\nId. at \\*7（“在谈判期间，[Kwok（郭文贵）] 要求，为保护其保密性和匿名性，其不会签署或成为该协议的一方，而由一个独立实体签署并成为该协议的一方。”）。\n\n- Lamp Capital 据称由个人债务人的儿子拥有。Lamp Capital 的唯一成员为 Infinity Treasury Management, Inc.，据称个人债务人的儿子是该公司的唯一股东；个人债务人的关联人士 Max Krasner 是其董事和高管；个人债务人的关联人士 Daniel Podhaskie 曾任其董事和高管。Lamp Capital 还为个人债务人最初的 chapter 11 破产律师 Brown Rudnick 支付了 \\$1 million 的预付聘金。\n\n- Golden Spring 据称由个人债务人的儿子拥有。Golden Spring 于 2015 年通过将资金从个人债务人在香港的一个银行账户转入 Golden Spring 在纽约的银行账户而设立并获得注资。个人债务人已作证称，自 2015 年起，Golden Spring 一直支付其生活费用。Golden Spring 还一直支付个人债务人律师的费用，以及与个人债务人位于 Manhattan 的 Sherry Netherland Hotel 公寓相关的数百万美元维护费。Golden Spring 的总裁 Yan Ping（“Yvette”）Wang（“Wang 女士”）已作证称，Golden Spring 是个人债务人的“家族办公室”。Golden Spring 位于 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065 的地址，曾被用作个人债务人及众多关联实体的地址，包括 HK USA 和 Greenwich Land。重要的是，Golden Spring 已于 March 28, 2022 [ECF 139] 及 March 31, 2022 [ECF 149] 两次在本案中提交出庭通知。17\n\nIII. 未遵从被申请人对传票的答复及异议、证据开示会议和文件提供\n\nA. 个人债务人、HK USA 和 Mei Guo。\n\n16. 2022 年 9 月 2 日，个人债务人就附于受托人传票的文件请求送达了答复及异议（“个人债务人的答复及异议”）。18 在个人债务人的答复及异议中，个人债务人提出多项不当阻碍受托人调查的异议。第一，其毫无依据地声称，某些请求的“广泛性”19 造成的负担过重，以致不应进行任何搜索。第二，其对寻求有关“非债务人”20 实体、或个人债务人声称其并无法定保管权、占有权或控制权的潜在资产或负债的信息的请求提出异议，并主张不会搜索或提供此类性质的文件，因为该等资产据称并非破产财产，因此与本案无关。第三，其拒绝搜索或提供任何早于其于 2014 年末或 2015 年初逃离中国的文件。针对该等传票，Mei Guo 和 HK USA 向受托人的律师提交了与个人债务人的答复及异议在实质上相同的答复及异议，且所依据的理由多有相同。\n\n17. 受托人的律师与个人债务人、HK USA 及 Mei Guo（郭美）的律师（如上所述，同一律师代理该三方）于 September 9, 2022、September 15, 2022 和 September 22, 2022 举行了证据开示会议。在这些会议上，个人债务人、HK USA 及郭美的律师重申该等当事人的立场，即其无须提供与据称属于非债务人实体的资产有关的文件，唯一例外是其将提供与目前存在所有权争议的资产有关的文件（例如 Lady May）。受托人的律师表示不同意该立场。\n\n18. 在其会议期间，各方还讨论了个人债务人从其顾问以及其他代表其持有文件之人的档案中检索并提供文件的义务，以及各项请求的日期范围。个人债务人的律师表示，其认为受托人向个人债务人的顾问发出的传票，免除了个人债务人（以及 HK USA 和郭美）检索及审查例如由法律顾问持有的文件之必要，理由是个人债务人表示，该等顾问将向受托人提供其持有的所有与个人债务人有关的文件。\n\n20 同上，请求编号 7、9、10、12、13、14、15、16、17、19、22、23、26、30。\n\n然而，受托人的律师解释说，由于该等文件处于个人债务人的控制之下，且向个人债务人发出的传票涵盖了并未指向顾问的不同及额外事项，个人债务人必须检索并提供顾问持有的非重复文件，包括受托人未知的顾问所持有的文件。个人债务人的律师还重申个人债务人的立场，即其不会检索或提供早于个人债务人于 late 2014 或 early 2015 离开中国之前的文件；受托人的律师表示不同意该立场。\n\n19. 最后，各方还讨论了个人债务人可能持有的、对请求具有回应性的文件来源。个人债务人的律师解释说，个人债务人不使用计算机或电子邮件，也不知道如何使用计算机，但其拥有两部 iPhone。律师还表示，个人债务人已检索其 iPhone，未发现任何具有回应性的文件。律师进一步表示，根据个人债务人的陈述，个人债务人没有与 Golden Spring（据称由个人债务人之子拥有、并据称支付其全部生活费用的实体）有关的文件，没有与其儿子或其儿子业务更广泛相关的文件，也没有与众多关联实体中任何一个有关的文件。受托人还就个人债务人声称其没有任何与商业权益有关的文件进行了追问，理由是其目前未从事任何业务。为检验该主张，受托人询问：鉴于其音乐目前正在 iTunes 上出售，且因此其必然拥有相关文件，个人债务人怎能主张其没有商业活动。个人债务人的律师无法回答该问题。\n\n20. 在上述讨论之后，在过去数周内，包括直至 October 2022，受托人及其律师一直与个人债务人的律师就传票和文件提供问题进行进一步讨论，包括但不限于与特权争议有关的问题。这些讨论已促成个人债务人某些顾问近期提供文件，但并未解决本文所述受托人与个人债务人之间的任何争议。\n\n21. 截至目前，个人债务人、HK USA 和郭美几乎未向受托人提供任何文件。于 August 30, 2022，个人债务人提供了 14 份文件，主要包括与 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉纳维尔控股公司）有关的公司文件。于 September 16, 2022，个人债务人另外提供了 32 份文件，主要包括纳税申报表、政府刺激支票和诉讼融资协议，合计 *46 documents*。于 September 19, 2022，HK USA 和郭美分别向受托人提供了 18 份和 19 份文件，包括与第三方的合同、组织文件及 iPhone 数字信息（“iMessages”）的截图。值得注意的是，郭美所提供的 19 条看似经过挑选的 iMessages 中，有十八条涉及郭美与 Lady May 前任船长之间无关紧要的日程安排对话。于 September 30, 2022，HK USA 另行提供了 354 份文件和通信记录，包括电子邮件、与 Lady May 有关的文件以及某些公开可得的法院诉状。HK USA 的第二次提供未包括任何与个人债务人使用 Lady May、维护该游艇的成本和费用、由谁承担该等成本，及/或该游艇如何取得以及以何实体的资金取得有关的文件。\n\nIV. Ngok（鄂玉梅）和 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）\n\n22. 受托人分别于 August 22, 2022 和 August 23, 2022 向 Greenwich Land 和鄂玉梅送达传票。Greenwich Land 和鄂玉梅提交对传票的异议的期限均为 September 6, 2022，提供文件的期限均为 September 21, 2022。受托人未及时收到任何一方的异议。\n\n23. 于 September 16, 2022，受托人的律师与鄂玉梅的律师讨论了包括向鄂玉梅送达的传票在内的事项。在该次会面协商中，鄂玉梅的律师询问受托人是否会接受对传票的答复和异议之送达。受托人的律师表示，鄂玉梅的律师可以向其发送答复和异议，但受托人保留就已届满期限所享有的全部权利。\n\n24. 于 September 23, 2022，鄂玉梅的律师对传票提交了逾期异议（“Ngok Objections”）。21 Ngok Objections 除其他外，对其所称“超出 Rule 2004 examination 所允许范围”的信息请求提出异议，例如“在未充分限于涉及债务人的信息的情况下，寻求与债务人家庭成员、关联实体及关联个人有关的信息”的请求。22 于 September 30, 2022，受托人的律师与鄂玉梅的律师举行会面协商，以讨论 Ngok Objections。受托人的律师指出，受托人有权调查可能由个人债务人以外的人员或实体持有的个人债务人潜在资产，而且受托人的调查并不限于个人债务人本人承认拥有的少数资产，亦不专限于与个人债务人有关联的通信或文件，而非与个人债务人的家庭成员、关联个人及关联实体有关的通信或文件。\n\n25. 于 October 13, 2022 和 October 17, 2022，受托人的律师向鄂玉梅的律师发送电子邮件，询问包括鄂玉梅提供文件在内的事项。同日，鄂玉梅提交其请求将依传票提供文件的期限延长至并包括 November 10, 2022 的动议（“Extension Motion”）。\n\n21 Ngok 的答复和异议副本作为 Exhibit E 附于 Luft Declaration（Luft 声明）之后。\n\n22 见 Luft Decl., Ex. E, Ngok Objections，第 2 页。\n\n26. 于 October 20, 2022，受托人的律师与鄂玉梅的律师交谈；该律师表示其现同时担任鄂玉梅和 Greenwich Land 的律师（合称“Ngok Parties”），并就解决 Extension Motion 达成如下协议：\n\n— Ngok Parties 将提供与 Greenwich Land 的设立、其资金来源、取得任何财产（特别是两处住宅）、出售任何财产（特别是 Fern Cliff residence）以及取得任何财产或出售任何财产的任何资金之来源和所在地有关的文件；以及\n— 鄂玉梅不会反对检索与 Greenwich Land 有关的文件，Greenwich Land 也不会反对检索与鄂玉梅有关的文件。\n\n27. 然而，Ngok Parties 维持其对于检索与个人债务人的家庭成员、关联个人或关联实体（Greenwich Land 除外）有关文件的异议，受托人保留对该等异议作出回应时所享有的全部权利。\n\nV. 向其他传票收件人进行的证据开示\n\n28. 在与未遵从答复人进行讨论的同时，受托人一直与其他当事人讨论传票事宜并从其接收文件，该等当事人包括个人债务人的现任和前任顾问。该等其他当事人中的某些人，包括个人债务人的两名律师 Melissa Francis（梅利莎·弗朗西斯）和 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔），以及个人债务人的其他家庭成员和关联人士，最初采纳了未遵从答复人的某些相同立场，包括其不会检索和提供与表面上属于个人债务人以外人员的资产有关的文件这一立场。\n\n29. 受托人原计划对该等其他当事人中的部分或全部提起本强制执行动议，但其进一步与该等当事人举行会面协商，以确定争议能否经协商一致解决。受托人欣然报告，截至本文件提交之日所进行的讨论，受托人已暂时在无需法院协助的情况下解决了其与许多该等当事人之间的问题。例如，弗朗西斯女士和米切尔先生均在过去一周内同意放弃其对于检索与个人债务人家庭成员和关联人士主张所有权的资产有关文件的异议。\n\nVI. 违约答复人未对传票作出答复\n\n30. 违约答复人为 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）和 Golden Spring（黄金泉）。受托人已向各方送达传票，但均未作出答复。具体如下：\n\n— 受托人于 August 23, 2022 通过送达人员，在其注册代理人的 Delaware 地址向 Lamp Capital 送达传票。Lamp Capital 提交异议的期限为 September 6, 2022，提供文件的期限为 September 22, 2022。受托人未收到 Lamp Capital 的任何异议或文件提供。受托人的律师向 Lamp Capital 的注册代理人发送了两封信函，以跟进该传票：第一封于 September 13, 2022 发送，第二封于 October 19, 2022 发送。受托人的律师未收到对任何一封函件的答复。\n\n— 受托人于 August 22, 2022 通过送达人员，在其注册代理人的 Delaware 地址向 Golden Spring 送达传票。Golden Spring 提交异议的期限为 September 6, 2022，提供文件的期限为 September 21, 2022。受托人未收到 Golden Spring 的任何异议或文件提供。受托人向 Golden Spring 的注册代理人发送了两封信函，以跟进该传票：第一封于 September 13, 2022 发送，第二封于 September 30, 2022 发送。受托人的律师未收到对任何一封函件的答复。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n31. 法院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对审理本事项具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，审判地适当。本案为依据包括 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (O) 在内的规定所进行的核心程序。\n\n请求的救济\n\n32. 受托人请求作出拟议命令，以：(1) 强制未遵从的答复方遵从《规则2004命令》，搜索并提交与潜在破产财产资产有关的文件，无论其他方是否主张拥有此类资产；23 (2) 强制个人债务人、Mei Guo（郭美）及HK USA（美国香港）搜索并提交自February 5, 2012起的文件，除非某项请求指明其他时间范围；以及(3) 强制个人债务人：(i) 搜索并提交由其控制的顾问文件，包括所有现任及前任律师事务所、会计师及其他顾问和代理人的文件；以及(ii) 通过律师，依照《联邦规则》就其他可能来源的相关文件和电子存储信息开展进一步调查，并以书面形式向受托人证明该调查结果；以及(4) 因未对传票作出回应而认定违约方构成民事藐视法庭。\n\n救济依据\n\n一、所有未遵从的答复方均须提交与个人债务人控制的资产有关的信息\n\n33. 受托人的职责是为个人债务人的债权人利益调查个人债务人的资产和事务。与个人债务人有关、但个人债务人或其他第三方主张不由个人债务人拥有或控制的资产，恰恰是受托人必须识别和调查的潜在破产财产资产和财产。未遵从的答复方基于其认为非债务人对该等资产所主张的所有权排除了受托人的调查，而拒绝搜索任何与该等资产有关的文件，毫无依据。\n\n23 这包括对个人债务人请求第1至26项及第28项作出回应的所有文件，以及对Mei Guo/HK USA请求第1、3、4、7至11、14、15、17、18及20项作出回应的所有文件；该等请求寻求有关识别潜在破产财产资产或个人债务人可能享有权益的其他财产的信息。\n\n34. “规则2004审查的目的，是协助利害关系方确定破产财产的性质和范围、发现资产、审查交易，并评估是否发生不当行为。”In re Transmar Commodity Grp. Ltd., Case No. 16-13625-JLG, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (省略内部引述及引证)。这包括揭示破产财产的性质和范围，以及发现可能被故意或非故意隐匿的债务人资产。In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996); 另见 In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)（“规则2004审查的正当目标包括发现资产、审查交易，以及确定是否发生不当行为。”）（省略内部引述及引证）；同上（指出，“与狭义聚焦于争议相关问题的传统证据开示不同，规则2004的范围广泛且不受限制，曾被比作钓鱼式调查和审讯”）（省略内部引证及标点）；Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)（授权进行“涉及……债务人的……财产……及财务状况，或可能影响债务人破产财产管理的任何事项”的2004审查）（强调为原文所加）。\n\n35. 在本案中，受托人的请求，包括寻求有关可能属于破产财产的已知和未知资产的信息的请求，完全属于《破产规则》2004项下适当调查领域的范围。鉴于个人债务人过往曾利用该等人士和实体作为其资产的存放处及其生活方式的支持者，受托人针对表面上由亲属、已知关联人士或关联实体拥有的资产所提出的信息请求尤为适当。事实上，多家法院已认定个人债务人将其资产隐藏在空壳公司及其家庭成员名下。见，例如，Eastern Profit Corp., 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1（Eastern Profit“实质上是债务人的一家空壳公司”）；Final Contempt Decision at 1, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181（个人债务人曾“通过将其巨额个人资产置于一系列公司、受信任的密友及家庭成员名下，努力逃避并欺骗其债权人”）。\n\n36. 个人债务人主张其无需搜索与这些资产有关的文件，实属荒谬，因为这将剥夺受托人获得对其调查及本案管理具有核心相关性的信息。例如，如上所述，个人债务人的立场将允许其以其他人（例如其女儿）主张拥有该资产为由，不提交与Lady May（梅号）等其他资产有关的文件。该立场还将允许个人债务人避免提交其持有的、与一直资助其开支的实体（例如Golden Spring（黄金泉））有关的文件。这些文件显然具有相关性，必须提交。\n\n37. 尽管个人债务人及其他人可能认为特定资产不属于个人债务人，但该等毫无根据的主张不能阻止受托人开展调查并得出其自身结论。如果受托人最终决定提起法律诉讼以确定某项资产的真实所有权，则应由法院——而非个人债务人或其他任何人——决定该资产是否属于破产财产。因此，必须强制未遵从的答复方搜索并提交有关潜在破产财产资产的文件，无论该等资产目前表面上是否属于他人。\n\n二、个人债务人必须搜索其占有范围以外的相关文件\n\n38. 在回应文件传票时，“被送达传票的一方必须‘对相关文件进行合理且勤勉的搜索。’”Universitas Educ. v. Benistar, No. 3:20-cv-738, 2022 WL 860411, at \\*3 (D. Conn. Mar. 22, 2022)（省略引证）；另见 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)。仅从单一来源收集文件，而未从其他来源作出“寻找相关文件的努力”，并非勤勉搜索。Universitas Educ., 2022 WL 860411, at \\*3（省略引证）。归根结底，“并不要求完美。然而，诉讼不是游戏，当事人不得以敷衍或无效的努力识别并提交相关文件。”Top Jet Enters. v. Kulowiec, No. 21-MC-789 (RA) (KHP), 2022 WL 280459, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2022)（省略引证）。\n\n39. 传票受领人必须搜索并提交其控制但未由其直接占有的文件。“绝大多数联邦案件均认为，《联邦民事诉讼规则》第34(a)条允许针对答复方占有、保管或控制的项目提出文件请求；如寻求证据开示的一方保留了影响实际占有该等文件之人的任何权利或能力，则该规则使其能够要求提交超出对方当事人实际占有范围的文件。”N. Mariana Islands v. Millard, 287 F.R.D. 204, 209 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)（省略内部引述）（原文强调）；另见 Lopez v. Florez, No. 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT, 2013 WL 1151948, \\* 2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013)（“答复方有积极义务，合理地向其代理人或其控制下的其他人寻求根据第34(a)条请求的信息。”）。\n\n40. “如提交文件的一方对该等文件拥有法律上的取得权利或实际上的取得能力，即使文件实际由非当事人占有，亦视为其拥有‘控制权’。”In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 236 F.R.D. 177, 180 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)（引自 Riddell Sports Inc. v. Brooks, 158 F.R.D. 555, 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)）；Bank of N.Y. v. Meridien BIAO Bank Tanz. Ltd., 171 F.R.D. 135, 146 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)（同上）；另见 Annunziato v Collecto, Inc., 304 F.R.D. 360, 363 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)（认定，非当事人系一方的代理人时，委托代理关系确立了必要的控制权，从而使作为委托人的一方拥有“从诉讼非当事人处取得……文件的权利、授权或实际能力”）；Gruss v. Zwirn, 296 F.R.D. 224, 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)（认定文件的“控制权”不要求法律所有权或实际占有）。24\n\n41. 在本案中，个人债务人拒绝履行其义务，即搜索并提交其顾问持有、且由其控制的文件。个人债务人仅表示其愿意做的，是不指示那些另行收到传票的顾问不对该等传票作出回应。然而，受托人亦已向个人债务人的某些顾问送达传票这一事实，并不免除个人债务人自身就向其送达的传票搜索其控制范围内文件的义务。除非个人债务人这样做，否则受托人将无法收到其有权获得的全部文件。这既是因为受托人对个人债务人的请求不同于其对顾问的请求，也是因为受托人并不知悉（因此未向其发出传票）个人债务人的全部相关顾问。受托人必须依赖个人债务人识别其可能持有相关文件的顾问的完整范围——包括目前受托人尚不知悉的顾问——并在必要时收集及搜索其文件。25\n\n24 此外，纽约州法院已驳回个人债务人的论点，即其无需搜索、审查和提交其主张不在其占有范围内的文件。（一般参见 May 27,2021 Hr'g Tr. 10:4-8, (Ostrager, J), Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, Index No. 652077/2017（动议方有权对资助债务人开支的非债务人实体进行证据开示））。\n\n25 同一标准适用于Mei Guo及HK USA的代理人，该等代理人持有的任何文件均由Mei Guo及HK USA控制，并必须据此进行搜索。\n\n42. 为明确起见，如某一另行收到传票的顾问提交其所持有的全部关于个人债务人的文件，受托人并不要求个人债务人搜索并再次提交重复文件，亦不反对个人债务人及其顾问协调以避免重复劳动。然而，个人债务人负有独立义务，确保对其传票作出回应的全部文件均提交给受托人，即使该等文件由其顾问持有。法院应命令个人债务人履行该义务。\n\n三、个人债务人的律师必须确保遵从证据开示义务\n\n43. 除个人债务人拒绝搜索其代理人和顾问的文件外，个人债务人的律师亦未能充分识别和搜索其自身持有的各种可能相关文件来源。在许多情况下，律师所做的仅是询问个人债务人（或其其他顾问）是否持有各种类型的相关文件——例如电子邮件、短信及其他电子通信——并照单全收其答复。这不足以使律师代表其客户履行证据开示义务。\n\n44. 在任何诉讼开始之初，一方当事人的律师均有义务了解其客户存储文件和信息的方式，无论是采用传统实体介质还是电子方式。参见，例如，Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC（祖布拉克诉瑞银华宝有限责任公司）, 229 F.R.D. 422, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)（“Zubulake V”）（说明，为履行证据开示义务，“律师必须充分熟悉其客户的文件保留政策……［以及］数据保留架构”，并且还必须与诉讼中的“‘关键人员’沟通，以了解他们如何存储信息”）。“当事人及其律师必须确保识别所有可能相关信息的来源，并将其‘置于保全状态’……。”同上（着重号为原文所加）；另见 In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig.（NTL, Inc. 证券诉讼案）, 244 F.R.D. 179, 197-98 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)（“保全义务首先由律师承担，律师‘有义务告知其客户可能与诉讼相关的信息类型，以及防止其被销毁的必要性。’”）。一旦信息被置于保全状态，“［律］师必须采取积极措施监督合规情况，以确保识别并检索所有可开示信息的来源。”同上，第195页（着重号为原文所加）；另见 Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Resources Corp.（菲尼克斯四公司诉战略资源公司）, No. 05 Civ. 4837, 2006 WL 1409413, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006)（强调律师积极检索电子信息来源的义务）。重要的是，“律师的义务并不限于提出文件请求；其义务是检索信息来源。”同上，at *5（原文着重）。\n\n45. 在本案中，个人债务人的律师已告知受托人，律师依赖个人债务人的陈述，即除已向受托人提交的文件外，个人债务人所占有的符合要求的信息仅存在于两部手机中，并且个人债务人已检索该两部手机，确定其中不含任何符合要求的文件。律师未经核实而依赖个人债务人的陈述，不足以履行其证据开示义务，因为律师负有独立义务，监督对个人债务人保管、占有或控制的所有可能包含符合要求文件的来源进行充分检索。尤其是在本案中，客户的陈述充其量也属可疑的情况下，更是如此。\n\n46. 尽管通常而言，“当事人善意声明所寻求的物品根本不存在，或者不在其占有、保管或控制之下，应足以解决未提交的问题，因为任何人均不得被要求完成不可能之事”，但法院必须“‘根据本案的完整记录’评估［提交文件一方］的努力，包括［其］过去妨碍证据开示工作的任何已证实历史。”Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C. v. Brady（明茨·弗雷德律师事务所，专业公司诉布雷迪）, No. 19-CV-10236 (JMF), 2021 WL 621206, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2021)。在本案中，尤其鉴于个人债务人庞大的商业利益、其广泛的关联实体及已知关联人网络，以及其每日持续发布的社交媒体和其他数字内容，称两部手机是个人债务人保管、占有或控制的唯一可能包含符合要求电子文件的来源，且两部手机均不含任何一份符合传票要求的文件，显然不可信。26 同样，也难以相信个人债务人保管、占有或控制的符合要求文件总数仅为四十六份。参见同上（鉴于被告在“［该］案件中的历史”，法院对被告的“结论性主张”产生“可以理解的怀疑”，因为被告仅提交了“区区二十二份文件”，却声称其已“穷尽所有符合要求文件的范围”）。27\n\n47. 总而言之，律师不能不加核实地接受个人债务人关于其缺乏符合要求文件的陈述，而必须通过取得并检索所有可能包含符合要求信息的来源，进行勤勉检索，并确保所有相关数据均得到保全和提交。这意味着，例如，律师必须：（i）对被告的两部 iPhone 的全部内容制作电子镜像并进行电子检索，以查找符合要求的文件；（ii）询问并了解律师明知必然存在于某处的文件位置——例如，用于支付个人债务人奢华生活方式的资金记录、与其经常在社交媒体上公开讨论的音乐、加密货币及其他商业利益有关的文件；以及（iii）或者（a）对所有其他可能包含符合要求文件的来源进行检索，或者（b）宣誓证明其为确定个人债务人不存在其他此类来源而采取的全部步骤，包括但不限于其他电子设备（如笔记本电脑或平板电脑）、电子邮件账户、消息和社交媒体账户（如 WhatsApp、iMessage 和 Facebook）以及纸质文件。概言之，参见 CFTC v. Main & Prospect Capital, LLC（美国商品期货交易委员会诉梅因与普罗斯佩克特资本有限责任公司）, No. 2:19-cv-09736-DSF-AFMx, 2020 WL 11303655, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020)（要求当事人及律师宣誓证明所提交文件包括该当事人保管、占有或控制的所有不享有特权且符合要求的文件）；Kaur v. Alameida（考尔诉阿拉梅达）, No. CV F 05 276 OWW DLB, 2007 WL 1449723, *2 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2007)（命令被告进一步检索符合要求的文件，并提醒被告及其律师“其根据 Rule 34 所负有的义务，即进行勤勉检索和合理调查，以获取符合要求的文件”）。\n\n26. 事实上，个人债务人过去曾承认同时使用多部手机。参见 Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok（Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生的声明）in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions, Docket No. 107 at ¶ 17（个人债务人指出，其仍拥有自己的“衣物和手机”）；VICE News（VICE 新闻）, “Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption, YouTube”（HBO 原始播出日期：Nov. 15, 2017）, http（在该视频中，个人债务人展示了其多部手机，并声称中国共产党已侵入其部分手机）。\n\n27. 若按字面接受个人债务人所称几乎没有任何文件的说法，也会引发有关证据毁损的极为严重的问题。本案自 February 2022 起已在审理中；在此之前，个人债务人已卷入无数诉讼，尤其是涉及其与 PAX（PAX）和 UBS（瑞银）之间交易及其他商业交易的诉讼。对于每一项此类诉讼，个人债务人均有义务确保不销毁任何相关文件，并保存所有此类文件。个人债务人声称其总共不超过 46 份文件，似乎强烈表明个人债务人未遵守其文件保全要求。举一个具体例子，在 UBS 诉讼中，个人债务人曾主张其拥有与该案相关证据的 WhatsApp 信息。然而，当被问及为何未就本案传票提交该等文件时，个人债务人的律师表示该等文件已不复存在，尽管与 UBS 的诉讼仍在进行中。就个人债务人未遵守其文件保全要求并允许其文件遭受证据毁损的范围而言，受托人保留一切权利，包括就缺失文件所含信息请求作出不利推定的权利。\n\nIV. 个人债务人必须提交所有护照，包括其中的所有页面，并且必须检索日期为 February 5, 2012 或之后的文件\n\n48. 个人债务人自称在世界各地拥有不动产和动产。个人债务人的所有护照及其中页面，无论现行或已过期，亦无论由何国家或民族国家签发，均与受托人调查个人债务人可能将潜在遗产资产置于何处、隐藏于何处或转移至何处具有相关性且至关重要。\n\n49. 个人债务人的律师表示，已向受托人提交的一份税务文件载有个人债务人护照的首页，并且律师拟坚持其反对提交个人债务人整本护照的立场。然而，受托人请求个人债务人的护照信息，并非为了登记个人债务人的护照号码或类似信息。受托人需要护照的其余页面，以了解个人债务人曾去往何处，并因此了解其资产和财产可能位于何处。\n\n50. 个人债务人未就其拒绝向受托人提交该等信息提供任何理由。就个人债务人认为其护照和旅行记录构成保密信息而言，其可以援用本案保护令所提供的保护。法院必须强制个人债务人提交其护照。\n\n51. 此外，法院必须强制个人债务人提交日期为 February 5, 2012 或之后的文件（除非某项请求指明其他时间范围），并且不得允许其将提交范围限制于其在 late 2014 和/或 early 2015 逃离中国之后形成的文件。个人债务人提出的日期限制具有任意性，并可能排除相关文件。相反，必须要求个人债务人检索最早日期为 February 5, 2012 的文件；该等文件显然与可能因受托人调查而提出的欺诈转让请求具有相关性。\n\nV. 缺席当事人应被裁定构成民事藐视法庭\n\n52. 如上所述，两名缺席当事人——Lamp Capital（兰普资本）和 Golden Spring（黄金泉）——均与个人债务人、其财产及其商业交易密切相关，因此极有可能拥有与受托人调查相关的文件。然而，这些当事人均未以任何方式回应受托人的传票。\n\n53. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）Rule 45(e) 规定：“任何人如无充分理由而未遵从向其送达的传票，可被视为藐视签发该传票的法院。”In re Corso（科尔索案）, 328 B.R. 375, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)（引用 FRCP 45(e)）（引文略）；PaineWebber Inc. v. Acstar Ins. Co.（潘恩韦伯公司诉阿克斯塔保险公司）, 211 F.R.D. 247, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)（“当事人未对传票提出异议且亦未遵从传票时，可根据 Rule 45[(e)] 被认定构成藐视法庭”）（内部引文略）。\n\n54. 为认定当事人构成民事藐视法庭，“法院只需：（1）已作出明确且无歧义的命令；（2）根据明确且令人信服的证据认定该命令未获遵守；以及（3）认定被指称的藐视法庭者未明确证明其无力遵守该命令的条款。”Huber v. Marine Midland Bank（休伯诉海洋中陆银行）, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995)（引用 N.A. Sales Co. v. Chapman Indus. Corp.（N.A. 销售公司诉查普曼工业公司）, 736 F.2d 854, 857 (2d Cir. 1984)）。\n\n55. 在民事藐视法庭程序中，只要被违反的命令“明确且无歧义，［该命令］未获遵守的证据明确且令人信服，并且藐视法庭者未作出合理勤勉的努力以遵守”，藐视法庭的认定即应予维持。Corso, 328 B.R. at 385（引用 United States v. Local 1804–1, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn.（美国诉国际码头工人协会第1804–1地方分会）, 44 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir.1995)（引文略）（原文修订））。\n\n56. 此外，未在法定期限内及时回应或对传票提出异议的一方，不得在之后提出异议。参见 Corso, 328 B.R. at 384-85（“由于[被传唤方]未及时对受托人的传票提出任何异议，亦未及时申请撤销该传票，[其]已放弃对该传票提出异议的权利。”）。\n\n57. 最后，法院认定，未回应或未对传票提出异议的一方可因该等未作为而受到制裁。参见 PaineWebber Inc., 211 F.R.D. at 249（“如一方未对传票提出异议且亦未予遵从，其可根据规则45[(e)]被认定为藐视法庭，因此可施加制裁。”）（省略内部引文，强调为原文所加）；Corso, 328 B.R. at 385-86（维持破产法院对一名“未作任何努力”遵从规则2004传票的当事人所施加的制裁）。具体而言，第二巡回区的法院在一方未遵从传票时已裁定支付律师费。参见 Gucci Am., Inc. v. Li, No. 10-CV-4974 (RJS), 2015 WL 7758872, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2015)（“[本巡回区]法院已在一方当事人或非当事人故意未遵从传票时裁定支付律师费。”）。\n\n58. 本案中，附于传票的文件请求已向违约方送达，且尽管违约方知悉该等传票，违约方完全未作任何努力遵从附于传票的文件请求。参见同上（在传票送达明确无歧义且未作任何努力遵从的情况下，维持破产法院的藐视法庭命令）。因此，法院应作出命令：(i) 认定违约方构成民事藐视法庭；(ii) 禁止其对传票提出任何异议；以及 (iii) 命令其支付受托人与本动议有关的律师费。\n\n无先前请求\n\n59. 受托人此前未向本院或任何其他法院请求本文件所请求的救济。\n\n律师证明\n\n60. 如上所述，受托人律师已通过电子邮件及线上会议与未遵从的答复方律师进行善意协商，以努力解决本争议，但该等努力未获成功。\n\n[本页余下部分特意留白]\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出拟议命令，准予本强制动议中所请求的救济，以及其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：October 28, 2022　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut　第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准 pro hac vice）PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准 pro hac vice）Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准 pro hac vice）PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n\n附件A－拟议命令\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格地区）BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　：　案号 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1　：\n：　合并管理\n\nx\n\n[拟议]命令，要求个人债务人、MEI GUO（郭美）、HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）、HING CHI NGOK（鄂庆芝）、GREENWICH LAND LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）、LAMP CAPITAL LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）及 GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）遵从规则2004传票\n\n经审议该动议，该动议请求作出命令，要求 Ho Wan Kwok（“个人债务人”）、Mei Guo、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”）、Hing Chi Ngok（“Ngok”）、Greenwich Land LLC（“Greenwich Land”，与个人债务人、Mei Guo、HK USA 及 Ngok 合称“未遵从的答复方”）、Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp Capital”）及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”，与 Lamp Capital 合称“违约答复方”，并与未遵从的答复方合称“答复方”）遵从本院《关于准予第11章受托人申请对 Ho Wan Kwok 进行规则2004审查的命令》[ECF No. 757]（“个人债务人2004命令”）及《关于准予第11章受托人申请就与债务人关联的多个实体和个人进行规则2004取证的命令》[ECF No. 758]（与个人债务人2004命令合称“规则2004命令”），并遵从受托人依据规则2004命令发出的传票（“传票”）；经通知及听证后，参见 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)；鉴于有理由按下文所载条件准予所请求的救济；现据此\n\n命令：准予该动议，具体如下。\n\n命令：答复方无权以受托人请求与据称属于个人债务人以外之个人或实体的资产有关的信息为由，对受托人的传票提出异议及／或拒绝查找和出示文件，包括但不限于其家庭成员及关联实体。基于该理由对传票或文件请求提出的任何该等异议均予驳回。答复方应在本命令作出后3日内，查找并出示此前基于该理由扣留的全部文件。\n\n命令：个人债务人、Mei Guo 及 HK USA 必须查找并出示回应受托人传票的文件，传票日期为 February 5, 2012 或之后，除非某项请求规定不同的时间期间。个人债务人应在本命令作出后3日内，出示此前基于其对该时间期间的异议而扣留的全部文件。\n\n命令：个人债务人必须查找并出示属于其保管、占有或控制范围内、回应受托人传票的文件，包括其现任或前任律师及其他代理人和顾问的档案中的文件。个人债务人无权以其律师、顾问及代理人占有的文件不在其保管、占有或控制范围内及／或该等文件应由该等律师、顾问及代理人出示为由，拒绝出示回应性文件，且所有基于该理由提出的异议现予驳回。个人债务人应在本命令作出后3日内，出示此前基于该等异议而扣留的全部文件。\n\n命令：在本命令作出后14日内，个人债务人应提交经宣誓的声明，详细说明其本人及其律师为回应个人债务人2004命令及传票而采取的文件收集、查找及审查行动，包括但不限于详细说明其本人及其律师为：(i) 确定个人债务人的全部电子设备；其可访问的全部线上文件存储库；与电子文件相关的全部社交媒体、电子邮件及其他账户；全部银行账户及相关账户对账单；以及可能存在的回应性纸质及电子文件的所有其他潜在来源；以及 (ii) 在前述来源中查找回应性文件，包括但不限于回应与费用或资金转移、与个人债务人家庭或关联实体有关的资产或金融或商业交易或记录，以及与个人债务人相关的商业利益有关的请求的文件，而执行的程序。\n\n命令：在本命令作出后3日内，如违约方仍未回应传票，违约方即构成民事藐视法庭，不得对传票提出任何异议，并应支付受托人与本动议有关的律师费。\n\n日期：__________________, 2022\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁），美国破产法院法官\n\n____________________________________________________________\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）（“个人债务人”）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）（“Genever BVI 债务人”）。受托人及 Genever BVI 债务人的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","CIPA","Chinese Communist Party","Brady"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":149,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":636,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":637,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":638,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":703,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":756,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":757,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":758,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":760,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":839,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":866,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":10622,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:15:08"}