{"id":"court_ctb_1090_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1090,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re : Chapter 11","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re : Chapter 11\n\n : Debtor. :\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ :\n\n:\n\nHO WON KWOK, : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n## **JOINT OBJECTION OF THE DEBTOR, MEI GUO, AND HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS**\n\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), Mei Guo (\"Ms. Guo\"), a counterclaim defendant in the Adversary Proceeding captioned *HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC v. Ho Wan Kwok*, Adv. Pro. No. 22-05003 (the \"HK USA Adversary\") pending before this Court, and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), the plaintiff and a counterclaim defendant in the HK USA Adversary, by and through their undersigned counsel, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., hereby object to the 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 (Doc. No. 1046, the \"Motion\"). In support of their Objection the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK USA respectfully state as follows:\n\n1. The Motion continues the Chapter 11 Trustee's (the \"Trustee\") heretofore successful strategy of repeating the mantra that the Debtor is bad with the hope and expectation that the Court will ignore the actual merits of the Motion and grant the relief sought simply because the Trustee has sufficiently disparaged the Debtor.\n\n2. Indeed, the Motion ignores that the Trustee has indisputably obtained hundreds of\n\nthousands of pages of documents concerning the Debtor and various entities that the Trustee baselessly believes the Debtor controls or controlled, and that more documents will be forthcoming. These documents were produced and continue to be produced by professionals, primarily large law firms, who had provided services to, *inter alia,* the Debtor. The Debtor has done nothing to impede or obstruct the Trustee's document collection efforts.\n\n3. The Debtor's counsel told the Trustee's counsel during their first discovery meet and confer that the Debtor had a very limited number of documents in his personal possession, and that the vast majority of responsive documents would be with his professionals, a statement that has been proven to be true. Significantly, during this same meet and confer the Debtor's counsel suggested that there was no reason for the Debtor to approach his professionals, obtain the same documents that would be produced to the Trustee directly by the professionals pursuant to subpoenas served on them, and then produce those same exact documents to the Trustee a second time. The Trustee's counsel stated that he did not care who produced the documents as long as they were produced and they have been. Moreover, the Trustee actually acknowledges this agreement in the Motion, but only after accusing the Debtor of not seeking the production of documents in the possession of his professionals.\n\n4. The Debtor did have a limited number of documents in his personal possession, such as his personal tax returns, and those documents have also been produced.\n\n5. In short, there is simply nothing to compel. The Trustee's purported belief, which as articulated is based upon misrepresentations concerning the substance of several meets and confers, that the Debtor has not conducted a good faith search for documents without actual evidence that a good faith search has not been conducted is meaningless. Indeed, the Trustee contends that the Debtor's lack of responsive documents, and in particular electronically stored\n\ninformation, is dubious, but the Trustee's fails to support his assertion that, for example, the Debtor is lying when he says that he does not use email by coming forward with any email sent by or to the Debtor within the tens of thousands of emails that have been produced to the Trustee by the Debtor's professionals. The Trustee's belief certainly does not provide a basis for the entry of an order granting a motion to compel.\n\n6. Neither the Debtor, Ms. Guo, nor HK USA have refused to search for responsive documents. There were some objections propounded to specific documents requests, such as the requests that Ms. Guo produce all documents over a more than 10-year period related to her personal assets, her personal bank accounts, and her tax returns, even though there is no evidence, or even allegation, that the Debtor has ever transferred an asset or anything of value to Ms. Guo. Ms. Guo has rightly refused to produce those categories of document.\n\n7. The Trustee does not, however, focus his Motion on specific objections to specific document requests. Instead, the Trustees argues that he is entitled to all of the documents he seeks from the Debtor, Ms. Guo, and HK USA simply because he is, again, without even attempting to show, as it relates to Ms. Guo's personal financial information, that the Debtor has ever transferred a single asset of his to Ms. Guo.\n\n8. And it is not just Ms. Guo's personal financial information. The Trustee believes that he is entitled to every document, as broadly defined, regarding every asset of every one of the Debtor's immediate and extended family members, as well as every document regarding a litany of entities, many of which the Debtor has never even heard of. The Trustee's position is absurd.\n\n9. The Trustee tries to hide the absurdity of his position and deflect by once again mischaracterizing what was said during a meet and confer regarding a hypothetical Lady May 2. During that meet and confer the Debtor's counsel was simply asked if there was a Lady May 2\n\nwould the Debtor produce documents related to it. The response was that the Debtor would not produce documents related to the hypothetical Lady May 2 if the Debtor did not have any interest in the hypothetical Lady May 2. The Trustee's counsel now misrepresents the substance of the hypothetical adding numerous additional facts that were not stated in the hypothetical during the meet and confer. Obviously, if there was a Lady May 2 that was situated exactly as the Lady May with a similar finding from a New York Supreme Court, responsive documents related to that Hypothetical boat would be produced just like responsive documents related to the actual Lady May have been produced. Regardless, the fact that the Trustee has to resort to a misleading hypothetical rather than focus on the reality of the massive volume of documents that he is actually receiving is quite telling and underscores the weakness of the Motion.\n\n10. Lastly, as it relates to Ms. Guo and HK USA the Trustee must seek further discovery, if at all, in the HK USA Adversary. On September 23, 2022, the Trustee filed a massive 62-page, 141 paragraph counterclaim with more than 3,100 pages of exhibits in the HK USA Adversary (the \"Counterclaim\"). The Counterclaim, which was filed 21-days after Ms. Guo and HK USA served objections to the Rule 2004 subpoenas served upon them and 6-days after Ms. Guo and HK USA produced responsive documents to the same subpoenas, adds Ms. Guo as a counterclaim defendant and expands the scope of the HK adversary so significantly that the vast majority of the document requests set forth in the Rule 2004 subpoenas served on Ms. Guo and HK USA now seek documents related to the allegations of the Counterclaim. In addition, the Trustee has filed a prejudgment remedy application against HK USA and Ms. Guo and an application for preliminary injunction against Ms. Guo in the HK Adversary while at the same time seeking to compel Ms. Guo to produce substantial personal financial information in response to the Rule 2004 subpoena. As a matter of law, the Trustee may not circumvent the protections\n\nafforded to Ms. Guo and HK USA in the HK USA Adversary by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by seeking discovery related to the HK USA Adversary via Rule 2004. Thus, the Motion as to Ms. Guo and HK USA must be denied.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n11. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby commencing this bankruptcy case.\n\n12. On June 15, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum of Decision, *inter alia*, granting PAX's Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Partial Joinder to the UST's Motion for the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 183), to the extent that it sought the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 465.)\n\n13. On July 7, 2022, the UST filed a notice appointing the Trustee as Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 514), and an Application for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 515) seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered its Order Granting Appointment Of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 523), granting the appointment of the Trustee as Chapter 11 trustee in this case.\n\n14. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed his i) Motion for 2004 Examination of the Debtor (Doc. No. 636), ii) Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor (Doc. No. 637), and iii) Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with the Debtor (Doc. No. 638) (collectively the \"July Rule 2004 Exam Motions\"). In total through the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions the Trustee sought to issue a total of 34 subpoenas. Thereafter, on September 7, 2022, the Trustee filed his First Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor, Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor, and Relevant Banks (the \"September 2004 Motion\") (Doc. No. 839.) The September 2004 Motion sought and obtained leave to conduct an additional 25 Rule 2004 examinations and to issue an additional 25 subpoenas in connection with those examinations. Thus, in total the Trustee sought and obtained leave to conduct a total of 59 Rule 2004 examinations and to issue 59 subpoenas in connection therewith; the Debtor has no reason to believe that the Trustee has not served all 59 subpoenas, or at least the vast majority of them.\n\n15. On August 5, 2022, the Debtor filed the Debtor's Limited Objection to Rule 2004 Motions (Doc. No. 703) to preserve certain rights, including the right to assert objections to the requests for the production of documents that would be served with the subpoena attached to the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions after the subpoena was actually served. By orders dated August 16, 2022, this Court granted the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions. The August 16 order entered following an August 12, 2022 status conference at which the Court reminded the parties that following the service of the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions subpoenas the parties have \"whatever rights [they] have under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to th[e] subpoena[s]\". August 12, 2022, Transcript of Motion for 2004 Examination of the Debtor; Motion for 2004 Examination of Omnibus Re: Debtor's Professionals; Motion for 2004 Examination of Omnibus Re: Related Persons; Order Setting Status Conference Before the Honorable Julie A. Manning United States Bankruptcy Judge (\"August 12 Tran.\"), at 19-20.\n\n16. Each of the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK USA was served with a Rule 2004 subpoena through their respective counsel on August 19, 2022. Each of the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK USA\n\nserved timely objections to the document requests attached to the subpoenas, asserting objections to certain of the enumerated Instructions and Definitions included with the requests for production, as well as objections to certain of the requests for production. The objections of non-debtors Ms. Guo and HK USA were more fulsome than those of the Debtor.\n\n17. The Debtor agreed to produce, and through his professionals and former professionals is producing, the vast majority of documents requested by the Trustee in the requests for production. The Debtor did object to the production of certain categories of documents, primarily documents related to the assets of his \"family,\" which the Trustee defined to include \"the Debtor, the Debtor's Son, the Debtor's Daughter, and the Debtor's Purported Wife, and any other familial relation to the Debtor,\" but the Debtor does not have documents related to the assets of his family and has not withheld documents based on that objection. In fact, the Debtor has not withheld any specific document or category of documents from production based on a discovery objection other than a paucity of documents, primarily from the files of his professionals, based on attorney-client privilege pursuant to this Court's September 14, 2022, Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information (Doc. No. 856). The documents withheld on the basis of privilege have been logged in accordance with that same order.\n\n18. Ms. Guo and HK USA objected to certain of the requests served upon them that seek information concerning their personal assets and tax returns, and indicated that no responsive documents would be produced in response to those requests. Ms. Guo and HK USA produced documents responsive to requests related to HK USA and the Lady May. Other than documents related to their personal assets.HK USA and Ms. Guo have not withheld any responsive\n\ndocuments. HK USA owns the Lady May and nothing more so documents related to its assets were produced.\n\n19. Following the service of the respective objections counsel met with the Debtor on two separate occasions over video conference, first on September 14, 2022 and then on September 21, 2022, to discuss and explain the search to be undertaken for responsive documents. During the first of these meetings, which lasted more than one hour, counsel went through the requests with the debtor to identify the documents sought, read through the defined list of \"Associated Entities\" to determine whether the Debtor had ever heard of the entities, most of which he had not, and if he had— whether he had any documents related to the entities in his possession. The Debtor's counsel also read through the defined list of \"Associated Individuals\" with the Debtor to determine whether the Debtor knew the individuals, again with many he did not, and if so whether he had any documents related to the individuals in his possession.\n\n20. During this first meeting a discussion was also had regarding locations where responsive hard copy documents might be stored. The Debtor does not maintain an office or location for the storage of hard copy documents and does not maintain hard copy documents within his home. Responsive documents that may have existed in Hong Kong, where the Debtor maintained an office prior to fleeing in late 2014, have been seized by the Chinese government when it seized the Debtor's and certain of his family's assets in 2017. *See* Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions. (Doc. No. 107), at ¶17. The Debtor obviously does not have access to the documents seized by the Chinese government.\n\n21. The second video conference meeting with the Debtor lasted approximately one hour and focused on electronically stored information. During this meeting the Debtor was asked whether he had a laptop or desktop computer. He does not have one, does not use one, and does\n\nnot know how to do so. The Debtor was also asked whether he had or was aware of any server that could contain responsive electronically stored information. He was not. The Debtor was asked whether he uses personal electronic devices such as a phone or tablet. The Debtor stated that he has two iPhones that he uses for social media and text messaging, *e.g.* WhatsApp. The Debtor stated that his text messaging is related to his ongoing efforts to take down the CCP. The Debtor does not read English and his text messages are in his native Chinese. The Debtor stated that he does not use email to communicate. The Debtor provided counsel with the responsive documents that he had in his possession and they were produced, including documents related to Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC, the only entities in which the Debtor actually owned an interest as of the petition date—albeit he owned that interest in his capacity as a trustee.\n\n22. During this same time frame counsel conferred with Ms. Guo multiple times via telephone to discuss her search for responsive documents on behalf of herself and on behalf of HK USA of which she is the sole member. Ms. Guo searched her email and text messages and provided counsel with copies of text messages she located related to the Lady May, including her text messages with the captain of the Lady May, which the Trustee requested and now disparagingly states in the Motion with absolutely no basis were \"hand selected\". Ms. Guo also provided copies of non-disclosure agreements with the crew of the Lady May, and produced numerous emails and draft agreements related to the loan transaction that funded what has become commonly referred to in the Debtor's case as the Lady May Escrow. In addition, Ms. Guo's counsel reached out to counsel that represented Ms. Guo and HK USA in connection with the February 2022 contempt hearing in the PAX action that was then pending in New York State Supreme Court, obtained documents from Ms. Guo's former counsel, and produced them. Lastly, and most recently, Ms. Guo produced the statement of claim and exhibits from an arbitration commenced against her and\n\nHK USA by the lender that made the loan for the Lady May Escrow which it is now seeking to recover through arbitration.\n\n23. During the same time period that counsel was conferring with the Debtor and Ms. Guo regarding document production, counsel was also engaging in meets and confers with the Trustee's counsel to discuss discovery objections and document production.\n\n24. During the first meet and confer on September 9 the Trustee's counsel was told that the Debtor would not have a large volume of documents in his personal possession and that his documents would be with his professionals. The Debtor's counsel further stated that because the Trustee had subpoenaed the Debtor's professionals it was unnecessary for the Debtor to approach the same professionals to obtain the same files and produce them a second time. The Trustee's counsel initially balked but eventually agreed that he did not care who produced the documents as long as they were produced. *See* Motion at ¶42 (\"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, . . .\").\n\n25. During subsequent meet and confers the Trustee's counsel asked a number of questions about the Debtor's use of email, computers, and phones. The Debtor's counsel thereafter discussed the Trustee's counsel's questions with the Debtor and provided responses to the Trustee's counsel's questions.\n\n26. Throughout the meet and confer process the Trustee's counsel posed numerous hypotheticals including one where the Debtor owned one-hundred percent of Apple, Inc. and would therefore be required to produce every document related to Apple. The hypotheticals also included a hypothetical Lady May 2 and whether the Debtor would produce documents related to\n\na hypothetical Lady May 2—to which the Debtor's counsel rightly responded not if the Debtor did not have any interest in the hypothetical Lady May 2.\n\n27. During the final in the series of the meets and confers counsel went through each of the requests propounded to the Debtor and in nearly every instance the Debtor's counsel identified that the Debtor did not have any responsive documents in his possession. Thus, it was not and is not the case that the Debtor is refusing to produce responsive documents, it is simply that he does not have responsive documents in his possession to produce. The same is true for Ms. Guo and HK USA. Indeed, the Trustee implicitly acknowledges in the Motion that HK USA is unlikely to have any documents because \"HK USA has no income, bank account, directors, officers, or employees.\" *See* Motion, at 9.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n### **A. The Motion Should be Denied Because There is Nothing to Compel**\n\n28. The Trustee does not appear to be seeking the production of documents responsive to any particular request for production. [1](#page-10-0) Instead, the Trustee asks the Court to compel the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK USA to conduct additional searches for responsive documents despite the fact that there is no evidence that their previous searches have been insufficient or that there are any additional documents in their possession to produce, as opposed to the possession of the Debtor's professionals which are being produced.\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor, MS. Guo and HK USA do not know exactly what the Trustee is seeking to compel because he has failed to comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 7037-1 and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 which requires that memorandum related to motions to compel\n\n<sup>. . .</sup> shall contain a concise statement of the nature of the case and a specific verbatim listing of each of the items of discovery sought or opposed, and immediately following each specification shall set forth the reason why the item should be allowed or disallowed.\n\n29. \"Under ordinary circumstances, 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.\" *Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd.*, 04 Civ. 1514 (PAC)(HBP), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41754, \\*8 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2008), (citation omitted). Moreover, \"a party is not obliged to produce, at the risk of sanctions, documents that it does not possess or cannot obtain.\" *Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C. v. Brady*, 19-CV-10236 (JMF), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29610, \\*14 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2021).[2](#page-11-0)\n\n30. Where, as here, a party claims that its adversary has not searched for and/or produced all responsive documents the party making that claim has to come forward with evidence to support the claim. *Margel* 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41754, at \\*8 (\"Although I appreciate defendants' concern about plaintiffs' production, I do not believe that there is any basis for an award of sanctions. Defendants do not point to any specific evidence suggesting that additional responsive documents exist and have not been produced. Litigants commonly suspect that they are not getting all the documents they have requested and that an adversary is holding something back.\").\n\n31. The Trustee does not identify a single piece of evidence to support his contention that there are additional responsive documents in the possession of the Debtor, Ms. Guo or HK USA that have not been produced.[3](#page-11-1)\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> In *Mintz Fraade* the court ordered the defendants to conduct further searches for responsive documents because defense counsel informed the court that the individual defendant, who was also the principal of the corporate defendant, was not cooperating with counsel in obtaining responsive documents and counsel moved to withdraw citing the defendants' \"fail[ure] to cooperate with [counsel] in . . . efforts to complete discovery.\" *Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C.*, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29610, at \\*4 (brackets and ellipsis in original). That extreme example of a situation where a court will compel further searches for responsive documents is obviously not this case.\n\n<span id=\"page-11-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> As discussed *supra*, the Debtor's counsel met with the Debtor on two separate occasions to discuss the categories of documents sought by the requests for production, the potential locations of responsive documents, and medium that could contain responsive electronically stored\n\n32. First, and as previously noted, the Trustee all but concedes that HK USA does not have any documents. *See* Motion, at 9. Moreover, the Trustee makes no effort whatsoever to show that Ms. Guo has additional responsive documents that she agreed to produce but has not produced.[4](#page-12-0)\n\n33. As for the Debtor, the Trustee contends that his statements concerning a lack of additional responsive documents in his possession are dubious at best, Motion, at 45, but the Trustee offers no evidence to support this purported belief. Indeed, the Trustee has not identified a single email to or from the Debtor within the tens or hundreds of thousands of emails that he has received from the Debtor's professionals, the vast majority of which would be subject to attorney client privilege but for the Debtor's Bankruptcy case and the Privilege Order. Surely if the Debtor used email he would be communicating with his attorneys via email and those emails would be included in the incredibly large universe of emails the Trustee has received from the Debtor's professionals.[5](#page-12-1)\n\ninformation. The Debtor is an individual who does not even own or use a computer, let alone have servers, an IT department, and back up tapes similar to what was at issue in *Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC,* 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Moreover, counsel has seen no evidence calling into question the veracity of the Debtor's representations regarding his lack of use of computers and email and the Trustee has not identified any such evidence to the Debtor's counsel despite having received thousands and likely tens of thousands of emails from the Debtor's professionals to which the Debtor's counsel has not even been privy. Lastly, under the circumstances it is entirely reasonable for counsel to rely on the Debtor to review his text messages for responsive documents because those text messages are in Chinese. *See Id.*, at 435 (noting that \"it is true that counsel need not supervise every step of the document production process and may rely on their clients in some respects\").\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> Ms. Guo and HK USA, through their counsel, have sought to obtain documents concerning the costs and expense of maintaining the Lady May on multiple occasions but to date have been unsuccessful in doing so.\n\n<span id=\"page-12-1\"></span><sup>5</sup> The Trustee knew at the time he filed the July Rule 2004 Motions that the vast majority of responsive documents would be produced by entities and individuals other than the Debtor and that is the reason that the Trustee served more than fifty (50) subpoenas. *See* August 12 Tran., at 12 (Trustee's counsel stating \"we think the targets of these motions are the types of people who are likely to have that information, whether it's advisors that were used in forming legal entities and protecting assets, whether it's relatives who hold those assets, or related companies, those are really the targets of our motion.\").\n\n34. The Trustee also points to an interview of the Debtor from five years ago where the Debtor is shown with multiple cell phones as evidence that the Debtor must have documents in his possession. The number of cell phones that the Debtor may or may not have had five years ago is irrelevant to what documents he has in his possession today. Moreover, the Debtor's counsel told the Trustee's counsel that the Debtor has two phones that he uses to post to social media and for text messaging. The Trustee is fully aware of the Debtor's social media activities, likely monitoring the Debtor's accounts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In fact, the Trustee's monitoring of the Debtor's social media activities caused the Trustee's counsel to call the Debtor's counsel very recently to ascertain the Debtor's Covid vaccine status for purposes of entry into a building for a deposition because the Trustee's counsel knew the Debtor's views on Covid vaccine from monitoring his social media accounts.\n\n35. With respect to text messages, the Debtor was instructed to search his text messages, which are in Chinese, for responsive documents after being instructed as to the types of documents sought by the requests for production served upon him. The Debtor has represented that he undertook that search and did not locate any responsive documents as his text messages relate to his efforts to take down the CCP.[6](#page-13-0)\n\n36. The Trustee points to references to WhatsApp messages cited in a February 6, 2016, affidavit filed by the Debtor in an action captioned *Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 as evidence that the Debtor has additional responsive documents in his\n\n<span id=\"page-13-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> The Debtor's ongoing efforts to take down the CCP are well chronicled and include songs that the Debtor has performed and which, according to the Trustee's counsel, have been available on iTunes. The Trustee's counsel contends that the Debtor must have documents related to his music on iTunes. The Debtor has represented that he does not create and release music for money, he does so as part of his effort to take down the CCP, and as a result does not receive royalties or have any related documents. The Debtor's counsel confirmed the Debtor's statements regarding the lack of documents and royalties with his music with other of the Debtor's personal counsel who is knowledgeable regarding the matter.\n\npossession. The WhatsApp messages referenced in the affidavit are 7 and 8 years old, and as the Trustee's counsel was told during one of the meet and confers the Debtor no longer has the referenced text messages in his possession—contrary to the Trustee's statement in the Motion, his counsel was never told that the text messages no longer exist. Indeed, the WhatsApp messages referenced in the 2016 affidavit are likely within the files of Boise Schiller, the law firm that represented Ace Decade Holding Limited in the litigation in which the affidavit was filed since its attorneys would have presumedly needed the WhatsApp messages to draft the affidavit which they almost certainly did.[7](#page-14-0)\n\n37. The Trustee subpoenaed the Debtor's files from Boise Schiller, which includes document requests related to Ace Decade. The Debtor has no reason to believe that the files were not produced. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Debtor could have obtained the Debtor's files from Boise Schiller because the Debtor's relationship with Boise Schiller ended with the parties involved in bitter litigation and the relationship has not improved.\n\n38. The Trustee also falsely claims that the Debtor, HK USA and Ms. Guo have been unwilling to produce documents in the files of advisors and agents. Ms. Guo, through her counsel, contacted her former counsel in the PAX New York action to obtain documents related to HK USA and the Lady May and those documents have been produced. Regardless, this statement is ridiculous in light of the barrage of subpoenas served by the Trustee, the lack of any evidence that the Debtor, Ms. Guo or HK USA have done anything to hinder or obstruct the subpoenaed parties from complying with the subpoenas, the massive amount of documents that have been produced in response to the subpoenas, and the agreement that the Debtor would not seek to obtain and\n\n<span id=\"page-14-0\"></span><sup>7</sup> Without any evidence whatsoever, and in an effort to again disparage the Debtor, the Trustee suggests that if the Debtor does not have the 2014 and 2015 WhatsApp messages in his personal possession, as opposed to in the possession of his professionals, he has likely spoliated evidence.\n\nproduce from professional firms the same documents that are being produced in response to the subpoenas.\n\n39. The Trustee contends that the Debtor has to seek documents from his professionals regardless of the issuance of subpoenas and production by the professionals because the requests served on the Debtor are different than those served on his advisors. Motion, at 21. The subpoena served on the Debtor and his professionals both broadly seek documents related to, *inter alia*, the Debtor's purported assets and as defined Related Entities. The subpoena served on the Debtor does include a greater number of request than the subpoenas served on the professional firms but the additional requests are generally specific to the Debtor and the professional firms would not have the documents sought by those requests, including:\n\n8. All Documents regarding any credit cards used by You, including without limitation monthly statements or other Documents sufficient to show all purchases, payments, and other transactions related thereto.\n\n12. All communications with Qu Guo Jiao regarding any Assets, liabilities, financial interests, economic health, financial statements of the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or any Associated Entity.\n\n13. All communications with Daniel Podhaskie regarding any Assets, liabilities, financial interests, economic health, financial statements of the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or any Associated Entity.\n\n16. Tax returns for the Debtor, each Individual member of the Debtor's Family, and any Associated Entity from the years 2014 to the present.\n\n29. All passports or similar Documents authorizing cross-border travel issued by any sovereign state, nation, city-state, or autonomous region to You, including but not limited to any expired or unused Documents, and all pages of such passports or similar Documents.\n\n*See* The Debtor's Responses and Objections to the Chapter 11 Trustee's Requests for the\n\nProduction of Documents included with the Rule 2004 Examination Subpoenas Served Upon the\n\nDebtor on August 19, 2022, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n40. Regardless of the differences in the requests, the Trustee offers no evidence that the\n\nsubpoenaed professionals have produced anything less than their respective complete file related\n\nto the Debtor. Moreover, and significantly, the Trustee's counsel has been speaking and negotiating with the subpoenaed professionals regarding the scope of document productions. Indeed, the Debtor knows from statements made during hearings before this Court that the Trustee specifically negotiated search terms with Brown Rudnick and as such the Trustee controlled the scope of the information that was being produced to him by Brown Rudnick. The Trustee has most certainly negotiated and provided search terms to other of the subpoenaed professionals and likewise controlled the scope of the information that he has received.\n\n41. It would be nonsensical for the Debtor to go to each of the professionals that have already produced responsive documents to confirm that all responsive documents have been produced when the Trustee has dictated to those firms what he believes is responsive and received document productions based on parameters that he established.\n\n42. Likewise, it would have been very difficult if not impossible for the Debtor to undertake the exercise of providing search terms to his professionals to search for responsive documents in light of the fact that the Trustee clearly knows what he is looking for and what search terms are necessary to obtain that information. Indeed, if the Debtor had gone to his professionals, provided search terms, and then produced documents based on the results of the searches using those terms the Trustee would be moving to compel because the Debtor's search terms were deficient and yielded incomplete results.\n\n43. Lastly, the Trustee contends that the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK must be required to search for and produce responsive documents within the more than ten year time period, *i.e.,* from February 5, 2012 to the present, set forth in the subpoena's requests because those documents are relevant to potential fraudulent transfer claims. The Trustee makes no effort whatsoever to identify the law that would apply to claims arising from fraudulent transfers, if any, made by the Debtor\n\nduring the 2012-2014 time period while he lived in Hong Kong, and whether the applicable law would even permit a ten or even eight year old fraudulent transfer claim to proceed. Thus, the trustee's demanded time frame is unreasonable and neither the Debtor nor Ms. Guo should be compelled to search for documents that pre-date the Debtor fleeing China in late 2014. [8](#page-17-0) Responsive documents have been produced and continue to be produced for the shorter, though still very lengthy, time period of nearly eight years, *i.e.,* from the date the Debtor fled China, which the Debtor's and Ms. Guo's counsel offered as a compromise.[9](#page-17-1)\n\n44. In short, there is no evidence that the Debtor, HK USA or Ms. Guo has failed to search for and produce responsive documents. Thus, there is nothing to compel and the Motion should be denied.[10](#page-17-2)\n\n## **B. Ms. Guo and HK USA Should Not be Compelled to Produce Documents Regarding Their Personal Assets**\n\n45. The scope of Rule 2004 examinations is broad but not limitless. *In re Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Gallup*, 513 B.R. 761, 764 (Bankr. D. NM 2014) (\"There are limits however [to a Rule 2004 exam]. An examination of a witness as to matters having no relationship to the debtor's affairs or no effect on the administration of his estate is improper.\"); *In re Refco, Inc.*, Case No. 06 C 5529, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4993, \\*9 (N.D. Ill, Jan 16, 2007) (\"Although the scope of the examination permitted under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is broad it is not without limits. The examination of a witness as to matters having no relationship to the debtor's\n\n<span id=\"page-17-0\"></span><sup>8</sup> Nonetheless, the Debtor is not withholding documents on the basis of this objection.\n\n<span id=\"page-17-1\"></span><sup>9</sup> HK USA was not formed until September 2018 and it does not have documents dating back to 2012.\n\n<span id=\"page-17-2\"></span><sup>10</sup> The Trustee relies on *CFTC v. Main & Prospect Capital, LLC*, 2020 WL 11303655 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020) as support for the ridiculously broad relief it seeks against the Debtor. The Court granted the broad relief requested in *Main Prospect Capital* in substantial part because the defendant did not oppose the plaintiff's motion to compel.\n\naffairs or no effect on the administration of the estate is improper.\") (citations omitted). Indeed, \"[i]t is clear that Rule 2004 may not be used as a device to launch into a wholesale investigation of a non-debtor's private business affairs.\" *In re Wilcher*, 56 B.R. 428, 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985). *See also In re Matthews* No. 18-mc-80-LPS; No. 18-mc-153-LPS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178364, \\*5 (D. Del., Oct. 17, 2018) (\"But [the trustee] does not have unlimited power to investigate anything he wishes without articulating a proper basis for the examination.\").\n\n46. The Trustee has served very broad discovery on Ms. Guo and HK USA seeking information regarding their personal assets, including, by way of example only:\n\n14. Documents sufficient to show all of Your Assets and sources of income or funding.\n\n16. Copies of Your tax returns.\n\n17. Documents sufficient to show all bank accounts and investment accounts within Your possession or control, including the balances of and transfers to and from each such account.\n\n18. All Documents regarding any credit cards used by You, including without limitation monthly statements or other Documents sufficient to show all purchases related thereto for the benefit of the Debtor or an Associated Entity.\n\n*See* September 2, 2022, Non-Party Mei Guo's Responses and Objections to the Chapter 11\n\nTrustee's Requests for the Production of Documents Included with the Rule 2004 Examination\n\nSubpoena Served Upon Ms. Guo on August 19, 2022, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit\n\nB. These same requests were served on HK USA, although for the majority of the requests it does\n\nnot have any responsive documents to produce. *See* Motion, at 9.\n\n47. The Trustee also seeks the personal financial information of Ms. Guo through other\n\nrequests which also seek documents related to the Debtor, such as:\n\n10. All Documents regarding any gifts, benefits or loans, to, from or on behalf of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or the Associated Entities, including without limitation Documents sufficient to show the amounts of such gifts, benefits, or loans; the purposes for which such gifts, benefits, or loans were used; when the gifts, benefits, or loans were provided; and the terms of any loans, all representations and warranties made in connection with any loans, the interest rate on any loans, and all evidence of payments of any loans.\n\n11. All Documents concerning any trust or similar instrument set up by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or an Associated Entity, including without limitation Documents sufficient to show when the trust(s) was created, by whom it was created, for whose benefit it was created, and the corpus of the trust.\n\n*Id.* The requests require Ms. Guo to produce all types of documents that have absolutely nothing to do with the Debtor or the Debtor's Estate for a more than 10-year period. Indeed, read literally Request 10 would require Ms. Guo to produce every document regarding every gift that she has given to any person over the past 10-years, including thank you cards received by the gift's recipient. Surely, Ms. Guo, a non-debtor, cannot be compelled to produce those types of documents. Neither Ms. Guo nor HK objected to producing documents related to assets of the Debtor or assets of the Debtor's Estate, but did and do object to producing their own personal financial information and the Trustee is not entitled to that information.\n\n48. The Trustee has failed to allege, let alone demonstrate, any proper basis for an investigation into Ms. Guo's personal financial information. *In re Matthews*, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178364, \\*5 (\"But [the trustee] does not have unlimited power to investigate anything he wishes without articulating a proper basis for the examination.\"). There is no allegation that the Debtor ever transferred anything of value to Ms. Guo or HK USA. The Trustee's argument that he does not need any basis to obtain Ms. Guo's and HK USA's personal financial information because the Debtor theoretically may have made transfers to them. If the Trustee's view of the law was correct the Trustee would have the power to subpoena any person within this Court's broad jurisdiction to obtain personal financial information to satisfy himself that the subpoenaed party does not have assets of the Debtor. That is obviously not the law.\n\n49. Without an articulated good faith basis, which in this case is woefully lacking, the Trustee is not entitled to \"launch into a wholesale investigation of a non-debtor's private business\n\naffairs.\" *In re Wilcher*, 56 B.R. at 434. Thus, to the extent the Motion seeks to compel the production of the personal financial information of Ms. Guo and HK USA the Motion should be denied.\n\n# **C. Any Further Discovery of Ms. Guo and HK USA Must Be Taken Through the HK Adversary Pursuant to the Protections of the Federal Rules**\n\n50. It is axiomatic that \"'once an adversary proceeding or contested matter is commenced, discovery should be pursued under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not by Rule 2004,' *In re Enron Corp.*, 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002), *In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996) ('The well recognized rule is that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced, discovery is made pursuant to the Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 *et seq.*, rather than by a Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 examination.')….\" *In re SunEdison, Inc.*, 572 B.R. 482, 490 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017). *See also*, *In re Cambridge Analytica LLC*, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) (\"There is a well-recognized rule that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter is commenced, discovery should be pursued under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not Rule 2004.\"); *In re Ecam Publ'ns, Inc.*, 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) (\"Once an adversary proceeding or another contested matter has been initiated, parties must proceed with discovery for that litigation pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\").\n\n51. The HK Adversary was commenced in April 2022 with HK USA as the Plaintiff. Ms. Guo and HK USA were each served with a Rule 2004 Exam subpoena through their respective counsel on August 19, 2022. At that time Ms. Guo was not a party to the HK Adversary and the matter at issue in that action was limited to the narrow question of who owned the Lady May.\n\n52. Ms. Guo and HK USA served objections to the document requests included with the subpoenas served upon them on September 2, 2022, and produced documents on September 16, 2022, with Ms. Guo making supplemental productions thereafter.\n\n53. The Trustee filed his extensive Counterclaim in the HK Adversary and thereby impleaded Ms. Gou as a counterclaim defendant on September 23, 2022. Based on the breadth of the Counterclaim's allegations and the exhibits attached thereto the Trustee had been preparing his Counterclaim long before it was filed and likely before he issued the subpoenas to Ms. Guo and HK USA. Despite the knowledge that a Counterclaim would be filed that would add Ms. Guo as a defendant and greatly expand the scope of the HK Adversary by adding numerous allegations concerning the Debtor and entities he allegedly controls the Trustee represented in his \"Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor (Doc. No. 638), that \"this is not the classic situation where an adversary plaintiff, through Rule 2004, seeks to undermine the protections provided by the Bankruptcy Rules governing discovery in adversary proceedings.\" *Id.*, at 19, n.25. That is exactly what the Trustee is seeking to do.\n\n54. The Counterclaim's allegations related to the Debtor focus on many of the same matters for which the Trustee seeks discovery from Ms. Guo and HK USA via the Rule 2004 Exam subpoenas. Most egregiously, the Trustee has filed a prejudgment remedy application against Ms. Guo and HK USA seeking to attach their respective assets and an injunction application against Ms. Guo effectively seeking the same relief while at the same time moving to compel the production of a wide swath of information concerning, *inter alia*, Ms. Guo's and HK USA's personal assets via Rule 2004.\n\n55. Ms. Guo and HK USA are entitled to the protections of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *See In re Enron Corp.*, 281 B.R. 836, at 841 (\"Based on Rule 2004's substantive differences, courts have expressed concern that Rule 2004 examinations not be used as a tactic to circumvent the safeguards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\"). The Trustee cannot be permitted to end run those rules by using Rule 2004 to obtain discovery that is clearly intended to be used in the Adversary Proceeding and which the Trustee would not be entitled to obtain but for his use of Rule 2004. Thus, the Motion to Compel as to Ms. Guo and HK USA should be denied and the Trustee should be ordered to pursue any additional discovery as to them, including the discovery sought via the Motion, in the HK Adversary.\n\n#### **D. The Debtor's Complete Passport is Irrelevant**\n\n56. The Trustee seeks the production of the Debtor's complete passport because according to the Trustee knowing where the Debtor traveled could inform the Trustee as to where the Debtor has assets. The Trustee's logic is utterly flawed. Even if the Debtor had assets it does not follow that because the Debtor traveled somewhere he has assets in that location. Indeed, taking the Trustee's argument to its logical conclusion the Trustee would be entitled to monitor the Debtor's movements 24 hours a day 7 days a week on the oft chance that the Debtor's travels lead the Trustee to the Debtor's allegedly hidden assets. The Debtor is a debtor in bankruptcy, not an escaped criminal, and the Trustee is a bankruptcy trustee, not a bounty hunter. The Trustee is not entitled to the Debtor's complete passport and his efforts to compel its production should be rejected. [11](#page-22-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-22-0\"></span><sup>11</sup> The Debtor produced the first page of his passport only because it was appended to the Debtor's tax returns that were produced.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Debtor, Ms. Guo, and HK USA respectfully request that the Court\n\ndeny the Motion and grant them such other and further relief as justice requires.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 14th day of November, 2022.\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK, ADVERSARY PROCEEDING PLAINTIFF, COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT AND MOVANT, HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC, AND ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT AND MOVANT MEI GUO**\n\n*/s/ James M. Moriarty*  Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5485 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 14th day of November, 2022, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ James M. Moriarty*  James M. Moriarty (ct21876)","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：第 11 章\n\n：债务人。：\n\n＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿：\n\n＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ ：\n\n：\n\nHO WON KWOK（郭文贵）：案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人、MEI GUO（郭美）及 HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC（HK 国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）就第 11 章受托人要求强制遵守 Rule 2004 传票之动议提出的联合异议\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）、在本院审理的、题为 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC v. Ho Wan Kwok, Adv. Pro. No. 22-05003（以下简称“HK USA 对抗程序”）的对抗程序中的反诉被告 Mei Guo（郭美）（以下简称“Guo 女士”），以及作为该 HK USA 对抗程序原告及反诉被告的 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（以下简称“HK USA”），通过其下列署名律师 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（Zeisler & Zeisler 专业公司），特此对第 11 章受托人提出的《关于作出命令强制个人债务人、Mei Guo、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、Hing Chi Ngok、Greenwich Land LLC、Lamp Capital LLC 及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 遵守 Rule 2004 传票的动议》（文件编号 1046，以下简称“该动议”）提出异议。为支持其异议，债务人、Guo 女士及 HK USA 谨陈述如下：\n\n1. 该动议延续了第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）迄今成功的策略，即反复灌输债务人是坏人的说法，希望并期待本院忽略该动议的实际案情，仅因受托人已充分诋毁债务人而准许所请求的救济。\n\n2. 事实上，该动议忽略了受托人已无可争议地获得数十万页有关债务人以及受托人毫无根据地认为由债务人控制或曾经控制的各实体的文件，且将有更多文件陆续提供。这些文件由曾向包括债务人在内的人员提供服务的专业人士，主要是大型律师事务所，提交且仍在持续提交。债务人未采取任何行动妨碍或阻挠受托人的文件收集工作。\n\n3. 债务人的律师在其首次证据开示协商会议期间告知受托人的律师，债务人个人持有的文件数量极为有限，绝大多数回应性文件将由其专业人士持有；该陈述已被证明属实。值得注意的是，在同一次协商会议中，债务人的律师提出，债务人没有理由联系其专业人士，取得该等专业人士将依向其送达的传票而直接向受托人提交的相同文件，然后再向受托人第二次提交完全相同的文件。受托人的律师表示，只要文件得到提交，他不在乎由谁提交，而文件已得到提交。此外，受托人实际上在该动议中承认了这一约定，但仅在指控债务人未寻求取得由其专业人士持有的文件之后才予以承认。\n\n4. 债务人确实个人持有数量有限的文件，例如其个人纳税申报表，该等文件也已提交。\n\n5. 简言之，根本没有任何事项可予强制。受托人所声称的信念，即其所阐述的、基于对数次协商会议实质内容的失实陈述而形成的、认为债务人未对文件进行善意搜寻的信念，在没有实际证据表明未进行善意搜寻的情况下毫无意义。事实上，受托人主张债务人缺少回应性文件，尤其是电子存储信息，令人怀疑；但受托人未能通过在债务人专业人士已向受托人提交的数万封电子邮件中提出任何由债务人发出或发送给债务人的电子邮件，来支持其关于例如债务人在称其不使用电子邮件时是在撒谎的主张。受托人的信念当然不能构成作出准许强制履行动议之命令的依据。\n\n6. 债务人、Guo 女士和 HK USA 均未拒绝搜寻回应性文件。针对特定文件请求提出了一些异议，例如，要求 Guo 女士提交在超过 10 年期间内与其个人资产、个人银行账户及纳税申报表有关的所有文件，尽管没有证据，甚至没有指称债务人曾向 Guo 女士转移任何资产或任何有价值之物。Guo 女士有正当理由拒绝提交该等类别的文件。\n\n7. 然而，受托人并未将其动议聚焦于对特定文件请求提出的具体异议。相反，受托人主张，他有权获得其向债务人、Guo 女士及 HK USA 请求的所有文件，仅仅因为他再次在甚至未尝试证明债务人曾向 Guo 女士转移其任何一项资产的情况下，尤其就 Guo 女士的个人财务信息而言，便认为自己有权获得这些文件。\n\n8. 这不仅涉及 Guo 女士的个人财务信息。受托人认为，他有权获得关于债务人每一位直系及扩展家庭成员的每一项资产的所有文件，按其宽泛定义，以及关于一长串实体的每一份文件，其中许多实体债务人甚至从未听说过。受托人的立场荒谬。\n\n9. 受托人试图掩盖其立场的荒谬性，并通过再次歪曲一次关于假设性 Lady May 2 的协商会议中所说的内容来转移焦点。在该次协商会议中，债务人的律师仅被问及，如果存在一艘 Lady May 2，债务人是否会提交与其有关的文件。答复是，如果债务人对该假设性 Lady May 2 不享有任何权益，债务人不会提交与该假设性 Lady May 2 有关的文件。受托人的律师现歪曲该假设的实质内容，加入了协商会议期间该假设中并未陈述的许多额外事实。显然，如果存在一艘 Lady May 2，其情况与 Lady May 完全相同，且有纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）的类似认定，则将提交与该假设性船只有关的回应性文件，正如已提交与实际 Lady May 有关的回应性文件一样。无论如何，受托人不得不诉诸误导性的假设，而非聚焦于其实际正在收到的大量文件这一现实，这一点颇具说明性，并突显该动议的薄弱之处。\n\n10. 最后，就 Guo 女士及 HK USA 而言，受托人如要寻求进一步证据开示，只能在 HK USA 对抗程序中寻求。2022 年 9 月 23 日，受托人在 HK USA 对抗程序中提交了一份长达 62 页、含 141 段并附有逾 3,100 页证据材料的大型反诉（以下简称“该反诉”）。该反诉于 Guo 女士及 HK USA 就向其送达的 Rule 2004 传票提出异议后 21 日、并于 Guo 女士及 HK USA 就同一传票提交回应性文件后 6 日提出；该反诉将 Guo 女士增列为反诉被告，并如此显著地扩大了 HK 对抗程序的范围，以至于向 Guo 女士及 HK USA 送达的 Rule 2004 传票中列明的绝大多数文件请求现均寻求与该反诉指控有关的文件。此外，受托人在 HK 对抗程序中针对 HK USA 及 Guo 女士提出判决前救济申请，并针对 Guo 女士提出初步禁令申请，同时又寻求强制 Guo 女士就 Rule 2004 传票提交大量个人财务信息。根据法律，受托人不得通过依据 Rule 2004 寻求与 HK USA 对抗程序有关的证据开示，来规避《联邦破产程序规则》和《联邦民事诉讼规则》在 HK USA 对抗程序中给予 Guo 女士及 HK USA 的保障。因此，关于 Guo 女士及 HK USA 的该动议必须予以驳回。\n\n背景\n\n11. 2022 年 2 月 15 日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人根据《破产法》第 11 章提交自愿救济申请，从而启动本破产案件。\n\n12. 2022 年 6 月 15 日，本院作出裁决备忘录，除其他事项外，准许 PAX 的驳回动议，或作为备选方案，准许其部分加入 UST（美国受托人）提出的任命第 11 章受托人之动议（文件编号 183），但仅限于其请求任命第 11 章受托人的范围（文件编号 465）。\n\n13. 2022 年 7 月 7 日，UST 提交了任命受托人为第 11 章受托人的通知（文件编号 514），以及寻求本院批准任命受托人的《批准任命第 11 章受托人的命令申请》（文件编号 515）。2022 年 7 月 8 日，本院作出《准许任命第 11 章受托人的命令》（文件编号 523），准许任命受托人为本案第 11 章受托人。\n\n14. 2022 年 7 月 28 日，受托人提交了：i) 《对债务人进行 2004 审查的动议》（文件编号 636）；ii) 《第 11 章受托人依据 Bankruptcy Rule 2004 及 Local Rule 2004-1 作出命令、授权就债务人的各法律及财务顾问进行证据开示的综合动议》（文件编号 637）；及 iii) 《第 11 章受托人依据 Bankruptcy Rule 2004 及 Local Rule 2004-1 作出命令、授权就与债务人有关联的各实体及个人进行证据开示的综合动议》（文件编号 638）（统称“7 月 Rule 2004 审查动议”）。受托人通过 7 月 Rule 2004 审查动议合计寻求签发 34 份传票。其后，2022 年 9 月 7 日，受托人提交了《第 11 章受托人依据 Bankruptcy Rule 2004 及 Local Rule 2004-1 作出命令、授权就债务人的额外法律及财务顾问、与债务人有关联的实体及个人以及相关银行进行证据开示的第一份补充综合动议》（以下简称“9 月 2004 动议”）（文件编号 839）。9 月 2004 动议寻求并获得许可，可进行额外 25 次 Rule 2004 审查，并就该等审查签发额外 25 份传票。因此，受托人合计寻求并获得许可进行共计 59 次 Rule 2004 审查，并就此签发 59 份传票；债务人没有理由认为受托人未送达全部 59 份传票，或至少其中绝大多数传票。\n\n15. 2022 年 8 月 5 日，债务人提交《债务人对 Rule 2004 动议的有限异议》（文件编号 703），以保留某些权利，包括在实际送达附于 7 月 Rule 2004 审查动议的传票后，对随传票送达的文件提交请求提出异议的权利。根据日期为 2022 年 8 月 16 日的命令，本院准许了 7 月 Rule 2004 审查动议。8 月 16 日命令是在 2022 年 8 月 12 日的一次状态会议后作出；在该会议上，本院提醒各方，在送达 7 月 Rule 2004 审查动议传票后，各方对“该等传票享有《联邦民事诉讼规则》规定的任何权利”。2022 年 8 月 12 日，《关于对债务人进行 2004 审查之动议；关于债务人专业人士的综合 2004 审查动议；关于关联人员的综合 2004 审查动议；在美国破产法官 Julie A. Manning 阁下面前举行状态会议的命令》庭审记录（以下简称“8 月 12 日庭审记录”），第 19-20 页。\n\n16. 债务人、Guo 女士及 HK USA 各自均于 2022 年 8 月 19 日通过其各自律师收到一份 Rule 2004 传票的送达。债务人、Guo 女士及 HK USA 各自\n\n及时送达了对附于传票的文件请求的异议，就随同出示请求所列的某些《指示》和《定义》提出异议，并就某些出示请求提出异议。非债务人 Guo 女士和 HK USA 的异议比债务人的异议更为详尽。\n\n17. 债务人同意出示受托人在出示请求中所要求的绝大多数文件，并且正通过其专业顾问及前专业顾问出示该等文件。债务人确实反对出示某些类别的文件，主要是与其“家人”资产有关的文件；受托人将该“家人”定义为包括“债务人、债务人的儿子、债务人的女儿以及债务人所谓的妻子，以及与债务人有任何其他亲属关系的人”，但债务人并无与其家人资产有关的文件，且未基于该异议扣留文件。事实上，除根据本院于 September 14, 2022 作出的《关于与 Rule 2004 传票所要求文件和信息有关的律师—当事人特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意命令》（Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information）（Doc. No. 856）以律师—当事人特权为由而扣留的少量文件外——该等文件主要来自其专业顾问的档案——债务人未基于任何证据开示异议而扣留任何具体文件或文件类别。基于特权扣留的文件已依照同一命令进行了清单记录。\n\n18. Guo 女士和 HK USA 对向其送达的、寻求有关其个人资产和纳税申报表信息的某些请求提出异议，并表示不会就该等请求出示任何回应性文件。Guo 女士和 HK USA 出示了回应与 HK USA 及 Lady May 有关请求的文件。除与其个人资产有关的文件外，HK USA 和 Guo 女士未扣留任何回应性文件。HK USA 拥有 Lady May，且别无其他资产，因此已出示与其资产有关的文件。\n\n19. 在分别送达异议后，律师曾两次通过视频会议与债务人会面，首次于 September 14, 2022，随后于 September 21, 2022，以讨论并说明将对回应性文件进行的检索。在第一次会议中，会议持续超过一小时，律师与债务人逐项审阅请求，以确定所寻求的文件；阅读“关联实体”的定义清单，以确定债务人是否曾听说过该等实体——其中大多数他并未听说过——以及如果听说过，他是否持有与该等实体有关的任何文件。债务人的律师还与债务人阅读了“关联个人”的定义清单，以确定债务人是否认识该等个人——同样，其中许多人他并不认识——以及如认识，他是否持有与该等个人有关的任何文件。\n\n20. 在第一次会议期间，还讨论了可能存放回应性纸质文件的地点。债务人并不设有用于存放纸质文件的办公室或地点，且不在其住所内保存纸质文件。债务人在 2014 年末逃离前曾在香港维持办公室，可能存在于香港的回应性文件，已于中国政府在 2017 年扣押债务人及其某些家人资产时被中国政府扣押。见 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）为支持 Chapter 11 案件及若干动议所作的声明（Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions）（Doc. No. 107），第 ¶17 段。债务人显然无法取得被中国政府扣押的文件。\n\n21. 与债务人的第二次视频会议持续约一小时，重点讨论电子存储信息。在该会议期间，债务人被问及其是否拥有笔记本电脑或台式电脑。他没有，也不使用，并且不知道如何使用。债务人还被问及其是否拥有或知晓任何可能包含回应性电子存储信息的服务器。他并不拥有或知晓。债务人被问及其是否使用电话或平板电脑等个人电子设备。债务人表示，他有两部用于社交媒体和短信通信的 iPhone，例如 WhatsApp。债务人表示，其短信通信与其持续进行的推翻 CCP 的努力有关。债务人不识读英文，其短信使用其母语中文。债务人表示，他不使用电子邮件进行通信。债务人向律师提供了其持有的回应性文件，并已予出示，其中包括与 Genever Holdings Corporation 和 Genever Holdings, LLC 有关的文件；截至申请日，这两家实体是债务人实际拥有权益的仅有实体——尽管其是以受托人身份拥有该等权益。\n\n22. 在同一期间，律师多次通过电话与 Guo 女士沟通，讨论她代表本人以及代表由其担任唯一成员的 HK USA 对回应性文件进行的检索。Guo 女士检索了她的电子邮件和短信，并向律师提供了她所找到的与 Lady May 有关的短信副本，包括她与 Lady May 船长之间的短信；受托人曾请求该等短信，现又在动议中毫无依据地贬称其为“hand selected”。Guo 女士还提供了其与 Lady May 船员签订的保密协议副本，并出示了与为后来在债务人案件中通常被称为 Lady May Escrow 的事项提供资金的贷款交易有关的大量电子邮件和协议草案。此外，Guo 女士的律师联系了在当时正于 New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）审理的 PAX 诉讼中、与 February 2022 蔑视法庭听证有关而代理 Guo 女士及 HK USA 的律师，从 Guo 女士的前律师处取得文件并予以出示。最后，且就在最近，Guo 女士出示了由为 Lady May Escrow 提供贷款、现正寻求通过仲裁予以追偿的贷款人对她和 HK USA 提起的仲裁中的仲裁请求书及附件。\n\n23. 在律师与债务人及 Guo 女士就文件出示进行沟通的同一期间，律师还与受托人的律师进行了会谈，以讨论证据开示异议和文件出示。\n\n24. 在 September 9 的第一次会谈中，受托人的律师被告知，债务人本人持有的文件不会很多，其文件将由其专业顾问持有。债务人的律师进一步表示，由于受托人已向债务人的专业顾问发出传票，债务人无需向同一专业顾问索取相同档案并再次出示。受托人的律师起初犹豫不决，但最终同意，只要文件得到出示，他并不在乎由谁出示。见动议第 ¶42 段（“为明确起见，如一名另行收到传票的顾问出示其持有的与个人债务人有关的全部文件，受托人并不要求个人债务人检索并重新出示重复文件，. . .”）。\n\n25. 在随后进行的会谈中，受托人的律师就债务人使用电子邮件、电脑和电话提出了一些问题。此后，债务人的律师与债务人讨论了受托人律师的问题，并向受托人的律师提供了答复。\n\n26. 在整个会谈过程中，受托人的律师提出了众多假设情形，其中包括债务人拥有 Apple, Inc. 百分之百的权益，因而须出示与 Apple 有关的每一份文件。该等假设还包括一个假设的 Lady May 2，以及债务人是否会出示与假设的 Lady May 2 有关的文件——对此，债务人的律师正确地答复称，若债务人对假设的 Lady May 2 不拥有任何权益，则不会出示。\n\n27. 在一系列会谈中的最后一次会议中，律师逐项审阅了向债务人提出的每一项请求，且在几乎每一情形中，债务人的律师均指出债务人并未持有任何回应性文件。因此，并非债务人拒绝出示回应性文件，而只是他并未持有可供出示的回应性文件。Guo 女士和 HK USA 的情况也是如此。事实上，受托人在动议中默示承认 HK USA 不太可能拥有任何文件，因为“HK USA has no income, bank account, directors, officers, or employees.”见动议，第 9 页。\n\n论证\n\nA. 该动议应予驳回，因为不存在可强制之事项\n\n28. 受托人似乎并非寻求出示回应任何特定出示请求的文件。[1] 相反，受托人请求法院强制债务人、Guo 女士和 HK USA 对回应性文件进行额外检索，尽管没有证据表明其先前检索不足，或其持有任何可供出示的额外文件，而非由正在出示文件的债务人专业顾问持有。\n\n1 债务人、Guo 女士和 HK USA 并不确知受托人寻求强制何种事项，因为其未遵守 Local Bankruptcy Rule 7037-1 和 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37；该等规则要求，与强制出示动议有关的备忘录\n\n. . . 应包含对案件性质的简明陈述，以及对所寻求或反对的每一项证据开示项目的具体逐字列示，并应在每项说明之后立即载明该项目应被准许或不被准许的理由。\n\n29. “在通常情况下，一方当事人以善意声明所寻求项目根本不存在，或者不在其占有、保管或控制之下，应当解决未出示的问题。”Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., 04 Civ. 1514 (PAC)(HBP), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41754, \\*8 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2008), (citation omitted). 此外，“一方当事人没有义务在面临制裁风险的情况下出示其并未持有或无法取得的文件。”Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C. v. Brady, 19-CV-10236 (JMF), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29610, \\*14 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2021).[2]\n\n30. 如本案所示，若一方当事人主张其对方未检索和/或出示所有回应性文件，提出该主张的一方必须提出证据支持该主张。Margel 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41754, at \\*8（“尽管我理解被告对原告文件出示的担忧，但我不认为有任何依据作出制裁裁决。被告未指出任何具体证据表明存在额外回应性文件且尚未出示。诉讼参与人通常怀疑他们未获得其所请求的全部文件，并且对方隐瞒了某些东西。”）。\n\n31. 受托人未指出任何一项证据，以支持其主张，即债务人、Guo 女士或 HK USA 持有尚未出示的额外回应性文件。[3]\n\n2 在 Mintz Fraade 一案中，法院命令被告进一步搜索符合请求的文件，因为被告代理律师告知法院，作为公司被告主要负责人的个人被告未配合代理律师获取符合请求的文件，而代理律师以被告“未能配合[代理律师]……完成证据开示工作的努力”为由提出退出代理的动议。Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C.（Mintz Fraade 律师事务所）, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29610, at \\*4（方括号和省略号均为原文所载）。法院会在该等极端情形下命令进一步搜索符合请求的文件，而本案显然并非如此。\n\n3 如上所述，债务人的代理律师曾在两次不同场合与债务人会面，讨论文件出示请求所寻求的文件类别、符合请求的文件可能所在的位置，以及可能包含符合请求的电子存储信息的介质。债务人是个人，甚至并不拥有或使用计算机，更不用说拥有类似于 Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 一案所涉的服务器、信息技术部门及备份磁带。此外，代理律师未见任何证据足以质疑债务人关于其不使用计算机和电子邮件的陈述之真实性；尽管受托人已从债务人的专业人士处收到数千封、很可能数万封电子邮件，而债务人的代理律师甚至未曾接触过这些电子邮件，受托人亦未向债务人的代理律师指出任何该等证据。最后，在此情形下，代理律师依赖债务人审查其短信以查找符合请求的文件完全合理，因为这些短信为中文。参见 Id., at 435（指出“确实，代理律师无须监督文件出示流程的每一个步骤，并可在某些方面依赖其客户”）。\n\n32. 首先，如前所述，受托人几乎承认 HK USA（HK USA）并无任何文件。参见动议，第9页。此外，受托人完全未尝试证明郭女士拥有其同意出示但尚未出示的额外符合请求的文件。[4]\n\n33. 关于债务人，受托人主张其关于未持有额外符合请求文件的陈述至多也只是可疑，动议，第45页，但受托人并未提供任何证据支持这一所谓信念。事实上，在其从债务人的专业人士处收到的数十万封电子邮件中，受托人未识别出任何一封发送给债务人或由债务人发送的电子邮件；若非债务人的破产案件及特权命令，绝大多数该等电子邮件本应受律师—委托人特权保护。显然，如债务人使用电子邮件，其会通过电子邮件与其律师沟通，而这些电子邮件将会包含在受托人从债务人的专业人士处收到的数量极其庞大的电子邮件范围内。[5]\n\n4 郭女士及 HK USA 通过其代理律师，曾多次试图获取有关维持 Lady May号的成本和费用的文件，但迄今未能成功取得该等文件。\n\n5 受托人在提出7月规则2004动议时即知悉，绝大多数符合请求的文件将由债务人以外的实体和个人出示，这正是受托人送达超过五十（50）份传票的原因。参见8月12日庭审记录，第12页（受托人代理律师陈述：“我们认为，这些动议所针对的对象是可能掌握该等信息的人士，例如曾被用于设立法律实体和保护资产的顾问、持有该等资产的亲属，或关联公司，这些才是我们动议真正针对的对象。”）。\n\n34. 受托人还援引五年前对债务人的一次采访，其中债务人被展示持有多部手机，以此作为债务人必定持有文件的证据。债务人在五年前可能拥有或可能未拥有的手机数量，与其今日持有何种文件无关。此外，债务人的代理律师告知受托人的代理律师，债务人有两部手机，用于发布社交媒体内容和发送短信。受托人完全知悉债务人的社交媒体活动，很可能每周7天、每天24小时监控债务人的账户。事实上，受托人对债务人社交媒体活动的监控，致使受托人的代理律师最近致电债务人的代理律师，以确定债务人为进入一栋建筑物接受证言录取而所需的 Covid 疫苗接种状况，因为受托人的代理律师通过监控其社交媒体账户知悉债务人对 Covid 疫苗的看法。\n\n35. 关于短信，在被告知送达给其的文件出示请求所寻求的文件类型后，债务人被指示搜索其中文短信，以查找符合请求的文件。债务人表示，其已进行了该项搜索，且未找到任何符合请求的文件，因为其短信涉及其推翻中国共产党的努力。[6]\n\n36. 受托人援引债务人于 February 6, 2016 在题为 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（Ace Decade Holdings Limited公司）v. UBS AG（瑞银集团）, Index No. 653316/2015 的诉讼中提交的一份宣誓书所提及的 WhatsApp 信息，作为债务人持有额外符合请求文件的证据。\n\n6 债务人持续推翻中国共产党的努力有充分记录，其中包括债务人演唱的歌曲；据受托人的代理律师称，该等歌曲一直可在 iTunes 上取得。受托人的代理律师主张，债务人必定拥有与其在 iTunes 上的音乐相关的文件。债务人表示，其并非为赚钱而创作和发行音乐，而是作为其推翻中国共产党的努力的一部分，因此不收取版税，也没有任何相关文件。债务人的代理律师已向另一名了解该事项的债务人个人代理律师确认债务人关于其音乐没有文件和版税的陈述。\n\n宣誓书中提及的 WhatsApp 信息已有7年和8年之久；且如受托人的代理律师在一次协商会议中被告知，债务人已不再持有该等被提及的短信——与受托人在动议中的陈述相反，其代理律师从未被告知该等短信已不存在。事实上，2016年宣誓书中提及的 WhatsApp 信息很可能在 Boise Schiller（博伊斯·席勒律师事务所）的档案中；该所曾在提交该宣誓书的诉讼中代理 Ace Decade Holding Limited（Ace Decade Holding Limited公司），因为其律师推定需要这些 WhatsApp 信息来起草该宣誓书，而他们几乎肯定确实如此。[7]\n\n37. 受托人向 Boise Schiller 调取了债务人的档案，其中包括与 Ace Decade 有关的文件请求。债务人没有理由相信该等档案未被出示。此外，债务人极不可能从 Boise Schiller 取得债务人的档案，因为债务人与 Boise Schiller 的关系以有关各方陷入激烈诉讼而告终，且该关系并未改善。\n\n38. 受托人还错误声称，债务人、HK USA 和郭女士不愿出示顾问和代理人档案中的文件。郭女士通过其代理律师联系了其在 PAX New York（PAX纽约）诉讼中的前代理律师，以取得与 HK USA 及 Lady May号有关的文件，而该等文件已被出示。无论如何，鉴于受托人送达的大量传票、没有任何证据表明债务人、郭女士或 HK USA 曾采取任何行动妨碍或阻止被传唤方遵守传票、为回应传票而出示的大量文件，以及债务人同意不向专业服务机构寻求取得并出示与为回应传票而出示的相同文件，该陈述实属荒谬。\n\n7 在毫无任何证据的情况下，并为再次贬损债务人，受托人暗示，若债务人并非亲自持有2014年和2015年的 WhatsApp 信息，而是由其专业人士持有，则其很可能毁损了证据。\n\n39. 受托人主张，无论是否已发出传票且专业人士是否已出示文件，债务人均必须向其专业人士寻求文件，因为送达给债务人的请求与送达给其顾问的请求不同。动议，第21页。送达给债务人及其专业人士的传票均广泛寻求与债务人所谓资产及所定义的关联实体等有关的文件。送达给债务人的传票确实包含比送达给专业服务机构的传票更多的请求，但额外请求通常是专门针对债务人的，专业服务机构不会持有该等请求所寻求的文件，包括：\n\n8. 与您使用的任何信用卡有关的所有文件，包括但不限于月度对账单或足以显示与此相关的所有购买、付款及其他交易的其他文件。\n\n12. 与 Qu Guo Jiao（曲国娇）就债务人、债务人家庭成员或任何关联实体的任何资产、负债、财务权益、经济状况或财务报表有关的所有通信。\n\n13. 与 Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波达斯基）就债务人、债务人家庭成员或任何关联实体的任何资产、负债、财务权益、经济状况或财务报表有关的所有通信。\n\n16. 债务人、债务人家庭的每一名个人成员及任何关联实体自2014年至今的纳税申报表。\n\n29. 任何主权国家、国家、城邦或自治区向您签发的所有护照或准许跨境旅行的类似文件，包括但不限于任何已过期或未使用的文件，以及该等护照或类似文件的所有页面。\n\n参见作为附件A附于本文件的《债务人对随于2022年8月19日向债务人送达的规则2004审查传票所附第11章受托人文件出示请求的答复和异议》副本。\n\n40. 无论请求之间有何差异，受托人均未提供任何证据表明被传唤的专业人士出示的文件少于其各自与债务人有关的完整档案。此外，且尤为重要的是，受托人的代理律师一直在就文件出示范围与被传唤的专业人士进行沟通和协商。事实上，债务人从在本院举行的听证会上所作陈述得知，受托人曾专门与 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）协商搜索词，因此受托人控制了 Brown Rudnick 向其出示的信息范围。受托人当然也曾与其他被传唤的专业人士协商并提供搜索词，并同样控制了其收到的信息范围。\n\n41. 当受托人已向该等专业服务机构规定其认为何种文件符合请求，并已根据其设定的参数收到文件出示时，要求债务人逐一联系已出示符合请求文件的每一名专业人士，以确认所有符合请求的文件均已出示，将毫无意义。\n\n42. 同样，鉴于受托人显然知道其所寻找的内容以及获得该等信息所必需的检索词，若债务人要求其专业人员使用检索词搜索相关文件，将极其困难，甚至不可能。事实上，若债务人向其专业人员提供检索词，然后基于使用该等检索词所得的搜索结果提交文件，受托人将提出强制动议，理由是债务人的检索词存在缺陷并导致结果不完整。\n\n43. 最后，受托人主张，债务人、Guo 女士（郭女士）及 HK USA（HK USA）必须在传票请求所规定的十年以上期间内，即自 February 5, 2012 至今，搜索并提交相关文件，因为该等文件与潜在的欺诈性转让请求权相关。对于债务人在其居住于香港期间于 2012-2014 年间作出的欺诈性转让（如有）所引起的请求权应适用何种法律，以及适用法律是否会允许一项已有十年甚至八年之久的欺诈性转让请求权继续进行，受托人完全未努力予以确定。因此，受托人所要求的时间范围不合理，且不应强制债务人或 Guo 女士搜索早于债务人在 2014 年末逃离中国之前的文件。[8] 对于较短但仍极为漫长的近八年期间，即自债务人逃离中国之日起，相关文件已被提交且仍在持续提交；债务人及 Guo 女士的律师曾提出该期间作为折衷方案。[9]\n\n44. 简言之，没有证据表明债务人、HK USA 或 Guo 女士未曾搜索并提交相关文件。因此，无任何事项可予强制，且该动议应被驳回。[10]\n\nB. 不应强制 Guo 女士及 HK USA 提交有关其个人资产的文件\n\n45. Rule 2004 审查的范围广泛，但并非没有限制。In re Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Gallup, 513 B.R. 761, 764 (Bankr. D. NM 2014)（“然而，[Rule 2004 审查]存在限制。对证人就与债务人事务无关或对其财产管理没有影响的事项进行审查，属于不当。”）；In re Refco, Inc., Case No. 06 C 5529, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4993, \\*9 (N.D. Ill, Jan 16, 2007)（“尽管破产 Rule 2004 所允许的审查范围广泛，但并非没有限制。对证人就与债务人事务无关或对财产管理没有影响的事项进行审查，属于不当。”）（引文略）。事实上，“显然，不得将 Rule 2004 用作对非债务人私人商业事务展开全面调查的工具。”In re Wilcher, 56 B.R. 428, 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985)。另见 In re Matthews No. 18-mc-80-LPS; No. 18-mc-153-LPS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178364, \\*5 (D. Del., Oct. 17, 2018)（“但是，[受托人]无权在未说明审查适当依据的情况下，无限制地调查其希望调查的任何事项。”）。\n\n46. 受托人已向 Guo 女士及 HK USA 送达范围极广的证据开示请求，要求提供有关其个人资产的信息，其中仅以示例说明如下：\n\n14. 足以显示贵方所有资产及收入或资金来源的文件。\n\n16. 贵方纳税申报表的副本。\n\n17. 足以显示贵方占有或控制的所有银行账户和投资账户的文件，包括每一该等账户的余额以及向该等账户及自该等账户进行的转账。\n\n18. 有关贵方使用的任何信用卡的所有文件，包括但不限于每月对账单或足以显示为债务人或关联实体利益而进行的所有相关购买的其他文件。\n\n见 September 2, 2022, Non-Party Mei Guo's Responses and Objections to the Chapter 11\n\nTrustee's Requests for the Production of Documents Included with the Rule 2004 Examination\n\nSubpoena Served Upon Ms. Guo on August 19, 2022，其副本作为 Exhibit\n\nB 附于本文件。相同的请求亦已向 HK USA 送达，尽管对于大多数请求，其并无任何相关文件可供提交。见 Motion, at 9。\n\n47. 受托人还通过其他请求寻求 Guo 女士的个人财务信息；该等请求同时寻求与债务人有关的文件，例如：\n\n10. 有关向债务人、债务人财产、债务人家属或关联实体提供、从其取得或代表其提供的任何赠与、利益或贷款的所有文件，包括但不限于足以显示该等赠与、利益或贷款的金额；该等赠与、利益或贷款的用途；提供该等赠与、利益或贷款的时间；以及任何贷款的条款、就任何贷款作出的所有陈述和保证、任何贷款的利率，以及任何贷款的所有还款证据的文件。\n\n11. 有关由债务人、债务人财产、债务人家属或关联实体设立、代表其设立或为其利益而设立的任何信托或类似文书的所有文件，包括但不限于足以显示该等信托设立的时间、设立人、为谁的利益而设立以及信托本金的文件。\n\n同上。该等请求要求 Guo 女士在超过 10 年的期间内提交所有类型的、与债务人或债务人财产绝对无关的文件。事实上，按字面理解，请求 10 将要求 Guo 女士提交其在过去 10 年内向任何人赠送的每一项礼物的所有相关文件，包括礼物受赠人收到的感谢卡。显然，不得强制作为非债务人的 Guo 女士提交该等类型的文件。Guo 女士和 HK 均未反对提交与债务人资产或债务人财产资产有关的文件，但确实反对且仍反对提交其自身的个人财务信息，而受托人无权获得该等信息。\n\n48. 受托人未能主张，更遑论证明，对 Guo 女士个人财务信息进行调查的任何适当依据。In re Matthews, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178364, \\*5（“但是，[受托人]无权在未说明审查适当依据的情况下，无限制地调查其希望调查的任何事项。”）。并无指称债务人曾向 Guo 女士或 HK USA 转让任何有价值之物。受托人的论点是，其无需任何依据即可获得 Guo 女士和 HK USA 的个人财务信息，因为债务人在理论上可能曾向其作出转让。若受托人对法律的看法正确，受托人将有权向本法院广泛管辖范围内的任何人发出传票，以获取个人财务信息，从而使其确信被传唤一方并不持有债务人的资产。那显然并非法律规定。\n\n49. 在没有明确说明的善意依据的情况下——而本案中此种依据严重欠缺——受托人无权“对非债务人的私人商业事务展开全面调查。”In re Wilcher, 56 B.R. at 434。因此，在该动议寻求强制提交 Guo 女士及 HK USA 的个人财务信息的范围内，该动议应被驳回。\n\nC. 对 Guo 女士及 HK USA 的任何进一步证据开示，均须根据联邦规则所提供的保障，通过 HK 对抗诉讼（HK Adversary）进行\n\n50. 不言自明，“‘一旦对抗诉讼或争议事项已经开始，证据开示应根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 进行，而非通过 Rule 2004 进行’，In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002), In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)（‘公认规则是，一旦对抗诉讼或争议事项已经开始，证据开示应依照 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 et seq. 进行，而非通过 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 审查进行。’）……。”In re SunEdison, Inc., 572 B.R. 482, 490 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)。另见 In re Cambridge Analytica LLC, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)（“有一项公认规则，即一旦对抗诉讼或争议事项已经开始，证据开示应根据适用的 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 进行，而非根据 Rule 2004 进行。”）；In re Ecam Publ'ns, Inc., 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)（“一旦对抗诉讼或另一争议事项已经提起，各方必须依照 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 对该诉讼进行证据开示。”）。\n\n51. HK 对抗诉讼于 April 2022 提起，HK USA 为原告。Guo 女士及 HK USA 均于 August 19, 2022 通过各自律师收到 Rule 2004 审查传票的送达。当时，Guo 女士并非 HK 对抗诉讼的一方，且该诉讼中的争议事项仅限于由谁拥有 Lady May 这一狭窄问题。\n\n52. Guo 女士及 HK USA 于 September 2, 2022 对向其送达的传票所附文件请求提出异议，并于 September 16, 2022 提交文件，Guo 女士此后又作出补充提交。\n\n53. 受托人于 September 23, 2022 在 HK 对抗诉讼中提交其广泛的反诉，并由此将 Guo 女士追加为反诉被告。根据反诉指控的广度及其所附证据，受托人在提交反诉之前很早便一直在准备其反诉，并且可能在向 Guo 女士及 HK USA 发出传票之前即已开始准备。尽管知悉将会提出一项反诉，该反诉将增加 Guo 女士为被告，并通过增加大量关于债务人及其被指控控制的实体的指控而大幅扩大 HK 对抗诉讼的范围，受托人在其“Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor (Doc. No. 638)”中表示，“这并非对抗诉讼原告通过 Rule 2004 试图削弱 Bankruptcy Rules 就对抗诉讼中的证据开示所提供保障的典型情形。”同上，at 19, n.25。这正是受托人试图做的事情。\n\n54. 反诉中与债务人有关的指控，聚焦于受托人通过 Rule 2004 审查传票向 Guo 女士及 HK USA 寻求证据开示的许多相同事项。最为恶劣的是，受托人已针对 Guo 女士及 HK USA 提交判决前救济申请，寻求扣押其各自资产，并针对 Guo 女士提交禁令申请，实质上寻求相同救济，同时又提出动议，要求通过 Rule 2004 强制提交涉及包括但不限于 Guo 女士及 HK USA 个人资产在内的大量信息。\n\n55. Guo 女士（郭美）和 HK USA（HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC）有权获得《联邦破产程序规则》和《联邦民事诉讼规则》的保障。参见 In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836, at 841（“鉴于规则 2004 在实体内容上的差异，法院表示担忧，规则 2004 审查不应被用作规避《联邦民事诉讼规则》保障措施的策略。”）。受托人不得获准通过使用规则 2004 来规避这些规则，以获取显然意图用于对抗程序且若非其使用规则 2004 便无权获得的证据开示。因此，就 Guo 女士和 HK USA 而言，强制提交动议应予驳回，并应命令受托人通过 HK 对抗程序寻求与其有关的任何额外证据开示，包括通过该动议所寻求的证据开示。\n\nD. 债务人的完整护照不具相关性\n\n56. 受托人寻求提交债务人的完整护照，因为受托人认为，知晓债务人曾前往何处可使受托人获知债务人的资产所在地。受托人的逻辑完全错误。即使债务人拥有资产，也不能因债务人曾前往某地便推论其在该地点拥有资产。事实上，若将受托人的论点推至其逻辑结论，受托人将有权每天 24 小时、每周 7 天监控债务人的行动，仅仅因为债务人的行程可能偶然引导受托人找到债务人据称隐藏的资产。债务人是破产程序中的债务人，而非逃亡罪犯；受托人是破产受托人，而非赏金猎人。受托人无权取得债务人的完整护照，其强制提交该护照的努力应予驳回。[11]\n\n11 债务人仅因该页附于已提交的债务人纳税申报表，才提交了其护照的第一页。\n\n因此，债务人、Guo 女士和 HK USA 恭请法院驳回该动议，并给予其等司法公正所要求的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022 年 11 月 14 日，地点：康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n债务人 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）、对抗程序原告、反诉被告及动议人；HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC、对抗程序反诉被告及动议人；以及对抗程序反诉被告及动议人 MEI GUO（郭美）\n\n/s/ James M. Moriarty\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nJames M. Moriarty (ct21876)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5485\n电子邮件：[aromney@zeislaw.com] [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com]\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2022 年 11 月 14 日，前述文件副本已通过电子方式提交。法院电子提交系统将通过电子邮件向所有当事人发送本次提交的通知，或向无法接受电子提交者按《电子提交通知》所示通过邮寄方式发送通知。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交。\n\n/s/ James M. Moriarty\nJames M. Moriarty (ct21876)","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Brady","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":8183,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:25:05"}