{"id":"court_ctb_1220_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1220,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-12-11","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"庭审记录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1220（2022-12-11提交）。本文件为2022年11月30日法官 Julie A. Manning 主持的听证会完整笔录，审理议题包括聘请 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 律师事务所担任 Genever Holdings LLC 共同法律顾问、受托人陈述的封存动议、破产法第2004条调查与传票强制执行，以及相关保护令争议等多项程序事项。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073, ECF No. 1220 (filed Dec. 11, 2022). This document is the official transcript of the November 30, 2022 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning regarding multiple matters, including the application to employ Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. as co-counsel for Genever Holdings LLC, motions to seal, Rule 2004 examinations and subpoena enforcement, and protective order issues.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, GENEVER HOLDINGS \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut CORPORATION and GENEVER \\* November 30, 2022 HOLDINGS, LLC, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF APPLICATION TO EMPLOY NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. AS DEBTOR GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC's CO-COUNSEL; MOTION TO SEAL RE STATEMENT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE; MOTION FOR 2004 EXAMINATION OF ADD'L LEGAL AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO THE DEBTOR, ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED W/DEBTOR and RELEVANT MEDIA COMPANIES AND BANK (SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS); MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR, MEI GUO, HK INTL, HING CHI NGOK, GREENWICH LAND LLC, LAMP CAPITAL LLC AND GOLDEN SPRING TO COMPLY W/RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS and MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, HK AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. International and STEPHEN KINDSETH, ESQ. Mei Guo: JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: DOUGLAS G. SKALKA, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 3 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 11:10 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. LUFT: Good morning, Your Honor. Avi Luft, of Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Sorry, I didn't get your name. I'm sorry. MR. LUFT: Sure. It is Avi, A-V-I, last name Luft, L-U-F-T. THE COURT: And Attorney Luft has an appearance in the case -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. THE COURT: -- I believe. MR. LUFT: I do, Your Honor. THE COURT: I think I've seen it. Thank you. Counsel for PAX? Oh, I'm sorry. Attorney Skalka, did want to be heard first?\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 4 MR. SKALKA: No, Your Honor. Just to be consistent with the trustee's representation, Douglas Skalka, Neubert, Pepe and Monteith, on behalf of -- as local counsel for the trustee, and also here on behalf of Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings -- THE COURT: I cannot hear you, for whatever reason. MR. SKALKA: Oh, I'm sorry. Douglas Skalka, Neubert, Pepe and Monteith, as local counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee, as well as counsel for Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC. THE COURT: Thank you. Sorry. For whatever reason that was not picking up your voice, so I apologize, but we just want to make sure we hear everyone properly. MR. SARNOFF: Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of Creditor PAX. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. SMITH: Annecca Smith, Robinson and Cole, Connecticut counsel for PAX. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. CLAIBORN: Good morning. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GOLDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Irve\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 5 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 5 Goldman, Pullman and Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. KINDSETH: Good morning, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth, Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok, as well as Mei Guo and HK International. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. ROMNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, also for the debtor, HK International and Mei Guo. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. MORIARTY: Good morning, Your Honor. James Moriarty, Zeisler & Zeisler, for the same parties. THE COURT: Good morning. Okay. We have, as I said, I stated, we have five matters on the calendar in the main case and I'd like to take the matters in the order in which they appear in the calendar. Which is, first, Attorney Skalka, the application to employ that was filed in the main case. So would you please proceed. MR. SKALKA: Yes. Good morning, Your Honor. Again, Douglas Skalka, Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, here on my firm's application to be retained as co-counsel in the Genever Holdings, LLC case.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 6 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 6 My firm has already been retained as local counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee and is serving as counsel for Genever Holdings Corporation, which is the parent company of Genever Holdings, LLC. As I believe you know, Your Honor, the Genever Holdings, LLC case had been filed in the Southern District of New York and was transferred to this district a few weeks ago. As a result the trustee and the director of Genever Holdings Corporation asked that my firm appear and be retained to serve as counsel with Goldberg Weprin, who had been the New York counsel on behalf of the debtor. I've received no objection to the retention application. My intention is that my firm would mostly likely be serving more of a lead counsel role, but we'll refer to and rely on Goldberg Weprin for some of the history and background that they've had in the case. And as a result, I'd ask that the retention application be approved. THE COURT: And that was my only question, essentially, upon reviewing the application is how the roles, how the responsibilities would be split between the two firms because you will be co-counsel. But obviously, as you already know, and I'm sure\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 7 other counsel knows, we have to just do our best to make sure there's not duplication of efforts and things of that nature. But it sounds like what you're telling me is that you firm will be taking a more active role than co-counsel, but co-counsel may be needed to advise or provide you with additional information that you might not have had because it occurred during the case in New York? MR. SKALKA: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. The U.S. Trustee has no objection. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone wish to be heard on the application to employ Neubert, Pepe and Monteith as co-counsel to the debtor in the Genever Holdings, LLC case? 18 Okay. Hearing nothing, then I, as I stated, Attorney Skalka, I've reviewed the application. I understand the reason why the debtor's seeking to employ your firm as co-counsel. The application meets with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and rules and our local rules. No one has filed a written objection to your motion, excuse me, to your application. The United States\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 7 of 113\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 8 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 8 Trustee's Office has filed a statement of no objection. I've reviewed the proposed order. Oh, Attorney Claiborn, is there something you wanted to add? MS. CLAIBORN: Just to correct the record, Your Honor, I did not file a statement, but I'm here today telling the Court I have no objection. THE COURT: Thank you for correcting the record. The United States Trustee has stated on the record that it has no objection to the application to employ Neubert, Pepe and Monteith as co-counsel to the debtor in the Genever Holdings, LLC case which is jointly administered obviously with the other two Chapter 11 cases. I have reviewed the proposed order and I have no questions or concerns about the proposed order. Attorney Claiborn, have you reviewed -- MS. CLAIBORN: I have no concerns with that order, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Then the application is granted and the proposed order can enter. MR. SKALKA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Now, turning to the motion to seal in the main case, ECF No. 1134, who will be making that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 9 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 9 argument? MR. DESPINS: I will, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: So as Your Honor knows, we had filed a statement, the statement of the trustee, regarding the social media campaign waged by the debtor. We redacted only information that would be damaging to the parties mentioned because we would be reposting, you know, these things, so we redacted links to that, or addresses or names. For example, with my daughters, we didn't put the names in there. So we think we redacted it to the minimum extent possible and, therefore, anyone can read this and understand clearly what's going on, but they won't have the exact link to go and find it. Of course, Your Honor and the debtor and other parties that, like the U.S. Trustee, I think have access to that so we would ask that the motion be granted. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion to seal? (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. The motion to seal has been pending for more than a week. And although a hearing was set on the motion to seal on Monday, no one has filed any\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
10 |\n| 1 | opposition to the motion to seal.
There is no one |\n| 2 | participating in this hearing that is opposing the motion to |\n| 3 | seal. |\n| 4 | And under the very specific facts and |\n| 5 | circumstances of this case, the Court thinks, believes and |\n| 6 | finds that it is appropriate to seal the redacted statement |\n| 7 | of the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 8 | So for the reasons stated on the record, the |\n| 9 | motion to seal will be granted. |\n| 10 | And, Trustee Despins, a virtual order will enter |\n| 11 | that's similar to an order that was entered in the related |\n| 12 | -- in a related adversary proceeding because you've already |\n| 13 | redacted a substantial portion. |\n| 14 | I'm sorry.
I should say just the opposite. |\n| 15 | The statement that you've filed has limited |\n| 16 | redactions and so I will be granting the sealing of that |\n| 17 | document and an order will enter along the same lines very |\n| 18 | similar provisions as in information that was redacted in |\n| 19 | the adversary proceeding.
Okay? |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | That will not enter obviously until later today, |\n| 23 | but it should enter today. |\n| 24 | With regard to the next matter, the next matter on |\n| 25 | the calendar is the motion for 2004 Examinations of |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 10 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 11 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
11 |\n| 1 | additional legal and financial advisors to the debtor filed |\n| 2 | on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 3 | So who will be arguing that motion? |\n| 4 | MR. SKALKA:
I will, Your Honor, on behalf of the |\n| 5 | trustee.
Douglas Skalka of Neubert, Pepe and Monteith. |\n| 6 | Your Honor, this is the trustee's second |\n| 7 | supplemental omnibus motion for a series of 2004 |\n| 8 | Examinations.
I believe this is the fourth 2004 Examination |\n| 9 | motion the trustee has filed since his appointment over the |\n| 10 | summer. |\n| 11 | This particular motion seeks to examine up to 53 |\n| 12 | examinees, who are described as advisors, related persons, |\n| 13 | banks, and vendors who the trustee believes has potentially |\n| 14 | critical information regarding the individual debtor's |\n| 15 | finances, assets and liabilities. |\n| 16 | This motion is similar in structure and format to |\n| 17 | the other 2004 Examination motions sought by the trustee. |\n| 18 | In the motion, we describe the various examinees, their |\n| 19 | relationship to the individual debtor, and why the trustee |\n| 20 | believes these examinees may have information relevant to |\n| 21 | this case and as part of his investigation in this case. |\n| 22 | As I believe Your Honor knows, the trustee has had |\n| 23 | to undertake a very extensive and broad investigation in |\n| 24 | this case.
He's received very little cooperation from the |\n| 25 | debtor in connection with his investigation of the debtor's |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 12 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
12 |\n| 1 | assets and liabilities.
And this motion, again, is |\n| 2 | consistent with the previous applications for examinations. |\n| 3 | The application does note that there is some |\n| 4 | information sought from specifically two of the examinees |\n| 5 | related to the Lady May, and those two examinees are |\n| 6 | described in the motion as Apsley and DWF.
It's the |\n| 7 | trustee's understanding that Apsley was the seller of the |\n| 8 | Lady May and DWF had represented Apsley in his sale of the |\n| 9 | Lady May. |\n| 10 | The actual document requests sought by the trustee |\n| 11 | are broad as to these two examinees.
They look for |\n| 12 | documents just like all the other examinees related to the |\n| 13 | debtor, the related parties, the family members, the |\n| 14 | entities described in the application, so it is part of -- |\n| 15 | this effort is part of the trustee's investigation. |\n| 16 | It is not an effort to skirt or go around the -- |\n| 17 | or to be -- to have discovery in connection with the pending |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding as noted by the objection filed by HK |\n| 19 | International. |\n| 20 | There is very limited requests of other examinees |\n| 21 | that might touch on the Lady May, but those parties, as |\n| 22 | described, or those examinees, as far as the trustee knows, |\n| 23 | are not directly related to the Lady May.
They're not |\n| 24 | defendants or parties in the pending adversary proceeding |\n| 25 | and, therefore, the debtor, excuse me, the trustee contends |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 13 that this discovery, this examination, this investigation is proper and is not subject to the prior pending proceeding doctrine that is raised by the objection filed. So for those reasons, the trustee asks that the application be granted and he be allowed to continue with this examination of the examinees described in the application. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, just a question of process. I received a message saying that the -- I don't know if it's the AT&T line or the line where people can listen in is not open. I don't know if that's intentional or not. THE COURT: It is intentional. MR. DESPINS: Oh, okay. Thank you. THE COURT: It's a public hearing. If people want to listen, they can come to the courtroom. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay? I don't have any questions at this point, Attorney Skalka, thank you. MR. SKALKA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: There is an objection, obviously, filed to your -- to this motion on behalf of Mei Guo and HK Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 13 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 14 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
14 |\n| 1 | International, so who's going to be arguing that objection? |\n| 2 | MR. MORIARTY:
I will, Your Honor.
James |\n| 3 | Moriarty.
It seems like the lectern is the place to be |\n| 4 | today. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Wherever you're comfortable, Attorney |\n| 6 | Moriarty. |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you. |\n| 8 | So, Your Honor, the objection that was filed by |\n| 9 | Ms. Guo and HK International (USA) is limited, and there are |\n| 10 | two subpoenas that are included with the 53 subpoenas that |\n| 11 | the trustee is purporting to serve upon the granting of the |\n| 12 | motion.
One is to Apsley Yachts, Limited.
And the other |\n| 13 | one is DWFLOP.
And as just described to the Court, Apsley |\n| 14 | Yachts, Limited is believed to be the seller of the Lady May |\n| 15 | in 2015.
And DWFLOP, as set forth in the trustee's motion |\n| 16 | at page 5, is believed to be an entity that represented the |\n| 17 | seller in connection with the sale of the Lady May. |\n| 18 | So the only reason to serve these subpoenas is to |\n| 19 | obtain information regarding the sale of the Lady May.
And |\n| 20 | the sale of the Lady May is at issue in the adversary |\n| 21 | proceeding that has been filed by HK USA -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't know if the sale of the |\n| 23 | Lady May is at issue.
The ownership of the Lady May is at |\n| 24 | issue. |\n| 25 | MR. MORIARTY:
Okay.
You are correct, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 15 The ownership of the Lady May is at issue. And what this subpoena is seeking is it's seeking documents related to payments for the Lady May. So where did the money come from? And that goes directly to the issue of ownership. They're seeking -- THE COURT: Well, that's not necessarily true. I don't necessarily agree with you on that. Apsley Yachts, Limited and DWFLOP are not parties to the adversary proceeding. MR. MORIARTY: Correct, Your Honor. They're not parties to the adversary proceeding. But the discovery that is being sought via this 2004 Exam goes directly to the matters at issue in that adversary proceeding. The trustee alleges that the money for the boat, for the Lady May, came from the debtor. It initiated from the debtor. And they're seeking documents from these entities to determine where payment for the Lady May came from. That goes directly to the issue in the adversary proceeding. And Ms. Guo and HK are entitled to their protections of the federal rules. THE COURT: They're not being served with a subpoena so what are they entitled, what protection are they entitled to? Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 15 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 16 MR. MORIARTY: Well, specifically, Your Honor, Rule 45 would provide for a more narrow scope of a subpoena. THE COURT: Well, that's a protective order. That's not an issue saying that they can't serve them with a subpoena under Rule 2004. MR. MORIARTY: The other issue, Your Honor -- and of course Ms. Guo and HK would have to have standing to file the protective order in the first instance. And they do have standing to object here because the trustee is trying to make an end-run around the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by serving a 2004 Exam subpoena which would be far broader than the subpoena that could be served pursuant to the Federal Rules which apply in the adversary proceeding. Also, under Rule 45, the trustee would be required to provide counsel for Ms. Guo and HK USA with any documents that they obtain in response to the subpoenas that they're purporting to serve. And I believe that this issue is going to be before the Court at some point in the near future. The trustee's position is going to be we're not going to give you those documents because they were obtained pursuant to a Rule 2004 subpoena. We're conducting an investigation. And anything we obtain pursuant to Rule 2004 is part of that investigation and, therefore, our work product. Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 16 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 17 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 17 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they would be required to provide any documents obtained from a third party pursuant to a subpoena to Ms. Guo as a counterclaim defendant and to HK as the plaintiff and a counterclaim defendant in that adversary proceeding. There are other subpoenas. There's a total of I believe 53. The two we were just discussing, and then there's 43 additional subpoenas, each of which have a specific request that says all documents regarding the Lady May. Under Rule 45, there would have to be a good faith basis to believe that these parties have documents regarding the Lady May. So really what the objection is, Your Honor, is the Apsley Yachts subpoena and the DWFLOP subpoena should not be served pursuant to Rule 2004. To the extent the trustee wants to obtain discovery from those two entities, it should be done in the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: So why do you have standing? Why do your clients have standing to object to a subpoena being issued to Apsley Yachts and DWFLOP? MR. MORIARTY: Because my clients are a plaintiff in an adversary proceeding and counterclaim defendants in an adversary proceeding.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 18 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 18 THE COURT: Okay. In which Apsley Yachts and DWFLOP are not parties? MR. MORIARTY: Correct, Your Honor. But, they are seeking -- the trustee is seeking discovery pursuant to Rule 2004. And the cases are legion that once an adversary -- THE COURT: Show me a case where this fact pattern exists in your cases that are legion with regard to parties that aren't named as defendants or parties in an adversary proceeding. MR. MORIARTY: Well, Your Honor, I don't know that I can find you a case where a party -- THE COURT: Well, isn't -- isn't that what you'd need to do to support your objection? MR. MORIARTY: Our objection is supported, Your Honor. What I was going to say is if the trustee was going to serve discovery on the parties to the adversary proceeding it would not be done via subpoena. It would be done via document requests. THE COURT: Well, you know, he could serve a subpoena in the adversary proceeding on your parties. He could absolutely do that. MR. MORIARTY: I agree with you. But the normal course would be to do it Rule 34 or 7034.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 19 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 19 So we cite cases beginning on page 3 of the objection, Your Honor. And, for example, the *In re Enron* case from the Southern District of New York, the *In re Bennett Funding* case from the Northern District of New York. And in the *Bennett* case we have a parenthetical. The well-recognized rule is that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced, discovery is made pursuant to Rule 7026 et seq. rather than by -- THE COURT: Right. And that talks about the parties to that adversary proceeding, Counsel. Those cases talk about you can't seek a 2004 Examination as to a defendant who you've already made a defendant in an adversary proceeding. MR. MORIARTY: I understand that, Your Honor, but it goes further. So if you look at -- THE COURT: How does it go further? Show me how it goes further. MR. MORIARTY: The *In re SunEdison, Inc.* case which we quote at paragraph 7. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Hold on a second. Let me look at the case while we're talking. (Pause.) THE COURT: On page 3, you don't have a full cite to *SunEdison*. You just cite the first page -- the page that\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 20 you're referring to. MR. MORIARTY: It's a 572 Bankruptcy, Your Honor. And you are correct. There's a pinpoint cite to page 490. THE COURT: At 572 Bankruptcy what? That's not a full cite. MR. MORIARTY: I agree with you. There is a typographical error in the objection. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: But it's 490 of 572. THE COURT: I understand that. But it's not pulling that case up that way, at least what I'm working on is not. (Pause.) THE COURT: So you're saying it's at 490? MR. MORIARTY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. (Pause.) THE COURT: Well, in *SunEdison*, the debtors were seeking a Rule 2004 examination against D.E. Shaw Composite Holdings, Inc. and Shaw objected to that because there was already a case pending against Shaw in state court. That's not the fact pattern we have here. MR. MORIARTY: What *SunEdison* says at page 490, Your Honor, is the pending proceeding rule is based on the different safeguards that attend Rule 2004 and civil Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 20 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 21 litigation discovery and reflects a concern that a party to a litigation could circumvent his adversary's rights by using Rule 2004. And the rights that would be circumvented here, as I've described, would be the right that the defendants, the counterclaim defendants, and HK as the plaintiff, would have to obtain any documents that the trustee receives pursuant to a subpoena that is served, which those rights don't exist in a Rule 2004 context, and to get pre-notice, which we do have here, of a document subpoena that's being issued, but also the more narrow scope of the subpoena under Rule 45, and those are the rules that are being safeguarded. THE COURT: Judge Bernstein says that the pending proceeding rule is based on different safeguards that attend civil litigation discovery. That's what he says. But he also says that the principle applies to pending state court litigation and that's what he was addressing in this case, in this *SunEdison* case. This is not the fact pattern you have here. The parties against whom the debtor is -- the trustee is seeking discovery are not parties in the adversary proceeding. MR. MORIARTY: I cannot dispute that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: What I do dispute is that there are Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 21 of\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nsafeguards. What I do dispute is that the trustee is trying\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 22 to circumvent safeguards here. He is trying to circumvent safeguards and those safeguards are built into Rule 45. These safeguards -- THE COURT: And what in -- what in Rule 45 should I be looking at? MR. MORIARTY: As I said, Your Honor -- and I believe this is in Rule 45, if it's not, it is at least implied in Rule 45 -- and that is that any documents that are obtained pursuant to a subpoena in a litigation have to be provided to your adversary. THE COURT: Where does it say that? MR. MORIARTY: As I said, Your Honor, I don't -- I can't pinpoint it for you, but it as a minimum implied that there is an obligation in litigation if you serve a subpoena that you have to then provide the documents to your adversary. And Rule 45 -- THE COURT: Honestly, that's -- okay. I don't see anywhere in your papers or any cites that support that claim that you just made or anything in Rule 45 that I'm looking at that supports that claim. MR. MORIARTY: Rule 45 has a requirement, Your Honor, that before a document subpoena is served that you have to send your adversary a notice of service. So you have to tell your adversary I'm going to be serving a document subpoena on this third party. And the reasons are\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 22 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 23 two-fold: one, to give the adversary an opportunity to object if there's a basis to object; but also it puts the adversary on notice that discovery is being taken from a third party and that that discovery should then be provided to the adversary. THE COURT: I don't see where in Rule 45 it says what you just said it says. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, as I said, I can't pinpoint it for you right now, but I know for a fact that it is in there. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: That requirement to provide pre- notice is in there. THE COURT: Notice to other parties before service is in Rule 45(a)(3), which says, if subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible claims, or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served on the person to whom it's directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party. Where does it say you then once you get these documents you have to give them to other parties in the lawsuit? Where does it say that? MR. MORIARTY: As I said, Your Honor, I'm not telling you that it specifically says that in Rule 45. Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 23 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 24 THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. MORIARTY: And I do have -- THE COURT: Anything further? MR. MORIARTY: -- case law cited in my brief, but it is a rule, and at least implied in Rule 45 that that is required. THE COURT: Okay. Anything further? MR. MORIARTY: No, thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. I'll take this motion under advisement. So let's move on to the next matter on today's calendar, which is the motion of the Chapter 11 Trustee for the entry of an order compelling the debtor, the individual debtor, Mei Guo, and HK International, to comply with the Rule 2004 Examination. Counsel, would you just state your name for the record, please. MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. THE COURT: Thank you. Sorry, we just need to do that for the audio portion of the hearing. MR. LUFT: Absolutely. And if you -- if I can't be heard, please let me know. THE COURT: Please. Please proceed. Sorry, I Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 24 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 25 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 25 thought you were talking to me. But you're right. The courtroom deputy will let us know if for some reason we can't be heard. Thank you.\n\n MR. LUFT: Your Honor, the reason we're here today on this matter is because the trustee, pursuant to the 2004 order you entered, served subpoenas on the debtor, his daughter, Mei Guo, the entity that she controls, HK USA, which controls the yacht, as well as Golden Spring and Lamp Capital, two entities that theoretically fund everything that the debtor does, yet we have been almost completely stymied in our attempts to get documents from any of these people. And by that, I want to be very specific.\n\n The debtor has produced in total 46 documents. That's his claim, that that's all the documents he has in the world. We have asked over ten years. We'll get to that. He's at least said over eight years, that's what he has. Of those 46 documents, he's found a government stimulus check, some Genever corporate documents, a tax return, and a litigation -- some litigation funding agreements.\n\n There is not a single communication. There is not a single transfer of money, despite the fact that he claims he earns no money and yet lives like a billionaire. None of that is in any of his documents.\n\nHis daughter, who purports to own a \\$30 million\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 26 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
26 |\n| 1 | yacht, and is alleged to own entities, including Eastern |\n| 2 | Profit and HK USA, found 19 total documents over that |\n| 3 | period. |\n| 4 | Golden Spring and Lamp Capital, they just didn't |\n| 5 | respond.
Now, Golden Spring's made two appearances in your |\n| 6 | court prior to asking to withdraw, yet when we served -- we |\n| 7 | served both of them and they have just been silent. |\n| 8 | So while they purport to pay for all the debtor's |\n| 9 | expenses, including I believe this litigation, as well as |\n| 10 | other litigations, they will not even respond to the trustee |\n| 11 | to provide any documents. |\n| 12 | We are getting nothing despite extraordinary |\n| 13 | amounts of work, multiple meets and confers, multiple |\n| 14 | attempts to get these documents.
So that -- and, Your |\n| 15 | Honor, that's the documents that they say they will produce. |\n| 16 | So now let's go on to what they say they won't |\n| 17 | produce. |\n| 18 | Both the debtor, Ms. Guo, and HK USA have said |\n| 19 | they refuse to search for any documents related to any |\n| 20 | assets that are not \"the debtors.\"
And I want to be clear |\n| 21 | here.
By that they mean assets that the debtor admits are |\n| 22 | his, which Your Honor knows from looking at his schedules |\n| 23 | amounts to less than \\$4,000. |\n| 24 | So they said, well, 2004 is about looking at |\n| 25 | assets of the debtor.
Well, he only has less than \\$4,000, |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 27 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
27 |\n| 1 | so those are the assets of the debtor. |\n| 2 | They read out the fact that 2004 talks about |\n| 3 | documents relating to the assets, the fact that this 2004 |\n| 4 | motion was specifically designed to go look for where his |\n| 5 | assets really are given the fact that he lives like a |\n| 6 | billionaire.
Given the fact that the courts have found him |\n| 7 | to use shell companies to hide himself.
That in the case of |\n| 8 | the Lady May we already have a New York State Court saying |\n| 9 | of course he's the beneficial owner and controls the yacht. |\n| 10 | Right? |\n| 11 | Yet, they're saying nope, we won't give that. |\n| 12 | With the exception of the Lady May, we'll make an exception, |\n| 13 | because the Court there, and in the case of Sherry |\n| 14 | Netherland, have already made a judicial finding that he, in |\n| 15 | fact, owns it.
I don't know.
Maybe after the last week Ace |\n| 16 | Decade can fall under this purview, although, to date, Your |\n| 17 | Honor, it does not.
Another asset he would have claimed -- |\n| 18 | does not mind -- no one can get any documents about it. |\n| 19 | Now, of course, the impact of that is to create a |\n| 20 | null set.
Right?
If you say that the only -- you only have |\n| 21 | less than \\$4,000 of assets, and then you say I'll only look |\n| 22 | for documents relating to what are \"my assets,\" then not |\n| 23 | surprisingly you say I have no documents and you have no way |\n| 24 | to look at this.
That's ridiculous. |\n| 25 | I sat on these calls.
And I couldn't understand |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 28 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
28 |\n| 1 | what -- given the fact that we filed a 2004 motion, given |\n| 2 | the Court's clear instruction, when she appointed the |\n| 3 | trustee, that she wanted this to be investigated if the |\n| 4 | debtor was really taking the position that the trustee could |\n| 5 | not look into assets that may be in the possession of other |\n| 6 | companies, shell companies, family members and what not. |\n| 7 | So there's a reference in both of the pleadings |\n| 8 | regarding a Lady May II example.
And I just want to explain |\n| 9 | it.
There is no Lady May II to my knowledge, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | But I did want to understand because they have produced |\n| 11 | documents about the Lady May. |\n| 12 | So I said if there was an identical yacht in every |\n| 13 | way to the Lady May, meaning the debtor would have had all |\n| 14 | the same facts and circumstances that led Judge Ostrager to |\n| 15 | find them to be the beneficial owner, right, if you had all |\n| 16 | that stuff about this Lady May, but also similar to the Lady |\n| 17 | May, Ms. Guo and HK USA would continue to assert that they |\n| 18 | own it and thus it's not a \"asset of the debtor,\" would you |\n| 19 | produce documents about that boat?
And I was told, no, we |\n| 20 | wouldn't, because that would not be an asset of the debtor. |\n| 21 | They say that in their papers. |\n| 22 | So, in short, what we have is a rule that they're |\n| 23 | creating which says -- and the distinction they make is, |\n| 24 | well, the actual Lady May Judge Ostrager has actually made a |\n| 25 | ruling on.
And because there's an actual ruling in that |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 29 of
113 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
29 | |\n| 1 | case that says that Mr. Kwok is the beneficial owner, that | |\n| 2 | we'll produce.
But if Judge Ostrager has not made such a | |\n| 3 | ruling, then, in fact, we would not produce information on | |\n| 4 | that asset. | |\n| 5 | Well, that sets up a circumstance, Your Honor, | |\n| 6 | where the trustee would effectively have to prove something | |\n| 7 | is an asset to get discovery or investigation information | |\n| 8 | about the asset which would be necessary to prove it. | |\n| 9 | That's circular and it doesn't work.
That's not | |\n| 10 | how 2004 works, that I have to first prove that something is | |\n| 11 | an asset of the debtor before I can get 2004 investigation | |\n| 12 | on it.
If I could already prove it, Your Honor, I wouldn't | |\n| 13 | need to investigate it. | |\n| 14 | Now, in their papers, in their objection, the | |\n| 15 | debtors then turn and say, well, despite the fact that we've | |\n| 16 | made this objection and we've frustrated you for this | |\n| 17 | period, in fact, the debtor doesn't actually have any | |\n| 18 | documents related to his family or their assets and thus | |\n| 19 | nothing was withheld on that basis. | |\n| 20 | Now, Your Honor, the debtor has told this court | |\n| 21 | multiple times that every expense in his life, of which | |\n| 22 | there are quite a few, are paid for by his family.
His | |\n| 23 | home, his yacht, his luxury cars, they're all paid for by | |\n| 24 | the family, and yet he tells you I wouldn't have a single | |\n| 25 | document related to it.
I wouldn't have a single transfer | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 30 of dollars to say anything. It's just not believable. I want to turn now -- similarly, Ms. Guo and HK USA make a similar argument, except Ms. Guo says not only will she not produce any documents related to anyone else in the family or the associated entities, she won't even produce any documents about her assets. And in their objection, interestingly, at paragraph 6, they write that Ms. Guo rightfully refuses to produce these categories of documents because \"there is no evidence or even allegation that the debtor has ever transferred an asset or anything of value to Ms. Guo.\" Now, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Hold on a second. What document are you looking at, Counsel? MR. LUFT: I'm looking at their objection, Your Honor, at paragraph 6. THE COURT: Do you have the document number in front of you? MR. LUFT: I do, Your Honor. I believe it is ECF 1090. THE COURT: Okay. Give me a second, please, so I make sure I'm reading -- MR. LUFT: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: I would like to be able to read exactly what you're reading from. Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 30 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 31 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 31 MR. LUFT: Of course. THE COURT: Just give me one second, please. MR. LUFT: And if it's helpful, it's at page 3 of 25 of the document. THE COURT: Thank you. (Pause.) THE COURT: Sorry. It's just taking a moment for it to load up. MR. LUFT: Take your time, Your Honor. Please tell me when you're ready. THE COURT: Paragraph 6, page 3. MR. LUFT: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I'm there. Go ahead. MR. LUFT: All right. They say that she was right not to produce these documents because, \"there is no evidence or even allegation that the debtor has ever transferred an asset or anything of value to Ms. Guo.\" Now, Your Honor, given how often we've talked about the Lady May in this case, I don't know how anyone could assert that there is no allegation, much less evidence, that the debtor ever transferred something to Ms. Guo. She claims to be the holder of a yacht that a New York court has already found belongs to the debtor. Similarly, another court in New York, the Federal court, Judge Liman, found Eastern Profit, a shell company\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 32 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
32 |\n| 1 | that the debtor -- that Ms. Guo controls is \"In essence, a |\n| 2 | shell corporation for the debtor.\" |\n| 3 | So the idea that there's no evidence that Ms. Guo |\n| 4 | has any connection to getting assets from the debtor such |\n| 5 | that there would be no reason to investigate her assets is |\n| 6 | simply false. |\n| 7 | In addition, Your Honor, I can tell you that |\n| 8 | through our investigation we have found that the daughter is |\n| 9 | the beneficial owner of at least nine BVI entities |\n| 10 | identified to date. |\n| 11 | Nothing I know about the debtor -- the daughter, |\n| 12 | Ms. Guo, has -- suggests any connection as to why she would |\n| 13 | independently have numerous BVI shell companies.
But |\n| 14 | certainly it's a question that the debtor [sic] should be |\n| 15 | allowed to investigate and look into. |\n| 16 | Yet, under their argument, the debtor -- the |\n| 17 | trustee would never be allowed to see any documents related |\n| 18 | to those entities, Eastern Profit, or anything else. |\n| 19 | Their other argument is to effectively |\n| 20 | mischaracterize. |\n| 21 | If one looks at paragraph 47 of their objection -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Same document? |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:
Same document, Your Honor, thank you. |\n| 24 | They take issue with the trustee's request for -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
What page are you on?
Just so I'm -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 33 I would like to follow you. MR. LUFT: Of course, Your Honor. I'm looking at pages 19 to 20. On 19, you could see request number 10, or reproduction of it, where the trustee asks for information regarding gifts, benefits and loans between the debtor, the debtor's estate, the debtor's family and the associated entities. This of course is key because the debtor in this case claims that all the funds he uses come from gifts and loans. Yet, when we tried to get information on this from Ms. Guo, the answer is, if you turn to the next page on page 20, to mischaracterize and say, read literally, request 10 would require Ms. Guo to produce every document regarding every gift she has ever given to any person over the past ten years, including thank you cards received by the gifts recipients. Now, of course, the request doesn't ask for any person, Your Honor. It asks for the people we care about, the debtor, the debtor's estate, the family members and the associated entities. And I assume she does not receive thank you cards from the shell companies she's involved with. This is all an attempt to make it seem like these are over-broad and unreasonable requests. Given the fact that two courts have already found Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 33 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 34 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
34 |\n| 1 | Ms. Guo to be involved with entities that are, in fact, |\n| 2 | false fronts for the debtor there is nothing unreasonable |\n| 3 | about asking for information she has regarding gifts and |\n| 4 | loans, the primary way the debtor alleges to subsist, in |\n| 5 | connection with that. |\n| 6 | Now, I will note that Ms. Ngok, the debtor's wife, |\n| 7 | had made a similar objection that is referenced in our |\n| 8 | papers.
She has withdrawn that objection.
Her counsel has |\n| 9 | -- withdrew it.
And accordingly that motion to compel need |\n| 10 | not be acted upon because there is no active issue anymore |\n| 11 | with regard to Ms. Ngok. |\n| 12 | At this point, I want to turn to the next issue, |\n| 13 | Your Honor, as a basis upon which the debtor, Ms. Guo, and |\n| 14 | HK USA are refusing to produce documents. |\n| 15 | Specifically, they say they will not produce any |\n| 16 | files from their advisors and their agents, only documents |\n| 17 | in their physical possession. |\n| 18 | Now, they say this despite making very clear, as |\n| 19 | they state in paragraph 3 in the same document of their |\n| 20 | objection, that they told us from the outset that the vast |\n| 21 | majority of responsive documents would be with his |\n| 22 | professionals.
But they won't search those documents.
And |\n| 23 | not everyone's a professional.
That means they don't search |\n| 24 | his secretary, they don't search Ms. Wang, who we've heard |\n| 25 | about, who writes messages for him, or anyone else.
They |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 35 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
35 |\n| 1 | say, well, it has to be the debtor's document. |\n| 2 | Now, that clearly is contrary to the definition of |\n| 3 | the debtor in the subpoena, which is the debtor, together |\n| 4 | with any of his employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or |\n| 5 | anyone else acting on his behalf. |\n| 6 | In the interest of time, Your Honor, I will not |\n| 7 | repeat all the law we cite in our brief, but it's very clear |\n| 8 | that documents under the control of the debtor include those |\n| 9 | of all those people we just mentioned. |\n| 10 | You know, if we think of the traditional thing, if |\n| 11 | you ask your secretary to transcribe a letter for you or to |\n| 12 | send an email on your behalf, that is still your document. |\n| 13 | The fact that it may have come from her does not mean it's |\n| 14 | not yours. |\n| 15 | Now, particularly in this case where the debtor is |\n| 16 | telling us that he has virtually no documents on anything |\n| 17 | and no communications it's critically important that he go |\n| 18 | to the advisors and the agents who do transmit information |\n| 19 | on his behalf. |\n| 20 | Now, there are many emails that we are seeing |\n| 21 | written by Ms. Wang, Ms. Guo, Ms. Francis, who's an |\n| 22 | attorney, Mr. Mitchell, were people who are clearly |\n| 23 | communicating with the debtor and the debtor with them |\n| 24 | through these individuals. |\n| 25 | Whether or not he personally has a computer, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 36 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
36 |\n| 1 | honestly, is irrelevant.
If he's asking other people to use |\n| 2 | their computer on his behalf or to send messages to |\n| 3 | communicate for him, those are his documents and he has to |\n| 4 | produce them.
Yet, we've been told flat out they won't |\n| 5 | search them. |\n| 6 | Now, the answer to that is, well, you guys assume |\n| 7 | to be doing a good job.
You're sending subpoenas to people. |\n| 8 | Your Honor, I don't know everyone who is his agent or his |\n| 9 | advisor.
And, in fact, for a number of this people, I can't |\n| 10 | find them.
Ms. Wang has evaded service.
Max Krasner has |\n| 11 | evaded service.
There are a number of them.
And even so I |\n| 12 | don't know all those people.
And it's not the trustee's |\n| 13 | responsibility to try to figure out everyone who Mr. Kwok |\n| 14 | uses to communicate with. |\n| 15 | He has that information.
He can his requests and |\n| 16 | go to them and say please make sure we gather all the |\n| 17 | documents that would be responsive consistent with this |\n| 18 | request. |\n| 19 | Now, to the extent one of these people have |\n| 20 | already been served with a subpoena and they say, you know |\n| 21 | what, this overlaps with one of the questions I got and I've |\n| 22 | already produced it, fine.
That is what we've told them. |\n| 23 | Of course there's no need to produce something twice. |\n| 24 | But it's Mr. Kwok's obligation to make sure that |\n| 25 | everything is being searched for.
And it's Mr. Kwok's |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 37 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
37 |\n| 1 | obligation to make sure that everyone who acts as his agent |\n| 2 | is doing that. |\n| 3 | Which brings us to the next topic, Your Honor, |\n| 4 | which is the quality of the search that was done of Mr. |\n| 5 | Kwok. |\n| 6 | If I could ask the Court to turn again in ECF 1090 |\n| 7 | to paragraphs 19 and 20, 19 and 21, there is a recitation by |\n| 8 | the debtor of the scope of the search that was done.
Again, |\n| 9 | this is not the trustee's characterization, this is the |\n| 10 | debtor's description of what was done. |\n| 11 | What is laid out there very clearly is what was |\n| 12 | done was they asked the debtor if he had any of these |\n| 13 | documents and he said, no, not really.
No, I don't have any |\n| 14 | of those. |\n| 15 | There was no attempt to look at his phones, to |\n| 16 | search them, to independently verify, to say there have to |\n| 17 | be documents.
How do you subsist?
I know you communicate |\n| 18 | with people.
How was this done? |\n| 19 | And most notably there is no indication that they |\n| 20 | ever asked what about all the individuals who you |\n| 21 | communicate with, communicate through, people that would be |\n| 22 | aware of my understanding is they communicate through the -- |\n| 23 | with the debtor through individuals. |\n| 24 | Now, what is included, which I find interesting, |\n| 25 | is they make two comments that the debtor told them, well, |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 38 he doesn't have most of these documents because, in fact, he doesn't even know who most of the associated entities are. Now, Your Honor, if we look at the fine list of who those associated entities are, we see names like Ace Decade, Bravo Luck, Eastern Profit, GTV, Himalaya, Saraca, World Law Foundation. THE COURT: What are you reading from? MR. LUFT: I'm looking at this subpoena, Your Honor. THE COURT: Oh, his subpoena. Okay. Go ahead. All right. Thank you. MR. LUFT: This is a list of the associated entities that the debtor claims that he didn't who most of these entities were. My guess is the Court is quite familiar with most of these names, much less the debtor at this point. And I raise this because -- not just to highlight the fact that I find the debtor's statement implausible that he doesn't know who most of these people are, but because this should have been a warning sign to his counsel that his statements that he has no documents were not credible and required greater -- to look further. The law is clear particularly where you have concerns where there's reason to believe that someone is trying to stymy discovery, that counsel is required to look Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 38 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 39 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
39 |\n| 1 | harder, to search more, and not just take statements at face |\n| 2 | value. |\n| 3 | The fact that he could tell them that he doesn't |\n| 4 | know who most of these entities are when all of us at this |\n| 5 | point in this case know exactly who they are I think should |\n| 6 | have setoff alarm bells.
Okay. |\n| 7 | Similarly, the search for Ms. Guo, which is |\n| 8 | described in paragraph 22, also consists of us speaking to |\n| 9 | her. |\n| 10 | Now, she admits to having emails and texts, yet |\n| 11 | over eight years claims to only have 19 that are responsive |\n| 12 | in total.
Again, that should have required a deeper search. |\n| 13 | It's just not plausible. |\n| 14 | Now, I'll quickly touch on the fact that they |\n| 15 | claim that we concede HK USA has no documents because we |\n| 16 | note that they don't have income, bank accounts, directors, |\n| 17 | officers and employees. |\n| 18 | Your Honor, I believe that argument is just non |\n| 19 | seqitur. |\n| 20 | First of all, they've actually produced, well, not |\n| 21 | a lot of documents, significantly more than the living |\n| 22 | entities of Mr. Kwok and Ms. Guo. |\n| 23 | In fact, 19 times more than Ms. Guo and eight |\n| 24 | times more than the debtor despite counsel for the debtor |\n| 25 | indicating that how could you ever think they'd even have a |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 40 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
40 |\n| 1 | document given the type of entity they are. |\n| 2 | But of course they do have documents related to |\n| 3 | this because they're a shell company that controls the Lady |\n| 4 | May.
So anything involving the financing of it, the |\n| 5 | expenses, and whatever else, would be included there. |\n| 6 | Now, again, in the interest of time, I won't go |\n| 7 | through the case law that we cite from the circuit regarding |\n| 8 | why you can't rely on just client reps, the Zubulake case |\n| 9 | being the most prominent of them, but I do want to touch on |\n| 10 | for a minute the types of documents that are missing, Your |\n| 11 | Honor, to highlight how no one should really be able to |\n| 12 | plausibly accept the fact that there are no real -- there |\n| 13 | are no documents that would be responsive. |\n| 14 | Missing from the debtor's production are all |\n| 15 | WhatsApp messages. |\n| 16 | Now, in the Bravo Luck adversary, at 22-05027, |\n| 17 | document 3-2, there is a copy of Mr. Kwok's February 5th, |\n| 18 | 2016 declaration in support of Ace Decade's action against |\n| 19 | UBS. |\n| 20 | And if one looks at paragraphs 44 through 47, and |\n| 21 | 63 to 69, Mr. Kwok details lengthy WhatsApp messages with |\n| 22 | UBS in connection with his business transaction with them. |\n| 23 | Clearly the debtor uses messaging services to conduct |\n| 24 | business.
And despite their throw away argument, Your |\n| 25 | Honor, what -- his business with UBS had nothing to do with |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1220 | Filed 12/11/22 | Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 | Page 41 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| 113 | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 41 taking down the CCP. It related to offering the loans that UBS would have.\n\n He's produced no other text messages, despite claiming that he communicates, does all his communications through iPhones. He's produced no emails or computer files, claiming he doesn't have them, but conveniently ignoring the fact that there are multiple emails that we've seen from other sources where agents of his, like Ms. Wang or Yung Yu, or his lawyers, write messages that clearly state my boss or the director, you know, Mr. Kwok wants you to know, none of those were produced.\n\n There are no documents related to any transfers of funds to the debtor, despite the fact that he allegedly subsists only on the charity of others. There are no documents regarding his ongoing work.\n\n If one was to look right now, Your Honor, on iTunes and looked up Miles Guo, one could find that they are selling his music. Same thing on Spotify, Amazon, and I presume other services. They sell it for money. That money has to go somewhere. His music has to get from him to the platform. That has to create documents.\n\n The notion that he does no ongoing business is just belied by what we can just see on the internet. He's clearly doing it. No one responds. They drop a footnote and say, well, he doesn't take any royalties because he's\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 42 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
42 |\n| 1 | just doing this to take down the CCP. |\n| 2 | Now, first of all, that doesn't mean that there |\n| 3 | are no documents that wouldn't be responsive. |\n| 4 | And I note, Your Honor, to the extent the debtor |\n| 5 | is earning money or doing work post bankruptcy, it is not |\n| 6 | his choice to donate the royalties to whoever chooses if |\n| 7 | that's what's happening.
Those are assets of the estate |\n| 8 | and, of course, the trustee should be able to investigate |\n| 9 | that and find it out. |\n| 10 | He is working.
He is creating.
He's doing this. |\n| 11 | We see this with Crypto, with music.
I'm sure other things. |\n| 12 | We should be -- there have to be documents.
He claims to |\n| 13 | have no hard copy documents. |\n| 14 | And just as one example of an entity which surely |\n| 15 | we would expect to see documents, he produced no documents |\n| 16 | regarding an entity called Saraca. |\n| 17 | Now, Your Honor, Saraca owns the trademark to both |\n| 18 | Miles Guo and Miles Kwok.
They also paid for one of his |\n| 19 | homes. |\n| 20 | Now, whether --
I think, if we dig deep enough, |\n| 21 | if we ever get documents from them, I think we'll find out |\n| 22 | that of course he controls it, but the fact is, Your Honor - |\n| 23 | - |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Let me ask you a question. |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
Sure. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 43 THE COURT: I don't know that it's in the record the spelling of the name of that entity that you just stated, so I'd ask you to spell that for the courtroom deputy so that the transcript is clear. MR. LUFT: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't recall if that is in the record, so I'm going to ask you to make sure that it is. MR. LUFT: And I'm going to just pull it up to make sure I've got it, spell it exactly. THE COURT: Certainly, take your time. MR. LUFT: It is Saraca, S-A-R-A-C-A, Media Group, Inc. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. LUFT: And, Your Honor, this is an entity which recently entered into a consent judgment with the SEC, along with GTV, and an entity called The Voice of Guo, to return almost half a billion dollars of money to investors who had been defrauded by a crypto scheme. Now, no documents despite the fact that they even purport to own his name. So, in short, what we have is a refusal to look for any documents in essence because he's saying anything that's with anyone else that's their assets. I don't have to look. An argument that I subsist through working through advisors, but I won't pull any of their documents. And\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 44 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
44 |\n| 1 | searches which, in fact, are plainly inadequate because they |\n| 2 | simply just ask this debtor his opinion, and he said, no, I |\n| 3 | don't have it, as implausible as that is. |\n| 4 | We have a couple other small matters related. |\n| 5 | They have cut off the search saying we should only be |\n| 6 | allowed to find documents after the time he came to the |\n| 7 | United States. |\n| 8 | The deadline we've asked for is February 5th, |\n| 9 | 2012, and it's consistent with the outer edge of the statute |\n| 10 | of limitations regarding fraudulent transfer. |\n| 11 | It is also important because at least at that time |\n| 12 | in China I believe the debtor concedes, although who knows, |\n| 13 | it seems to depend day to day, that at some point he had |\n| 14 | lots of assets.
And I'd like to be able to say, well, you |\n| 15 | had lots of assets on this day.
Today you tell me you have |\n| 16 | less than \\$4,000 of assets.
I want to follow it and |\n| 17 | understand what happened to all those assets. |\n| 18 | But they've cut it off.
I don't think that's |\n| 19 | appropriate. |\n| 20 | They have refused to produce the debtor's |\n| 21 | passport.
We've been very clear why we need it. |\n| 22 | The debtor claims to have assets all over the |\n| 23 | world, specifically having given interviews about homes in |\n| 24 | London and Hong Kong and in other places.
Understanding |\n| 25 | where he travels to will help us focus our search as to |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 45 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
45 |\n| 1 | where to look for assets. |\n| 2 | There is hyperbole in their objection where they |\n| 3 | say, look, if you're going to do that, then you'd have to |\n| 4 | put him under 24-hour surveillance to know everywhere he |\n| 5 | goes.
The trustee has asked for nothing like that, Your |\n| 6 | Honor.
They've simply asked to see where it is he has |\n| 7 | traveled to to help find assets. |\n| 8 | If they want to mark it highly confidential, |\n| 9 | protected by the protective order Your Honor put in place, |\n| 10 | of course that's appropriate, we'd have no problem with |\n| 11 | that. |\n| 12 | I'll note that with -- one other note on this, |\n| 13 | with regard to all these objections, to be honest, the fact |\n| 14 | that I'm even here with a subpoena is a little unnecessary. |\n| 15 | But if it was not for how the debtor acts -- because under |\n| 16 | 521(a)(4), he should have turned over all documents, records |\n| 17 | and papers relating to property of the estate to the trustee |\n| 18 | already.
That also has not happened. |\n| 19 | Now, before I turn to the defaulting parties and |\n| 20 | conclude, Your Honor, I do want to raise one objection that |\n| 21 | Ms. Guo and HK USA have raised that was -- that I believe is |\n| 22 | related to what was discussed earlier, which is the pending |\n| 23 | the proceeding, and their argument that the trustee's |\n| 24 | requests to them are no longer proper under 2004 because of |\n| 25 | the adversary proceeding. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 46 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
46 |\n| 1 | First of all, Your Honor, I believe this argument |\n| 2 | has been waived. |\n| 3 | The fact is if one looks at the motion to Ms. Guo |\n| 4 | and to the 2004 motion to Ms. Guo, and to HK USA in footnote |\n| 5 | 25, the debtor specifically highlighted this issue.
We |\n| 6 | didn't want any confusion.
We wanted to put it on the table |\n| 7 | right away why we thought we should still be allowed to have |\n| 8 | 2004 despite the fact they had already filed an adversary |\n| 9 | before the trustee even being appointed. |\n| 10 | The debtor made no objection, nor did Ms. Guo, or |\n| 11 | HK USA, in their paper to the 2004 motion.
The 2004 was |\n| 12 | ordered.
Honestly, I believe at this point this is |\n| 13 | effectively a collateral attack on the 2004 order. |\n| 14 | Now, the only objection they did make was to say |\n| 15 | we want to be sure that we can object in our objections and |\n| 16 | responses under the federal rules to whatever doc subpoena |\n| 17 | you send.
Fine.
There is not a single objection in Ms. |\n| 18 | Guo's or HK USA's responses and objections related to the |\n| 19 | pending proceeding. |\n| 20 | And as Your Honor is well aware, if one does not |\n| 21 | raise objections to discovery requests in their objections |\n| 22 | and responses, they are waived.
So the fact that they are |\n| 23 | doing this now I think that issue has passed. |\n| 24 | Now, even if it -- they hadn't waived it, Your |\n| 25 | Honor, I would like to note two points. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 47 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 47 The first is most of the requests don't relate to the Lady May or HK USA. They search for documents of other family members, associated individuals, and entities. There is no reason why the adversary proceeding in any way should impact the search for those documents and accordingly that should be set aside. As to the Lady May and HK USA, to the extent they have not waived the argument, Your Honor, I would argue, in fact, this is a retroactive argument and it is also improper in that way. The subpoenas and the production deadlines passed prior to the filing of the counterclaims in the adversary proceedings. If they hadn't made improper objections, if they had produced on a timely basis, we would have received 2004 prior to filing our counterclaims. Instead, because of their recalcitrance, we were forced to file our counterclaims without those documents. And I don't think they should be awarded for their gamesmanship of effectively waiting so long to a point where a deadline to file our answer and counterclaims had come and thus we had to act to say, well, now I don't have to comply with the appropriate, court-ordered subpoena that came before it. Your Honor, I'll just finish by touching on Golden Spring and Lamp Capital.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 48 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 48 As I said at the outset, these are the entities that pay for the debtor's lifestyle, his litigation. Over and over we hear who does this person pay for? It's Golden Spring. Oh, it's Lamp Capital who's paying for that. Whoever else, they were all properly served as set out in our papers. They have just ignored us since. We ask that they be held in contempt, that they be sanctioned for having ignored us, and they should be forced to comply and produce documents to us, Your Honor. Effectively, everyone is pushing off who has the documents saying it's on the debtor. It's not in my personal possession. I'm a person. It's not me. It must be at the family office. And then lo and behold, the family office, which of course is a corporation and has no person, says I'm not showing up. This is just a game to frustrate the trustee's investigation, Your Honor. We're trying to figure out where these assets are so that we can return them to the creditors. Everything about this is simply an attempt to make sure that that does not happen and it's improper. Thank you, Your Honor. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. THE COURT: I don't have any questions at this time. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 49 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
49 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
So there's been an |\n| 2 | objection filed on behalf of the debtor, HK International, |\n| 3 | and Mei Guo, is that correct? |\n| 4 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
All right.
Please proceed. |\n| 6 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you, Your Honor.
James |\n| 7 | Moriarty for the debtor, Ms. Guo, and HK USA. |\n| 8 | So let me start by saying that Attorney Luft did a |\n| 9 | good job, and he certainly has a lot of knowledge.
Where |\n| 10 | did he obtain that knowledge?
He obtained that knowledge |\n| 11 | from the documents, the hundreds of thousands of pages of |\n| 12 | documents, that the trustee has received.
And where has the |\n| 13 | trustee received those documents?
From the debtor's |\n| 14 | professionals. |\n| 15 | We had a meet and confer with the trustee's |\n| 16 | counsel back in September and we told the trustee's counsel |\n| 17 | that the debtor was not going to have many documents in his |\n| 18 | possession, documents would be with his professionals.
And |\n| 19 | they are.
And the professionals have produced them. |\n| 20 | And we agreed, and this is at paragraph 43 of the |\n| 21 | trustee's motion, that if the professionals were producing |\n| 22 | documents pursuant to subpoenas, that the debtor would not |\n| 23 | then go to the professionals, ask for the same documents, |\n| 24 | and produce them again.
And the debtor, through his |\n| 25 | counsel, has not done that because we agreed that we would |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 50 not do that. And if Your Honor remembers, specifically with Brown Rudnick and the production of its files, we learned that the trustee's counsel was negotiating with Brown Rudnick regarding search terms that Brown Rudnick would run through its files to obtain documents responsive to the subpoena. And we state in our objection that we believe that the trustee has done that with other of the professionals on whom subpoenas have been served, and the trustee has not stated that that's an incorrect statement, so we have to believe that to be true. So the trustee is serving subpoenas on professionals. I believe we're up to, that the Court -- assuming the Court grants the most recent motion, there will be 113 subpoenas that the trustee has been authorized to issue pursuant to Rule 2004. And the trustee is negotiating, at least with the larger law firms that have represented the debtor, where the vast majority of these documents are going to come from, on search terms, so that the trustee can get exactly what he wants. There is a fundamental difference, Your Honor, between no documents and no documents in the debtor's personal possession. The debtor does not have documents in\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 51 his personal possession. Those documents are with his professionals and they have been produced. And we go into at -- I believe it's paragraphs 19 through 22 of the objection what we as counsel did to work with the debtor to determine what documents the debtor might have in his possession that would then be produced. We didn't just ask the debtor if he had documents. He said, no, and we said thank you have a good day. That did not happen. What happened was we had two meetings with the debtor via video conference. We discussed with the debtor the specific categories of documents that were being requested. We did go through the associated entities with the debtor and he did say for many of them he had not heard of them, not all of them. And Attorney Luft cherry picked some that of course we all would know and the debtor would know. But if you -- if you look at, and I believe it's attached as Exhibit A to the objection, if you look at the definition of associated entities in paragraph 7 of the definitions, I would venture to say that there's north of 50 and maybe closer to 75 entities listed there. So the debtor didn't say, and we didn't represent, that the debtor didn't know any of these entities. What we said is that for many of these entities the debtor had not Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 51 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 52 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
52 |\n| 1 | heard of them and didn't have any responsive documents. |\n| 2 | And it was the same thing with the associated |\n| 3 | individuals.
We went through those lists with the debtor to |\n| 4 | determine whether he had documents in his possession.
We |\n| 5 | went through with the debtor where responsive documents |\n| 6 | could be located. |\n| 7 | Keep in mind that in 2017 offices in Hong Kong |\n| 8 | that may have had responsive documents were raided by the |\n| 9 | Chinese government.
The debtor doesn't have access to those |\n| 10 | documents. |\n| 11 | The debtor does not use email. That is a |\n| 12 | representation that has been made to counsel, and the |\n| 13 | documents that I have reviewed, which are few and far |\n| 14 | between from what the trustee has, I have not seen anything |\n| 15 | to indicate that that is not a true statement, and the |\n| 16 | trustee has not brought to our attention any specific email |\n| 17 | that the debtor sent or received. |\n| 18 | The debtor represented that he doesn't use a |\n| 19 | computer.
I've seen nothing to indicate that that was not a |\n| 20 | true statement. |\n| 21 | The debtor doesn't have a server.
We specifically |\n| 22 | asked him is there a server somewhere that you're aware of |\n| 23 | that could have electronically stored information?
He said |\n| 24 | there was not. |\n| 25 | We asked him where hard copy documents could be |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 53 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
53 |\n| 1 | maintained?
The debtor does not have an office.
The debtor |\n| 2 | does not maintain hard copy documents in his house. |\n| 3 | And we went through this with the debtor for more |\n| 4 | than two hours on two separate video conferences.
The |\n| 5 | debtor provided us with the documents that he had in his |\n| 6 | possession, tax returns and some other documents, and they |\n| 7 | were produced. |\n| 8 | The debtor has not gotten in the trustee's way at |\n| 9 | all as it relates to the trustee's investigation and the |\n| 10 | trustee's obtaining documents from these professionals and |\n| 11 | other individuals. |\n| 12 | The trustee's counsel has not come to us and said |\n| 13 | this particular professional firm's not cooperating.
We |\n| 14 | need your help.
If they did, we would do what we could to |\n| 15 | help them, but that hasn't happened. |\n| 16 | And we know that the trustee has received and |\n| 17 | continues to receive hundreds of thousands of pages of |\n| 18 | documents, a lot of them privileged pursuant to the |\n| 19 | privilege order. |\n| 20 | So this isn't a situation where the debtor is not |\n| 21 | producing any documents.
Documents are being produced. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Well, wait a minute.
You can't say |\n| 23 | that.
You just said this isn't a situation where the debtor |\n| 24 | isn't producing documents.
You just said at the beginning |\n| 25 | that there are no documents to produce.
Just because the |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 54 professionals are producing documents doesn't mean the debtor's producing documents. MR. MORIARTY: Well, Your Honor, if you assume, and I believe the law that the trustee cited is correct, that if the documents are in the debtor's professionals' possession, then he has access to them, then the debtor is producing documents and he's producing them through his professionals. THE COURT: No, he's not. No, he's not. I don't think that's an accurate statement to make. The debtor's not producing anything. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: The parties that are producing documents are the parties that were subpoenaed which are the professionals. MR. MORIARTY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So I don't think that -- I think you need to move on. That is not a statement that has accuracy in this case at all. So go ahead. MR. MORIARTY: The debtor has produced the documents that he has in his possession. As far as text messages go, we -- during the meetings we talked to the debtor about his use of cell phones, what types of text messages he has. The debtor was asked to search for responsive documents within his text Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 54 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 55 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
55 |\n| 1 | messages.
The debtor does not read English so the text |\n| 2 | messages would be in Chinese. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
That doesn't mean he doesn't have any. |\n| 4 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, we asked him to search |\n| 5 | for responsive documents in his text messages, identifying |\n| 6 | to him what categories of documents were being requested, |\n| 7 | identifying to him the entities, identifying to him the |\n| 8 | associated individuals. |\n| 9 | He went back.
He represented to us that he had |\n| 10 | searched for responsive documents, that his text messages |\n| 11 | relate to his efforts to take down the Chinese Communist |\n| 12 | Party which are not responsive. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So you didn't look at any of |\n| 14 | the information that the debtor looked at that would be -- |\n| 15 | whether they were responsive or not.
You just said here are |\n| 16 | the categories.
Do you have anything that responds to that? |\n| 17 | And then you took the debtor's statement that he doesn't and |\n| 18 | you did nothing further. Is that correct? |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
We identified for the debtor the |\n| 20 | categories of documents that were being requested. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 22 | MR. MORIARTY:
We asked the debtor -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, didn't the subpoena already |\n| 24 | identify the categories of documents that were being |\n| 25 | requested? |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 56 MR. MORIARTY: It did, Your Honor. The debtor does not read English. And as his counsel, we were trying to assist the debtor and satisfy our obligations to search for responsive documents. THE COURT: Well, how do you know that he understood what you were telling him? MR. MORIARTY: There was an interpreter present, Your Honor. THE COURT: And whose interpreter was that? MR. MORIARTY: We did not hire the interpreter if that's what you're asking. THE COURT: That is what I'm asking. MR. MORIARTY: It was an interpreter that from my knowledge the debtor has used on other occasions. I have no reason to believe that the interpreter was misinterpreting. THE COURT: But you have no reason to believe that the interpreter was properly interpreting because you don't know what the interpreter was saying to Mr. Kwok. MR. MORIARTY: You are correct, Your Honor. But the only way that I can communicate with Mr. Kwok is through an interpreter, so I have to rely on the interpreter to interpret correctly. THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. I understand what you're saying. But, right -- you're trying -- you're telling me a lot of things for which there's no Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 56 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 57 proof in the record to support what you're saying. You said that there -- that there are documents in the debtor -- that the debtor had in China that were raided. Where's the evidence that produce -- that supports that claim? There's no statement made by the debtor under oath. There's no information in this record. There's nothing for me to say, other than you tell me that you told him that these were the categories. He told you he looked and he said there's nothing. That's what you're asking the Court to rely on as evidence that he complied. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor -- THE COURT: And I'm telling that in any case, whether someone understands English or not, that is not sufficient to establish that the individual who is served with a subpoena did everything that they were supposed to do. And normally the lawyer goes through the documents with the party to determine whether or not they're responsive to the subpoena. You don't rely on the individual, because then you wouldn't have met your obligation as counsel to that party under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. MR. MORIARTY: I disagree with you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Fine. And tell me what you're Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 57 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 58 relying on to support your disagreement. MR. MORIARTY: The debtor doesn't use email. There's no evidence -- THE COURT: That's not -- MR. MORIARTY: -- that he does. THE COURT: That's not -- wait a minute. Hold on. that's not -- stop. That's not responsive to what I just asked you. I said tell me what you're relying on to support the position that you didn't have to go through these things with the debtor to determine whether or not that they were -- as counsel to the debtor that they were responsive to the subpoena? That's the question I asked you. MR. MORIARTY: The only possible thing that we could have gone through would have been cell phones with text messages in Chinese. That's the only thing that he had that could have had responsive documents on it. I don't read Chinese so I was relying on my client, on the debtor, to search his phone and provide me with responsive documents. This is not, Your Honor, a *Zubulake* issue. The debtor doesn't have servers. He doesn't have IT professionals. We don't have custodians. THE COURT: How do you know that? MR. MORIARTY: He's an individual.\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 59 THE COURT: How do you know that, Counsel. MR. MORIARTY: He's an individual, Your Honor. And we specifically asked him. THE COURT: That doesn't mean an individual doesn't have a server. MR. MORIARTY: I asked him that. THE COURT: Individuals -- you asked him and he told you no, but you don't know that. All you can report to to the Court is what you asked the defendant -- I mean the debtor in this case, not the defendant in the adversary yet, you asked the -- you asked debtor and he told you no. That's all you can report. What I'm saying to you, Attorney Moriarty, is what's in the record for me to rely on? All that's in the record that I'm hearing, and that's fine if that's all there is, but all I'm hearing in the record is you asked him the questions, he said, no. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, he is an individual. THE COURT: I understand that. MR. MORIARTY: And so -- THE COURT: And there's no difference, no difference, whether you represent an individual or corporation with regard -- show me in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where there's a difference between the need to comply with the subpoena between an individual and a Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 60 corporate entity. MR. MORIARTY: And that's -- Your Honor, I'm not saying that there is. What I'm saying is when you get into cases like *Zubulake*, that is an entity. An entity has IT professionals. It has custodians. It has -- THE COURT: Okay. And I'm saying that's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter. MR. MORIARTY: But it is relevant, Your Honor, to -- THE COURT: An individual could have a server. You have no -- you have no basis to make a statement other than that he tells you doesn't have one. That's fine. If that's what -- if that's what you're relying on let's just be clear about it. You make the record accurate. The record is that this is what he told you and nothing more. MR. MORIARTY: Correct. THE COURT: There was no further investigation as to whether or not that was a true statement. MR. MORIARTY: There was no further investigation, nor did I feel one was necessary. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: All right. So as far as Ms. Guo goes, what the trustee is seeking from her, and what she's objected to, are documents related to her personal assets, ten years of bank account statements, her tax returns, any Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 61 credit card statements, or any credit cards that she uses for the past ten years. And when we say that there's no allegation of a transfer, there's no allegation -- First of all, there's no proof that the debtor actually ever owned the Lady May. The Lady May was purchased after HK International was transferred from the debtor. So the Lady May wasn't transferred from the debtor to Ms. Guo. Regardless, what they're seeking is her bank statements for ten years with no allegation that the debtor ever made a transfer to her which could have somehow wound up in her bank account. So that's where the objection lies. And what the trustee didn't do here, and what the local rule requires, is to set out the specific request and the specific objection. So we don't know what specific requests that the trustee is seeking other than the trustee is apparently seeking everything. But as it relates to Ms. Guo -- and HK doesn't have bank accounts, the trustee says that in his motion so I don't think that's disputed -- but what Ms. Guo is objecting to is the disclosure of her personal assets on the grounds, first, that there is no allegation of a transfer to her that would wind up in her bank account, tax returns, thing of that nature. Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 61 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 62 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 62 Second, as it relates to Rule 2004, when the Rule 2004 subpoena was served on Ms. Guo, she was not a party to the adversary proceeding. The counterclaim was filed I believe about three weeks after her objections were filed to the 2004 subpoena, so Ms. Guo could not have waived any objection that she has to the trustee seeking discovery via 2004 which goes directly to the issues in the adversary proceeding. And keep in mind, Your Honor, that there is a PJR application pending and an application for an injunction pending, and as part of that the trustee is seeking asset discovery from Ms. Guo, but also seeking asset discovery from her via a Rule 2004 subpoena. And the argument we had previously on the motion, Your Honor, stated that, well, these aren't parties. In this case, Ms. Guo and HK are parties to the adversary proceeding and the trustee is seeking to use Rule 2004 to obtain information that goes directly to the issues in that adversary proceeding. And the trustee has filed a 60-some page counterclaim with 3100 pages of exhibits. And, again, it was filed after Ms. Guo had served her objections to the Rule 2004 subpoena and after Your Honor had granted the motion to issue it. So Ms. Guo wasn't even a party to that adversary proceeding at that time. As far as the debtor's passport, full passport --\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 63 THE COURT: The debtor or Ms. Guo -- MR. MORIARTY: -- the first page of the -- THE COURT: -- are you talking about right now? I thought you were talking about Ms. Guo. MR. MORIARTY: I was. I moved on, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: I apologize. THE COURT: I just want to make sure I'm following you. MR. MORIARTY: No, that's okay. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: So with the passport, the debtor's passport, the trustee's seeking a full copy of the debtor's passport, the first page of the debtor's passport was produced because it was produced with -- I believe it was either his tax return or it was an application for a taxpayer identification number. And the only basis the trustee has for the entirety of the passport is, well, we need to see where he's gone because maybe there are assets there, which it just -- it doesn't follow that regarding if the debtor goes somewhere, therefore, must be assets, we should go investigate. That's not a good faith basis for the debtor's passport. And then as far as the eight years versus ten Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 63 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 64 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
64 |\n| 1 | years, the trustee's basis for we need ten years of |\n| 2 | documents is, well, that's the outer limit for the statute |\n| 3 | of limitations for fraudulent transfer actions.
But under |\n| 4 | what law? |\n| 5 | The debtor did not leave Hong Kong until the end |\n| 6 | of 2014.
And I don't think that's disputed by anybody. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
But is it in the record? |\n| 8 | MR. MORIARTY:
It is in our papers, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | If you're asking me is there evidence of that fact, no. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I mean, if it's not disputed, I need |\n| 11 | to know that.
But I can't just find, right, that the debtor |\n| 12 | didn't, I'm sorry, you just said I think the debtor, I think |\n| 13 | the words you used, did not leave Hong Kong until 2014.
Is |\n| 14 | that what you said? |\n| 15 | MR. MORIARTY:
And by leave -- by leave I mean |\n| 16 | leave to live somewhere else. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
But, I mean, I don't know that. |\n| 18 | You're just saying that.
And I'm not saying you can't.
If |\n| 19 | everybody agrees to it, that's fine.
But I don't -- I don't |\n| 20 | have any evidence of that other than you saying that, right? |\n| 21 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes.
But, again, I don't believe |\n| 22 | that there's any dispute. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, then you'll have to -- |\n| 24 | MR. MORIARTY:
Attorney Luft will tell me if there |\n| 25 | is. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 65 THE COURT: Your parties will figure that out. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. But, go ahead. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. So let's -- just for purposes of my argument, let's assume that that fact is undisputed -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: -- what law would apply to any transfers that were made by the debtor prior to him fleeing Hong Kong at the end of 2014? And would that law even allow a fraudulent transfer claim to be brought more than ten years after the transfer? The trustee doesn't address that at all. THE COURT: So are you -- but are you -- are you objecting to 2014 forward? MR. MORIARTY: No. We are objecting from 2012 to 2014. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: What we said was from the time that the debtor fled Hong Kong, which was at the end of 2014 going forward -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: -- responsive documents would be produced. Can I just have one second, Your Honor? Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 65 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 66 THE COURT: Sure. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. (Pause.) MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, unless you have questions, I have nothing further. THE COURT: Let me just make sure I don't have any questions. (Pause.) THE COURT: No, I don't have any further questions at this time, Attorney Moriarty. Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: While I was waiting for your question, there's one more point -- THE COURT: You found something. Go ahead. MR. MORIARTY: -- I wanted to add. And with all due respect to Attorney Luft, and he and I have a good working relationship, we have a fundamental disagreement about this meet and confer and what was said about this hypothetical Lady May II. And as we state in our objection at paragraph 9, if there was a hypothetical Lady May II that was exactly as the Lady May with an order from a court in New York finding what Judge Ostrager found of course, we would produce responsive documents. But, one, that hypothetical Lady May II was hypothetical. And, two, the hypothetical in the meet and Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 66 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 67 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
67 |\n| 1 | confer was if there was a Lady May II would you produce |\n| 2 | documents?
Not with all of that surrounding factual |\n| 3 | information.
And the response was if there was a Lady May |\n| 4 | II and the debtor didn't have an interest in it, no, |\n| 5 | responsive documents wouldn't be produced. |\n| 6 | In other words, we wouldn't produce documents |\n| 7 | related to somebody else's asset.
So if the debtor had no |\n| 8 | interest in a hypothetical boat, of course we wouldn't |\n| 9 | produce documents related to it.
And that was the gist of |\n| 10 | the meet and confer. |\n| 11 | And with that, Your Honor, I have nothing further. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Avi Luft of |\n| 16 | Paul Hastings. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:
So why don't we start where we ended. |\n| 19 | I'll just -- I'll be very brief on the Lady May II.
I think |\n| 20 | I discussed this. |\n| 21 | Mr. Moriarty is 100 percent correct.
We do have a |\n| 22 | very good relationship. |\n| 23 | I point you to paragraph 9, again, I'll ask -- I'd |\n| 24 | suggest the Court read the whole thing.
The answer is, as I |\n| 25 | said, their rule is you need to have a court find that it is |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 68 of
113 | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
68 |\n| 1 | an asset of the debtor for them to be willing to produce |\n| 2 | documents.
They're clear as day on it. |\n| 3 | The response was the debtor would not produce |\n| 4 | documents related to the hypothetical Lady May II if the |\n| 5 | debtor did not have any interest in the hypothetical Lady |\n| 6 | May II. |\n| 7 | Your Honor, as you know, we have an adversary |\n| 8 | proceeding coming up. |\n| 9 | To this day, despite Justice -- Judge Ostrager |\n| 10 | finding that the debtor has beneficial ownership and |\n| 11 | control, they continue to assert the debtor has no ownership |\n| 12 | interest in the Lady May. |\n| 13 | It cannot be the case that we have to have a |\n| 14 | ruling from a court that we own the asset to start getting |\n| 15 | 2004 on it.
And that's all I'll say about that. |\n| 16 | I want to deal with a couple odd ends and then |\n| 17 | I'll go back to the beginning. |\n| 18 | Specifically the passports, Your Honor, and you'll |\n| 19 | note I put an S at the end of it, I don't know how many |\n| 20 | passports Mr. Kwok has. |\n| 21 | I do believe it is completely relevant to know |\n| 22 | where he travels to to find his assets.
If they want to |\n| 23 | mark them highly confidential, that is perfectly fine.
I |\n| 24 | have no problem with it. |\n| 25 | But the idea that they don't have to produce it or |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 69 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
69 |\n| 1 | that we could not get relevant information about where he |\n| 2 | has assets based on where he travels to is simply |\n| 3 | implausible.
It is completely reasonable to know where he |\n| 4 | goes, how he goes. |\n| 5 | I've been told that he has planes.
You know how I |\n| 6 | heard that?
Because he told people in an interview I have |\n| 7 | planes.
You know what's not on his schedule?
Planes.
So |\n| 8 | knowing where he travels will help me understand how he got |\n| 9 | there, on what flights.
Maybe there's a plane out there |\n| 10 | that we haven't found yet.
I'm sure the creditors would |\n| 11 | like to know that. |\n| 12 | There's been a question raised with regard to, and |\n| 13 | I touched on this before, the ten year time period.
This is |\n| 14 | a new argument that I haven't heard before that, in fact, |\n| 15 | the reason they're not giving it is because they're not sure |\n| 16 | how Hong Kong law would treat fraudulent transfers. |\n| 17 | They present no evidence that Hong Kong law would |\n| 18 | treat fraudulent transfers any different or that quite |\n| 19 | frankly Your Honor would be bound if the debtor made |\n| 20 | fraudulent transfers by Hong Kong law on the issue. |\n| 21 | But moreover, as I said before, this is not just |\n| 22 | fraudulent transfers.
There is a date certain when Mr. Kwok |\n| 23 | was in China where even under his telling of the world most |\n| 24 | days he had billions of dollars.
Today he has less than |\n| 25 | 4,000. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 70 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 70 The big mystery of this case is what happened in this intervening period. I need to know what he had at the start so that I can track where those assets went. It's not an unreasonable request. And based on the number of documents they seem to find, it certainly wouldn't be very burdensome. Your Honor asked if we all agreed that he left Hong Kong on the dates he did. Your Honor, I have no idea when he left Hong Kong. I know that there have been open disputes in other litigations about when he actually came to the U.S. with the debtor giving dates. I don't know if there's a significant difference between when he left Hong Kong versus when he left mainland China and if that impacts the seizures or anything else. So I cannot tell you today that I am in agreement and I'm willing to stipulate that he left Hong Kong when he did. I don't have any evidence of that. I'd like to now turn back to where they started with regard to the idea that the debtor has no obligation to search for documents because the trustee is making diligent efforts to try to get documents from professionals. First and foremost, what's notable in all of that, and what was not said by Mr. Moriarty at all, was that any of the people who we say work for, he says work with, I don't really care, who take his messages, pass them off,\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 71 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
71 |\n| 1 | Yvette Wang, Yung Yu, all these people, Max Krasner, who are |\n| 2 | all over his documents, who sit on his boards, and send |\n| 3 | messages for him, they're not professionals and they're |\n| 4 | avoiding service.
I don't know who else they are. |\n| 5 | Note the debtor's obligation to go find this.
The |\n| 6 | fact that the trustee is working hard to work around that is |\n| 7 | not -- does not excuse it.
And to be very clear, we are not |\n| 8 | working hand in hand with the debtor to coordinate discovery |\n| 9 | with the professionals.
That is just not a realistic |\n| 10 | picture of what it is. |\n| 11 | We are having to go out and get what we can.
We |\n| 12 | have lots of professionals who when I get on the phone with |\n| 13 | them tell me I am a third party, this is too burdensome, why |\n| 14 | don't you get it from the debtor. |\n| 15 | And I don't try to burden the Court every day with |\n| 16 | every single discovery dispute that comes up.
And sometimes |\n| 17 | I have to compromise and sometimes I have to put off. |\n| 18 | And there are entities like GTV and Saraca who to |\n| 19 | this date have not produced a single document to us.
I will |\n| 20 | have another meet and confer with them this week.
It has |\n| 21 | been going on for months as they give me the round around. |\n| 22 | And by the way, Your Honor, if you're curious who |\n| 23 | is the sole board member of GTV and Saraca to my knowledge, |\n| 24 | it is Aaron Mitchell, the personal attorney of Mr. Kwok. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
May I just ask you the entity you just |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 72 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
72 |\n| 1 | said GTV as in Victor? |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 4 | MR. LUFT:
As in -- G as in Guo, and TV. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 6 | MR. LUFT:
Same as G-Media, G-Fashion. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MR. LUFT:
And all these others.
Thank you, Your |\n| 9 | Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I just want to make sure I heard you |\n| 11 | properly. |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
Of course. |\n| 13 | Now, Mr. Moriarty used an interesting phrase.
He |\n| 14 | said it doesn't mean they're in his personal possession.
I |\n| 15 | am not aware of any law that says a party's obligation is |\n| 16 | based on what is in his \"Personal possession.\"
I've seen |\n| 17 | possession, custody, and most notably control, that's the |\n| 18 | legal standard.
And as we cite to in our case law, control |\n| 19 | he certainly has over both his professionals, the people who |\n| 20 | work for him, any of that. |\n| 21 | So that doesn't solve it.
The debtor has an |\n| 22 | obligation.
He has to have his documents searched for and |\n| 23 | he has to go to all his advisors. |\n| 24 | I will just note that the idea that I cherry |\n| 25 | picked entities to say it was unreasonable to not know the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 73 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 73 associated entities, I will not belabor the Court with reading through the myriad of entities we all know about. But, Your Honor, if you are so inclined, you're welcomed to look at the list, you will notice that you know most of the names, much less the debtor not knowing most of the names, and obviously they were pulled from documents and information we found. There was a point made about email. Again, the debtor doesn't use email. What you did not hear is does he have other people send emails on his behalf. We know they do. If you look at the Brown Rudnick production. If Brown Rudnick was here, they would tell you, oh, yes, we sent -- any time we wanted to communicate with the debtor because we had to because we were filing a bankruptcy claim we sent the messages through Max Krasner, Melissa Francis, Aaron Mitchell. When he wanted to buy a house he sent the messages back and forth with the real estate agent through Yvette Wang. I will not get into the documents, but I know Your Honor in a closed session has seen documents involving Ms. Wang acting for her boss sending messages. With regard to the representations that the debtor's has made to Mr. Moriarty -- and I want to be clear, I have the highest opinion of Mr. Moriarty and I believe\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 74 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
74 |\n| 1 | what he says is true.
Quite frankly, Your Honor, I don't |\n| 2 | believe the same of the debtor when he says he doesn't know |\n| 3 | or he doesn't know where something is. |\n| 4 | I sat through a deposition two weeks ago where he |\n| 5 | under oath said he doesn't know the address of his house. |\n| 6 | He doesn't know the name of the security guard who allegedly |\n| 7 | personally delivered a message to Yvette Wang who despite |\n| 8 | years of working with he also said I have no idea how to |\n| 9 | contact her.
He's just not a credible truth teller, Your |\n| 10 | Honor.
That's just what we have to live with. |\n| 11 | But to say, well, he told me so I accept it as |\n| 12 | true, the rules, the law is clear, particularly where you |\n| 13 | have concerns about the truthfulness of a person, you have |\n| 14 | to do more. |\n| 15 | Now, there's comments that if we'd just ask them |\n| 16 | for help, we'd get it. |\n| 17 | Quite frankly, Your Honor, unfortunately, that is |\n| 18 | not the case.
I've asked them to help me serve Ms. Wang, |\n| 19 | Golden Spring.
We've written to them, said can you give us |\n| 20 | contact information, can you tell us where to find these |\n| 21 | people we're not finding, consistent with the debtor's |\n| 22 | obligation to be cooperative with the trustee, they never |\n| 23 | say yes.
I never get that information. |\n| 24 | Now, with regard to his alleged lack of IT acumen, |\n| 25 | this one, Your Honor, I'll simply leave for a man who spends |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 75 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
75 |\n| 1 | his entire day posting videos to YouTube, selling music on |\n| 2 | digital media services, making complex videos, the idea that |\n| 3 | there is no IT, that there is no servers anywhere, is just |\n| 4 | not believable. |\n| 5 | There's a Golden Spring email address that his |\n| 6 | people use.
We don't know if anyone's looked at that.
And |\n| 7 | more importantly, no one seems to be asking. |\n| 8 | With regard to this idea of was their search |\n| 9 | adequate? |\n| 10 | Quite frankly, it wasn't.
What I heard was they |\n| 11 | said, well, we told the debtor what was in the subpoena. |\n| 12 | That wouldn't be enough.
What I actually heard them say is, |\n| 13 | well, we read the subpoena to a translator and the |\n| 14 | translator told the debtor what was in there.
That surely |\n| 15 | is not enough. |\n| 16 | I'd like to turn to Ms. Guo for a moment.
This |\n| 17 | notion that there's no allegation the debtor ever made a |\n| 18 | transfer to her, I pointed this out, but I can't believe I |\n| 19 | continue to hear it, she holds the Lady May, Your Honor, a |\n| 20 | document -- a boat that the Court has already found belongs |\n| 21 | to the debtor. |\n| 22 | Judge Liman in the Southern District has already |\n| 23 | found that Eastern Profit, an entity in her name, is, in |\n| 24 | fact, just a shell for the debtor.
And we have already |\n| 25 | found nine BVI entities, shell companies.
Of course there |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 76 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
76 |\n| 1 | is reason to believe the debtor sends assets and puts assets |\n| 2 | in her name.
Maybe more than anyone else, we know he does |\n| 3 | it. |\n| 4 | Now, with regard to the argument that we didn't -- |\n| 5 | somehow failed the procedural rule that we didn't lay out |\n| 6 | each specific request to them and they don't know what we're |\n| 7 | moving to compel on, I think even if you look at their |\n| 8 | papers, I'll certainly attest to it and I don't think Mr. |\n| 9 | Moriarty would disagree, we had lengthy meet and confers. |\n| 10 | Meet and confers were -- |\n| 11 | We made the point of going through every single |\n| 12 | objection and response and saying I want to understand, this |\n| 13 | is your final, this is what I find problematic, and I want |\n| 14 | to understand what your objection is because I'm going to |\n| 15 | move to compel.
I just don't think it's honest to say that |\n| 16 | they have no idea what we're moving on. |\n| 17 | It is true that in the interest of time there were |\n| 18 | such sweeping issues with regard to their blanket refusals |\n| 19 | to search for other individuals, their refusal to search for |\n| 20 | agents, to not look for family members, and to not -- and to |\n| 21 | take just the debtor's word, that we did organize our motion |\n| 22 | based around those huge macro issues as opposed to rewriting |\n| 23 | every single request, I don't think in anyway that prevents |\n| 24 | them from having adequate notice as exemplified by their |\n| 25 | lengthy objection. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 77 Finally, Your Honor, I do want to turn to the comment that somehow Ms. Guo on a technicality does not fall within the pending proceeding. I noticed that there is no argument that HK USA, even though they made the objection, falls within it. So now they say, well, the real -- they've pivoted and they said, well, it's that Ms. Guo technically wasn't a party. Now, Your Honor, I don't think the waiver argument changes at all. Earlier today you heard them tell you that they thought that the notice of the adversary proceeding was so large that Apsley and DWF could be covered by this. Ms. Guo is the sole, controlling party of HK USA, who was a party, who did see the -- was on the same omnibus as Ms. Guo which had the same footnote raising this issue and would be identically situated. But even if she wasn't, she was made a party on September 22nd. At no point did I receive a supplemental objection, response and objection, or any argument that they wanted to do this. It was not until they filed their objection that they raised this pending proceeding. I believe it is waived. And, moreover, Your Honor, for the reasons I stated before and won't repeat, even if it's not waived, I don't believe the fact that they've stalled and stalled in Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 77 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 78 doing this in producing their documents gives them a basis to now argue the 2004 should not apply. I believe that addresses all of Mr. Moriarty's comments. If Your Honor has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. THE COURT: Thank you. I don't. I do not have any questions at this time. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Moriarty, would you like to be heard? MR. MORIARTY: Yes, Your Honor. Very briefly. If I could just point out, Your Honor, in the objection that was filed by the debtor, and Ms. Guo, and HK, we do address the *Zubulake* case and the obligations of counsel. And this is at footnote 3, which I believe begins on page 12. And the *Zubulake* case, I think this is either four or five in the series of cases, does talk about the obligations of counsel to assist clients in locating responsive information and ensuring that it's preserved and then produced. And in that case, the Court made the statement -- and this is at page 435. So it's 229 F.R.D. 422, and it's at 435 -- that it is true that counsel need not supervise every step of the document production process and may rely Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 79 on their clients in some respects. And that's what we did here as it relates to the text messages that are in Chinese. As for Attorney Luft's argument, he's discussing a lot of information that I assume was obtained from professional firms. He's representing to the Court that there's email correspondence said on behalf of the debtor from Max Krasner, Aaron Mitchell, and others, none of that is in the record, Your Honor. That is just a statement of counsel. So I do want to point out that much of Mr. Luft's argument and his representations are simply representations. There's no evidence in the record to support them. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I think I'm fine on argument on this matter at this point. I'm going to take this matter under advisement. So let's move on to the motion for protective order. Mr. Romney, are you going to argue that matter? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Can you just get as close to the microphone as possible, please. MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Can you hear me okay, Your Honor? Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 79 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 80 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
80 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Can we hear him okay? |\n| 2 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay.
We'll let you know if we can't. |\n| 4 | Okay? |\n| 5 | MR. ROMNEY:
I've never been accused of being too |\n| 6 | quiet, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well, I understand.
Nor have I.
But |\n| 8 | sometimes the microphones don't pick up our voices properly. |\n| 9 | MR. ROMNEY:
Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on |\n| 10 | behalf of the debtor. |\n| 11 | I'm here today arguing the debtor's motion for a |\n| 12 | protective order concerning the debtor's asylum application. |\n| 13 | Your Honor, the motion now before the Court |\n| 14 | concerning the asylum application is quite different from |\n| 15 | any of the issues that have been before the Court today. |\n| 16 | And, frankly, quite different than most, if not all, of the |\n| 17 | issues that have been before the Court throughout the entire |\n| 18 | course of this bankruptcy proceeding. |\n| 19 | This motion concerns the right of the debtor to |\n| 20 | preclude third parties, including the trustee, from |\n| 21 | accessing his asylum application submitted to the United |\n| 22 | States Department of Homeland Security. |\n| 23 | That application contains information that if |\n| 24 | provided to the wrong people could expose the debtor, his |\n| 25 | family members and other third parties, to serious personal |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 81 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
81 |\n| 1 | harm including serious physical injury and possibly worse. |\n| 2 | Numerous bodies of law, including those issued |\n| 3 | from this court, protect the debtor's rights concerning the |\n| 4 | asylum application. |\n| 5 | We have discussed ad nauseam before this court on |\n| 6 | multiple dates the consented to order regarding privileges |\n| 7 | in this case. |\n| 8 | Paragraph 2 of that order identified information |\n| 9 | that transferred -- or privileges -- privileged information, |\n| 10 | that transferred from the debtor to the trustee upon his |\n| 11 | appointment. |\n| 12 | It identified two privileges. Attorney-client and |\n| 13 | work product.
And within that, certainly joint attorney |\n| 14 | client privilege and work product, but I would consider |\n| 15 | those a subset.
Those were the privileges identified in |\n| 16 | paragraph 2, and those privileges related to defined |\n| 17 | investigation topics. |\n| 18 | Paragraph 4 of the stipulated order identified |\n| 19 | privileges, not so limited as attorney-client and work |\n| 20 | product, that the debtor retained, and in particular when |\n| 21 | the information did not concern the investigation topics, |\n| 22 | which I believe everyone in the room is aware, but the |\n| 23 | investigation topics generally refer to the assets and |\n| 24 | financial affairs and liabilities of the debtor. |\n| 25 | The privilege order also provides in paragraph 7 |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 82 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
82 |\n| 1 | that even if something is presumptively producible to the |\n| 2 | trustee, or the trustee now controls the privilege, the |\n| 3 | Court must also undertake a balancing test of is producing |\n| 4 | this information going -- is the personal harm to the debtor |\n| 5 | -- the personal harm, is it outweighed by any benefit to the |\n| 6 | debtor. |\n| 7 | We had several hearings over that privilege order. |\n| 8 | I believe it was three.
It might have even been four. |\n| 9 | Numerous representations were made by the debtor and |\n| 10 | acknowledged by the Court that the trustee was not seeking |\n| 11 | the debtor's asylum application. |\n| 12 | We specifically mentioned the Clark Hill |\n| 13 | litigation that concerns a data breach involving the |\n| 14 | debtor's asylum application and we specifically put in the |\n| 15 | privilege order that that litigation did not concern the |\n| 16 | substance of the asylum application. |\n| 17 | The Immigration and Nationality Act, codified in |\n| 18 | Federal Code of Regulations 208.6 and 1208.6, which are |\n| 19 | substantively identical as far as I can tell, protect the |\n| 20 | disclosure of asylum applications to anyone unless the head |\n| 21 | of Homeland Security authorizes it to be released to |\n| 22 | particularized people for cause or the debtor consents. |\n| 23 | The trustee has objected on the grounds that this |\n| 24 | does not apply to private parties. |\n| 25 | I do not know if Your Honor has had a chance to |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 83 look at our reply filed just yesterday -- THE COURT: No. MR. ROMNEY: -- or Exhibit A thereto, but that is a pamphlet prepared by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is a division of the Department of Homeland Security. It contains both the letter of CFR 208.6, commentary on it and specific Q and A. One of the specific questions cited in my reply, I believe it's question 7, raises the question of whether third parties who receive the asylum application for cause as permitted by the statute, whether they, themselves are bound by the confidentiality provisions of the regulation, and the answer is an unequivocal yes. The fact that Clark Hill has the debtor's asylum application does not make the debtor's asylum application any less privileged or protected under federal law. It's not the attorney-client privilege. It's not work product. It is a protection afforded to all asylum applicants by the federal government. Aside from the letter of the privilege order -- well, take a step back. One of the things that has come up in today's hearing is what's in the record, what's not in the record, what's a representation of counsel, where is the evidence? Fortunately on this one the evidence is in the Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 83 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 84 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
84 |\n| 1 | transcripts in the proceedings before this court.
I cited |\n| 2 | some, but not all, of the representations from counsel where |\n| 3 | they specifically said in response to our concerns that |\n| 4 | transferring of privileges would result in personal harm. |\n| 5 | We identified the asylum application among other topics that |\n| 6 | were particularly sensitive. |\n| 7 | They repeatedly stated that I was -- I'm |\n| 8 | paraphrasing -- but essentially raising a red herring |\n| 9 | because they were not seeking the debtor's asylum |\n| 10 | application. |\n| 11 | They made these statements knowing about the Clark |\n| 12 | Hill
litigation and knowing that it concerned a data breach |\n| 13 | concerning the asylum application.
They repeatedly said |\n| 14 | they are not seeking the debtor's asylum application. |\n| 15 | In response, the Court stated, and this is cited |\n| 16 | on page 4 of our objection -- I'm sorry, of our motion for |\n| 17 | protective order, docket number 1063, the Court stated my |\n| 18 | understanding of that motion was that even though the |\n| 19 | trustee wants that order he would agree to carve out |\n| 20 | anything regarding to the asylum issue.
I mean, he was -- |\n| 21 | he's not asserting and never has asserted that he's going to |\n| 22 | exercise that right. |\n| 23 | That is the Court's statement relying on the |\n| 24 | trustee's position before it entered an order that was |\n| 25 | stipulated to by the parties. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 85 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 85 Now, the trustee now argues in response to this issue, and now the motion for a protective order, well, we didn't know that it was attached by Clark Hill to a pleading in the *Clark Hill* litigation. Frankly, Your Honor, whether they knew it was attached to a pleading is a red herring for a variety of reasons. One, by the time the stipulated privilege order entered, everybody who's been in this room over and over again knew about the *Clark Hill* litigation and what -- the substance of it. The substance was a data breach involving the debtor's asylum application. The fact that a third party, Clark Hill, chose to attach it to its summary judgment motion does not operate as a waiver by the debtor or change the nature of the issues in that litigation. The issues in that litigation are is Clark Hill responsible for a data breach under any number of legal theories, whether it's malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and if so, what are the damages? The damages relate -- the only damage potentially that could conceivably involve the substance of the asylum application is the impact on the debtor, the emotional impact on the debtor, that resulted from the leak of portions of his asylum application into the public domain.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 86 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
86 |\n| 1 | Those issues can be explored any number of ways |\n| 2 | without providing the complete asylum application with no |\n| 3 | redactions, no anything, to the trustee who's a partner in a |\n| 4 | firm with I don't know hundreds or thousands of lawyers that |\n| 5 | would presumably have access to this information, offices |\n| 6 | all over the world that would have access to this |\n| 7 | information. |\n| 8 | The reality is though, Your Honor, a deal was |\n| 9 | made.
A stipulated order was made. |\n| 10 | We have had disagreements about the interpretation |\n| 11 | of that order.
And that's fine.
That's the judicial system |\n| 12 | of which we've all chosen to become a party and dedicate our |\n| 13 | professional lives to.
Disagreements are fine. |\n| 14 | However, what is not fine is making an unambiguous |\n| 15 | agreement and then unambiguously saying I changed my mind. |\n| 16 | That's what's being done here.
It's not right.
It's |\n| 17 | contrary to the law. |\n| 18 | And unlike the other issues in this case that |\n| 19 | concern money, money can be made, money can be lost, |\n| 20 | property can be gained, property can be lost, the asylum |\n| 21 | application concerns human beings' lives and political |\n| 22 | persecution.
And whether one believes the allegations or |\n| 23 | not, the federal government recognizes the sanctity of the |\n| 24 | information in that application. |\n| 25 | And for that reason, Your Honor, I'm asking that |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 87 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 87 you grant the protective order, require the trustee to honor the stipulated order that it entered into and protect the information in the debtor's asylum application. Unless the Court has any further questions, I will rely on my papers for any issues I've not addressed today. THE COURT: I don't have any questions at this time. Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. LUFT: Thank you. Your Honor, Avi Luft, Paul Hastings. I think I'll start with where Mr. Romney ended. He said this isn't about money, it's about people, it's about their lives. Now, I think we should really be honest about why we're here. We didn't make a request for the asylum application. We made a request to get the documents in the litigations that the trustee now controls. The asylum application is an exhibit and central to that litigation. Why is that? It's not a litigation that Mr. Despins brought. It's one Mr. Kwok brought for money. He wanted to sue his counsel for money and he sued them based on the idea that his asylum application was made public. That may have happened. He may have been harmed by it. I\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 88 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
88 |\n| 1 | don't dispute that one way or the other, but that's the |\n| 2 | claim he brought. |\n| 3 | And in response,Clark Hill has raised the defense |\n| 4 | most prominently you weren't harmed because your information |\n| 5 | in your asylum application was made public, because, in |\n| 6 | fact, all that information was already public. |\n| 7 | So in many ways, the crux of the entire dispute |\n| 8 | that Mr. Kwok brought for money was whether or not that |\n| 9 | information ,which is now all the parties agree public, was |\n| 10 | made public by Clark Hill or was previously made public by |\n| 11 | Mr. Kwok or by other parties. |\n| 12 | So let's -- I understand it sounds good to save |\n| 13 | lives and everything else, let's be very clear. Mr. Kwok |\n| 14 | brought a lawsuit that inherently required discussion of his |\n| 15 | asylum application for money.
He has never once demanded |\n| 16 | that Clark Hill turn over his asylum application. |\n| 17 | He has litigated this entire case in the District |\n| 18 | of Columbia's District Court knowing not only that Clark |\n| 19 | Hill has it, but that both sides have hired experts who |\n| 20 | opine about it, whether the information's there, what harm |\n| 21 | they have and whatever else. |\n| 22 | And now the way this came to us is because there |\n| 23 | is a pending motion for summary judgment against the claim's |\n| 24 | now facing Mr. Despins now has to defend.
And I can't see |\n| 25 | that motion because attached to it is, A, the asylum |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 89 application, B, I'm told, and this is by counsel for Clark Hill, that there was a chart comparing the contents of the asylum -- Yes, Your Honor? THE COURT: Can I just ask you a question? MR. LUFT: Yes. THE COURT: Who filed the motion for summary judgment in that case? MR. LUFT: Clark Hill did, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. LUFT: In response -- in large part as I understand it. Again, I haven't seen the documents yet, so this is what has been represented to me and counsel for the debtor by counsel for Clark Hill at Jenner & Block, that there is -- it is attached -- that there is some type of chart which compares what's in the asylum application versus what has been found on -- publicly previously on the internet. My understanding is that's based on an expert's work who -- THE COURT: And you can't see it because there's an order in the case that everything is under seal or what is the -- MR. LUFT: Not everything, Your Honor. It just was filed under seal in a -- THE COURT: The motion for summary judgment. Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 89 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 90 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
90 |\n| 1 | Okay.
Go ahead.
I'm just trying to understand.
Go ahead. |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
Absolutely, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | And in a weird quirk that motion, as I understand |\n| 4 | it, was filed the day before the debtor filed bankruptcy. |\n| 5 | So there's not even an unredacted copy of that motion. |\n| 6 | Because when Jenner & Block asked Mr. Kwok's counsel, Ari |\n| 7 | Casper at the time, to create that, Mr. Casper appealed to |\n| 8 | the Court and said I don't think I'll get paid for that work |\n| 9 | so I don't want to do it, and the Court allowed that. |\n| 10 | So the fact is not only can I not see a complete |\n| 11 | copy of the papers, I can't see any copy of the papers of a |\n| 12 | motion for summary judgment that is currently pending |\n| 13 | against now my client against his claims along with a motion |\n| 14 | to strike all of what are now my client's, were the |\n| 15 | debtor's, experts. |\n| 16 | I have asked to see the summary judgment motion, |\n| 17 | that motion striking the expert's, the underlying expert |\n| 18 | reports in the deposition.
These are the core elements of |\n| 19 | the litigation that have never been disputed. |\n| 20 | This is not a trivial case.
The debtor in his |\n| 21 | complaint asserts damages of up to \\$15 million.
And my |\n| 22 | understanding even until today is still asserting that this |\n| 23 | is a multimillion dollar claim that is a potential asset for |\n| 24 | the creditors.
The trustee needs to be able to see these |\n| 25 | documents to be able to evaluate the case to defend it, to |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 91 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
91 |\n| 1 | understand what the value is. |\n| 2 | Now, the other thing that's important to know, |\n| 3 | Your Honor, is this asylum application is not privileged. |\n| 4 | Mr. Romney said so.
It's in the email that we cited. |\n| 5 | There's no question.
It is not a privileged document.
It |\n| 6 | was produced to the government years ago.
It's just not |\n| 7 | privileged. |\n| 8 | Before I turn to the order though, Your Honor, I |\n| 9 | do think it is important to understand exactly how central |\n| 10 | this document is. |\n| 11 | I heard, Your Honor that you didn't have a chance |\n| 12 | to see the late filed reply by the debtor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
No, we had court yesterday. |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
Perfectly understandable, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | I would, if you don't mind, ask the Court to just |\n| 16 | look at I believe it is document 1174, which is the debtor's |\n| 17 | reply, and specifically paragraph 5, there is a statement by |\n| 18 | the debtor. |\n| 19 | The substance of the entire asylum application is |\n| 20 | not at issue in the action captioned Guo Wengui v. Clark |\n| 21 | Hill
or the malpractice action.
That statement that the |\n| 22 | substance of the asylum application is not at issue in the |\n| 23 | Clark Hill litigation is directly contrary to what counsel |\n| 24 | for Clark Hill told both counsel for the debtor and counsel |\n| 25 | for the trustee. |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1220 | Filed 12/11/22 | Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 | Page 92 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 92 If Your Honor turns to our opposition at document 1105-1, those are the exhibits, and specifically page 97 of 118, I think this is very important. Your Honor will find an email chain. Vincent Lazar is counsel for Jenner & Block -- is counsel at Jenner & Block, counsel for Clark Hill. He writes an email responding to Mr. Romney who has told him previously he doesn't think the asylum application has anything to do with the debtor's estate. This is what counsel in the case said about the role of the asylum application. You've directed us to withhold the asylum application from the trustee which you acknowledge is not privileged. Contrary to your assertion that the asylum application, \"has absolutely nothing to do with the debtor's estate.\" The core allegation of the debtor's complaint against Clark Hill is that the content of the asylum application was leaked and, therefore, damaged the debtor. One of Clark Hill's primary defenses is that the supposedly leaked information was voluntarily put on the internet or otherwise publicly disclosed by the debtor. Thus the asylum application and the information from the asylum application that was supposedly leaked is fundamental to the *Clark Hill* litigation. He goes on in the next paragraph and says, as\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 93 of
113 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
93 |\n| 1 | noted above, the information in the asylum application is |\n| 2 | related to and indeed fundamental to the Clark Hill |\n| 3 | litigation and thus appears to fall within the bolded |\n| 4 | exception. |\n| 5 | The exception he is referring to, Your Honor, if |\n| 6 | you look, is in your privileged consent order, paragraph 4, |\n| 7 | which specifically carved out information, information going |\n| 8 | to the merits, the litigation merits of the Clark Hill |\n| 9 | litigation. |\n| 10 | So while there is no citation for Mr. Romney's |\n| 11 | statement that the substance of the entire asylum |\n| 12 | application is not at issue, in fact, if we look to the |\n| 13 | parties who are actually in that case they say it's |\n| 14 | fundamental to that litigation. |\n| 15 | And of course it is, Your Honor.
I can't even see |\n| 16 | the dispositive motion that is pending against my client |\n| 17 | without this. |\n| 18 | Now, as I said, if Your Honor is interested, one |\n| 19 | can look to the complaint and see that debtor specifically |\n| 20 | raised these very allegations about the information being |\n| 21 | made public and saying that it directly and proximately |\n| 22 | caused his harm. |\n| 23 | And, in fact, if one looks at the Court's decision |\n| 24 | from the district court with regard to denying Clark Hill's |\n| 25 | motion to dismiss, they cite those very paragraphs, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 94 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
94 |\n| 1 | paragraphs 43 and 44 of the complaint, and state the alleged |\n| 2 | -- the plaintiff has alleged an actual injury resulting from |\n| 3 | defendant's conduct.
The hacker then published the |\n| 4 | confidential material including plaintiff's application for |\n| 5 | political asylum and passport. |\n| 6 | Your Honor, this is fundamentally central and it |\n| 7 | is at issue because Mr. Kwok made a decision that he was |\n| 8 | willing to put his asylum application at issue in the Clark |\n| 9 | Hill
litigation in order to pursue money damages from them. |\n| 10 | Now, also in their reply, at paragraph 5, there is |\n| 11 | an argument where they say, well, the trustee, if he really |\n| 12 | wants to know the information in the asylum application as |\n| 13 | it relates to damages, can gather it from the public sphere. |\n| 14 | That's their phrase. |\n| 15 | Now, not only do I think that is completely |\n| 16 | implausible, it also undermines the entire point of this |\n| 17 | motion. |\n| 18 | First, the idea that the trustee should scour the |\n| 19 | internet to try to find a copy of the asylum application is |\n| 20 | completely unreasonable. |\n| 21 | But, moreover, to the extent the debtor believes |\n| 22 | that that is something that is possible and doable, then why |\n| 23 | are we here on a protective order if all the trustee has to |\n| 24 | do is theoretically know where to look on the internet? |\n| 25 | This is not privileged information. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 95 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 95 And, in fact, the parties in the *Clark Hill* litigation seem to agree on one thing. It's no longer even confidential information. They both agree that it's public. they just disagree when it was made public. Whether it was before the hack or due to the hack. At this point, Your Honor, I'd like to turn to the consent order and this idea that it's privileged. The privileges consent order relates to privileged documents. The debtor knows this. In paragraph 6, in document 1063 of his protective order motion, he writes, the consent order defined the scope of the trustee's and the debtor's respective control of the attorney-client and work product privileges, and set forth certain procedures for disputes concerning the same. That's what the consent order deals with. It deals with the attorney-client and attorney work client privileges. There is a reference to privileges, but those are privileges. It's something like the common interest privilege, understood privileges. Instead, what we have here now, given the fact that the debtor's counsel has already conceded these are not privileged documents under attorney-client or work product, they have invented a privilege. Again, Your Honor, I ask you to turn to their\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 96 of
113 | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 | 96 |\n| 1 | reply at ECF 1174, paragraph 4, page 3 of 7 -- | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Hold on.
You're going to fast. | |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
Sorry, Your Honor.
I apologize. | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
That's okay. | |\n| 5 | (Pause.) | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
So, I'm looking at their -- | |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Their reply, Your Honor. | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yes.
That was filed yesterday -- | |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
Correct, Your Honor. | |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
-- at 5:03 p.m.
Okay.
Go ahead. | |\n| 11 | What paragraph? | |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
Paragraph 4, Your Honor. | |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm there. | |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
All right.
Although the completed | |\n| 15 | version of the asylum application was not technically | |\n| 16 | protected by the attorney-client privilege, once it was | |\n| 17 | submitted to the government for consideration the asylum | |\n| 18 | application is nonetheless protected from disclosure by | |\n| 19 | federal law and specifically 8 CFR, Section 208.6(a), | |\n| 20 | therefore, it is privileged from disclosure. | |\n| 21 | Now, first of all, there's nothing technical about | |\n| 22 | it, Your Honor.
It is simply not a privileged document. | It |\n| 23 | has been with the government for years.
And, moreover, it | |\n| 24 | seems to have been disclosed for longer than that. | |\n| 25 | So, instead, they invent a privilege to try to get | |\n| | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 97 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
97 |\n| 1 | under the consent order.
They say the fact that there is a |\n| 2 | federal regulation regarding the confidentiality or the |\n| 3 | confidential treatment of a document
-- I would argue by |\n| 4 | the federal government, they would argue by anyone, I don't |\n| 5 | think it's relevant to the point right now -- makes it |\n| 6 | privileged. |\n| 7 | Your Honor enters protective orders all the time. |\n| 8 | Parties enter into confidentiality agreements all the time. |\n| 9 | The fact that a document falls under them doesn't make those |\n| 10 | documents privileged.
It means they're subject, they're |\n| 11 | confidential, they may even be attorneys' eyes only, but |\n| 12 | they're not privileged.
They're just subject to a |\n| 13 | protective order.
There is no privilege with regard to this |\n| 14 | document. |\n| 15 | And accordingly all of their arguments with regard |\n| 16 | to what was said about the consent order, what the consent |\n| 17 | order says, are really in opposite. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
So you'd be agreeable to entering into |\n| | |\n\n a protective order with regard to this information with the debtor and the counsel in the case pending in the District of Columbia? MR. LUFT: In fact, Your Honor, I already have.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. So then what's the problem? MR. LUFT: I have signed the protective order. That's my good question, Your Honor. I signed the\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 98 protective order, this is in our papers, that is in place in the District of Columbia to be able to see those documents, even though the attorney -- THE COURT: Is the debtor a signatory to that? MR. LUFT: What's that? THE COURT: Is the debtor a signatory to that protective order? MR. LUFT: I believe because he's a party, he's already. THE COURT: So, Attorney Romney, what -- why isn't the issue resolved with a -- this is a motion for a protective order. This is your motion. So why isn't there a protective order that can address this whole thing and then we don't have to fight about this whole thing because you can't expect or I don't think that a party could expect a party to a lawsuit to not be able to respond to a motion because it's under seal and subject, it's not privileged, it's a protective -- it's subject -- it's a protective order. The only privilege is, as you've stated, and I think correctly under the privileges order, were attorney- client privilege and work product doctrine. I understand your argument, Attorney Romney, about the asylum application. But the problem that you have now isn't that the trustee is seeking discovery with regard to Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 99 the asylum application. That the trustee has to respond to a motion for summary judgment, right? So why can't that all just be part of a protective order? How can the -- you can't stop them from defending a motion for summary judgment. MR. ROMNEY: I agree with that statement, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Well, then good. And I'll let you all take a break and you can come back and show me your protective order, because I'm not going to -- there isn't a -- what are we arguing about? I understand your points. I do. I really do. And I hear you. But this is an issue that's resolvable. If they breach the protective order, you sue them. That's how it works, right? So let's get to the reality of the situation and make that happen. MR. LUFT: Your Honor -- THE COURT: And then everybody has what they need to have to fairly and completely deal with the cause of action that's outside of this court. You have the right to make sure that that protective order protects that information as far as that lawsuit is concerned. I agree with that. But I don't agree that the trustee can't have that Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 99 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 100 information in order to defend that lawsuit. It doesn't make any sense. And if they -- you know -- and I heard you. I heard you. You said, you know, the trustee works at a large law firm. They've got offices all over the place. They're going to disclose it to all these people. If Mr. Despins does that, then he's subject to a lawsuit by your client, right? And damages and all those things. That's what the law provides. That's why there's these sections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I don't need to rule on this. You just need to come up with an order that makes it all work. That's your job. That's both of your jobs. And I'm not saying you're not trying to do that. But now I'm saying just get it done. Okay? Because I'm not ruling on this. This is -- the other issues, I have to look at, I have to look at, but this -- and I have to determine based upon the arguments that were made today and all these other matters whether or not -- what I -- what this court can or should do with regard to those matters. But with regard to this issue, this asylum application -- and Mr. Romney, I'm not even going to get into, I don't think I need to, whether the debtor's already disclosed this so that there is no expectation of confidentiality. I don't need to do that. Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 100 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 101 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 101 All I need to do is have you parties come together on a protective order. They have to be able to see this to respond to summary judgment. And anything else in that case. The protective order. Anything else in that case. All you have to do is go talk to the judge in the District of Columbia. What do you think the judge is going to say? The judge is going to say, well, how can they not respond to summary judgment? How can they not see this if they're now the party to this lawsuit? So go ahead. I'm sorry. I know I asked you about 12 questions. I'm trying to get to -- I'm trying to be practical here. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, and I appreciate that, and I could maybe on a good day respond to 7 out of 12 off the top of my head. THE COURT: I'm not asking you to. MR. ROMNEY: I know. But, so, I think what I would ask then, and I hear Your Honor, as I have told Avi basically verbatim on this issue before I had been educated on CFR 208.6, I'm an agent and I can only do what I'm authorized to do. But I think -- I hear what Your Honor is saying. I think that working this out in the hallway for such a sensitive issue would be overzealous. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Could we have a continuance?\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 102 THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, let's talk about that. MR. LUFT: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I don't know when the summary judgment motion needs to be -- when the response needs to be filed. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, if I may? First of all, we have -- every month I have to submit something with counsel in that case and tell them where we are. We have now put off the judge for months -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. LUFT: -- telling him effectively I'm waiting to see this document. I can't do anything. I don't know how much patience the Court has. I can -- THE COURT: Well, can I ask why can't the judge order that you can see it? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, quite frankly, I think we have something in place right now. THE COURT: No. But what I'm saying is -- MR. LUFT: No. I -- THE COURT: -- why can't you just show him what's in place here and say, Judge, I need to be able to see this in order to respond to the summary judgment motion. MR. LUFT: Because, Your Honor, there's nothing about his case -- Mr. Despins substitutes in under Rule 2012 into the case. THE COURT: Right. Case 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 102 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 103 MR. LUFT: He is there. This is only being obstructed, quite frankly, because counsel for the debtor has interjected himself and told counsel for Clark, Jenner & Block, who's counsel for Clark Hill, don't you dare show him that document. THE COURT: Who's the counsel for the debtor in the D.C. case? MR. LUFT: It was Ari Casper. I don't know if he still is. He's indicated that -- THE COURT: Well, there's got to be somebody that represents the debtor, right? MR. LUFT: Well, it's been Mr. Casper before. We've gone through this. But, Your Honor, I believe you're on the right -- you have the right idea. And I think, to be honest, we're there. There is a protective order in the District Court in D.C. There is a protective order here. If they would like to designate this as highly confidential, of course. I've said this repeatedly. We'll abide by whatever designation anyone wants. We have a protective order that is meant to secure these documents. This document is no different. It's a sensitive document. To be honest, I will push aside the illusions to the fact that we have offices around the world or that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 104 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 104 somehow my law firm is not going to act in the upmost professionalism with regard to the document. I don't think that even merits response. But quite frankly, Your Honor, we have a protective order here, and there happens to be one in the District of Columbia, so I have two orders that the trustee has agreed to abide by. Okay? So I'm -- if we want to put a third order in, I guess we could. To be honest, I think it's redundant of what Your Honor already did. We have an order that clearly would cover how to deal with highly confidential documents. THE COURT: Okay. I understand what you're saying. So what I'm going to do is, I'm going to take a recess until 2:30. You're all going to talk about it. If you don't decide it today, I might agree to continue this. I'll figure it out. But I'm not spending any more time on this. Okay? It's already -- it is something that you as attorneys in this case must resolve. And it needs to be resolved. And it's not efficient -- it's not efficient use of the Court's time to deal with this. I'm not going to. And I'm going to be very clear, they need to see this document in order to respond and defend this case in the district court. And if they don't, if that isn't -- if there isn't some agreement reached on that, then I may send\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 105 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
105 |\n| 1 | -- I don't know what I'll do, but I'll tell you, I don't |\n| 2 | know that everybody's going to like it -- so I would -- I |\n| 3 | would suggest that you take the time and get this done.
We |\n| 4 | have so many other issues that we have to address in this |\n| 5 | case and these adversary proceedings, this should not be one |\n| 6 | of them.
Okay? |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
All right.
So court is in recess |\n| 9 | until 2:30. |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:
Your Honor, if I may make one -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Court is in recess until 2:30. |\n| 12 | (Recess from 2:30 p.m. until 2:53 p.m.) |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay. When we took a recess Mr. Luft |\n| 14 | was responding to the motion for a protective order and I |\n| 15 | asked Mr. Luft and Mr. Romney to have some discussions about |\n| 16 | the motion for a protective order. |\n| 17 | Is there anything the parties have to report to |\n| 18 | the court? |\n| 19 | MR. KINDSETH:
Yes, Your Honor.
If I may, Stephen |\n| 20 | Kindseth for the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Hold on a second.
You didn't make the |\n| 22 | argument, so why are you making the reporting? I just asked |\n| 23 | Mr. Romney and Mr. Luft. |\n| 24 | MR. KINDSETH:
Because I was the person who |\n| 25 | reached out to -- attempted to reach the client, attempted |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 106 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
106 |\n| 1 | to reach immigration counsel and engaged in substantive |\n| 2 | conversations with the trustee and trustee's counsel and I'd |\n| 3 | like to report on the progress of those discussions. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 5 | MR. KINDSETH:
First of all, I'd like to express |\n| 6 | that we heard Your Honor loud and clear with respect to Your |\n| 7 | Honor's strong indication -- inclination to ensure that the |\n| 8 | trustee and the trustee's counsel receives a copy of the |\n| 9 | asylum application to ensure that the trustee can defend and |\n| 10 | prosecute the litigation and the underlying litigation. |\n| 11 | With that said, we are in need to work with the |\n| 12 | existing protective order and the order that had entered in |\n| 13 | the underlying litigation. |\n| 14 | But unfortunately, at this point, Your Honor, we |\n| 15 | were not able to reach our client or reach immigration |\n| 16 | counsel to get their input and thoughts on the prospect for |\n| 17 | a supplemental order that addresses Your Honor's concern and |\n| 18 | the trustee's concern while also ensuring that my client's |\n| 19 | interests and concerns are addressed as well. |\n| 20 | Your Honor, the issue was compounded by the fact |\n| 21 | that we do not have access to the order that entered in the |\n| 22 | underlying litigation and, therefore, can't -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
How could you not have access to it? |\n| 24 | MR. KINDSETH:
We don't have it right now. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's different.
Stop. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 107 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
107 |\n| 1 | MR. KINDSETH:
Sorry. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
That's not not having access. |\n| 3 | MR. KINDSETH:
My apologies. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 5 | MR. KINDSETH:
Within the hour. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Because you're the counsel to Mr. |\n| 7 | Kwok. |\n| 8 | MR. KINDSETH:
Within the hour. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
That's fair.
But don't |\n| 10 | tell me you don't have access to it. |\n| 11 | MR. KINDSETH:
I meant within the hour. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's fair. |\n| 13 | MR. KINDSETH:
Additionally, we were only able to |\n| 14 | look at the protective order that entered in this case on |\n| 15 | our phones, which isn't really conducive to coming up with a |\n| 16 | supplemental order. |\n| 17 | I am prepared, Your Honor, based on our |\n| 18 | recollection of that order, prepared to highly recommend to |\n| 19 | our client to agree to a supplemental order that limits the |\n| 20 | scope of people who can view the asylum application. |\n| 21 | If Your Honor recalls, the privilege order |\n| 22 | actually enables not just counsel for the trustee and the |\n| 23 | trustee to receive such documents but, I believe, based on |\n| 24 | recollection, it can also go to the committee and PAX. |\n| 25 | And I suspect that that would not be acceptable to |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 108 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
108 |\n| 1 | my client and, therefore, we would recommend to our client |\n| 2 | that the scope of individuals who could view the document |\n| 3 | would be limited do the trustee and the trustee's counsel |\n| 4 | who are working on this matter and working in the underlying |\n| 5 | litigation. |\n| 6 | We have also proposed to the trustee and would |\n| 7 | recommend to our client that with respect to storing it |\n| 8 | electronically at Paul Hastings, that it should be of |\n| 9 | limited access. Again, limited to that same group, counsel |\n| 10 | who are representing the trustee in this case or in the |\n| 11 | underlying litigation. |\n| 12 | So with that said we're asking the court to |\n| 13 | continue the motion where we will, in fact, make those |\n| 14 | strong recommendations to our client and convey to our |\n| 15 | client the court's inclination with respect to the need to |\n| 16 | share the asylum application with the trustee and the |\n| 17 | trustee's counsel. |\n| 18 | We'll ask that the motion be continued to next |\n| 19 | week, perhaps next Tuesday, so we can look at the underlying |\n| 20 | order here, looking at the underlying order in the |\n| 21 | underlying litigation, speak to immigration counsel, speak |\n| 22 | to our client, you know, through an interpreter and work out |\n| 23 | that supplemental order. |\n| 24 | But, again, I am stating on the record what |\n| 25 | counsel's recommendation will be to our client. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 109 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 109 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just want to be very clear on the record. I don't have concerns. The way that the parties are characterizing the court, I didn't take a position other than to say you need to solve this problem. You have a protective order in place. There is an action that I'm being told about in the District Court for the District of Columbia in which there's an asylum application that -- and a motion for summary judgment. I don't have an inclination nor do I have a concern. I'm telling you you have your obligations as lawyers to resolve this issue under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under the existing orders. So I want to be very clear about that. The manipulation of what has been said by this court is not appreciated. And I'm not talking to you specifically, Attorney Kindseth. But I'm not going to spend any more time on this. That's all I'm going to say. Okay? MR. KINDSETH: I apologize, Your Honor. THE COURT: So Attorney Luft, what is your position on continuing this matter until next week? MR. DESPINS: If I may, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Trustee.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 110 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022 110 This has been going on for three months. We believe that it should be adjourned till Friday. There's a hearing on Friday. And there's plenty of time to resolve this. This has been pending for three months. We've wasted thousands of dollars on this. THE COURT: Well, when you say pending for three months, it hasn't been pending in this court for three months. MR. DESPINS: No. No. But we've tried not to burden the court. THE COURT: I just want to be clear that I'm not making -- I'm not misunderstanding something, okay? So, Mr. Kindseth, there is already a protective order in place. I understand what you just said and appreciate what you said that you don't -- that you believe that even if you highly recommend this to your client, that the only agreement will be with regard to the trustee and the trustee's counsel. That may work, okay? But other parties may object. I don't know what is going to happen. But it does seem odd to me that you'd need until next Tuesday to resolve this issue when there -- you should be able to talk to your client. What I'm going to do is I'm going to continue it to Friday morning. I'm going to hear what you have to say. If for some reason you haven't been able to get in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 111 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
111 |\n| 1 | touch with your client, then I need -- you're going to have |\n| 2 | to tell me -- you're going to have to somehow, |\n| 3 | unfortunately, probably make some kind of affidavit, or put |\n| 4 | something in the record as to, you know, how you attempted |\n| 5 | to get in touch with your client.
Your client wouldn't talk |\n| 6 | to you.
Whatever the situation may be. |\n| 7 | But I need to have something in the record about |\n| 8 | that because this is a -- these are serious -- I mean, I |\n| 9 | know you know that. I'm not suggesting that you think |\n| 10 | otherwise. |\n| 11 | But as I've been saying now for the last -- well, |\n| 12 | I've been saying it for along time, but I've been saying it |\n| 13 | even more recently, this is a bankruptcy case, right?
This |\n| 14 | is a bankruptcy case. |\n| 15 | The trustee was appointed to investigate the |\n| 16 | affairs of the debtor.
That's what he has to do. |\n| 17 | If your client doesn't like that, I'm sorry about |\n| 18 | that, but that is what the trustee has to do.
And |\n| 19 | everything that happens in this case is at this point |\n| 20 | governed by that. |\n| 21 | The trustee was appointed to investigate the |\n| 22 | affairs of the debtor and that's where we are. |\n| 23 | So if the debtor doesn't respond to you, then |\n| 24 | you're going to have to put that in an affidavit that you |\n| 25 | made three attempts to contact him by telephone, by email, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1220
Filed 12/11/22
Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08
Page 112 of
113 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
112 |\n| 1 | by going to see him in person.
Whatever the situation may |\n| 2 | be, and that he wouldn't respond to you. |\n| 3 | I understand that he does not -- well, I shouldn't |\n| 4 | say that.
He may not be happy with where things are. I |\n| 5 | don't know.
That's the allegations anyway.
We all know |\n| 6 | what the allegations are. |\n| 7 | Then let's have -- let's get it done and figure |\n| 8 | out whether they're true or not, okay, and then we can all |\n| 9 | move on. I don't want to spend the next three months, five |\n| 10 | months, eight months talking about someone's alleging this |\n| 11 | and someone's alleging that. |\n| 12 | The job -- this job is to make the facts and apply |\n| 13 | the law.
That's what I'm supposed to do.
And every day |\n| 14 | that we don't do that and we have another hearing of another |\n| 15 | matter in this case where we don't advance the ball, that's |\n| 16 | not really how it should work. |\n| 17 | So I'm going to give you until Friday morning at |\n| 18 | 10:00 and then you're going to tell me where things stand. |\n| 19 | And if you aren't able to communicate with your client, or |\n| 20 | you are maybe, I may require you to file an affidavit. |\n| 21 | We're getting to the point now where we're just |\n| 22 | spinning wheels.
Well, we've been doing that, |\n| 23 | unfortunately, for a while.
But now things are getting more |\n| 24 | -- I mean, have gotten more serious and I take those serious |\n| 25 | issues very seriously. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 113 of\n\n| | 113 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok- November 30, 2022
113 |\n| 1 | This is a bankruptcy case.
This should be treated |\n| 2 | as a bankruptcy case and it's gotten completely out of hand. |\n| 3 | And I just -- we -- all of us have to do our jobs to make |\n| 4 | sure that doesn't happen, and that includes me and that |\n| 5 | includes everybody in this room.
We are in a bad place |\n| 6 | right now and it's not a place that anybody should be in in |\n| 7 | a bankruptcy case. |\n| 8 | So that's what I'm going to do. I'm continuing the |\n| 9 | matter till 10:00 a.m. on Friday and that's the end of that |\n| 10 | matter for today. |\n| 11 | Now with regard to the last matter on the calendar |\n| 12 | we're going to have to call that matter because it's the |\n| 13 | adversary proceeding. |\n| 14 | (Proceedings concluded at 3:04 p.m.) |\n| 15 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter and |\n| 16 | Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct |\n| 17 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |\n| 18 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | December 9, 2022 |\n| 22 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 23 | Transcriber |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）、GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰内弗控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（杰内弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n债务人。\n\n地点：Bridgeport, Connecticut\n日期：November 30, 2022\n\n关于聘任 NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯专业公司）担任债务人 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC 的共同律师之申请；关于第11章受托人陈述的密封动议；对债务人、与债务人关联的实体及个人、相关媒体公司及银行的额外法律和财务顾问进行 2004 审查的动议（第二次补充综合动议）；第11章受托人请求作出命令，强制个人债务人、MEI GUO（郭美）、HK INTL（香港国际）、HING CHI NGOK（郭庆）、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（金泉）遵守《规则》2004 传票的动议；以及保护令动议之庭审记录\n\n审判长：JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下\n美国联邦破产法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人、HK International 及 Mei Guo：\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（艾伦·罗姆尼律师）\nSTEPHEN KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·金德塞思律师）\nJAMES MORIARTY, ESQ.（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nAVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ.（阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，记录文本由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）：\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥迈律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nDOUGLAS G. SKALKA, ESQ.（道格拉斯·G·斯卡尔卡律师）\nNeubert, Pepe and Monteith\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 3 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 30, 2022 3\n\n（庭审于上午 11:10 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法庭：早上好。请先由第11章受托人进行出庭登记，以便载入记录。\n\nDESPINS 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nLUFT 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Avi Luft，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉，我没有听清您的姓名。很抱歉。\n\nLUFT 先生：当然。名字是 Avi，A-V-I，姓氏是 Luft，L-U-F-T。\n\n法庭：而且卢夫特律师已在本案中提交出庭登记——\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\n法庭：——我相信如此。\n\nLUFT 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我想我已经看到了。谢谢。PAX 的律师？噢，很抱歉。斯卡尔卡律师，您想先发言吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 30, 2022 4\n\nSKALKA 先生：不，法官阁下。只是为了与受托人的陈述保持一致，道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡，Neubert, Pepe and Monteith，代表——作为受托人的本地律师，也代表 Genever Holdings Corporation 和 Genever Holdings——\n\n法庭：由于某种原因，我听不见您说话。\n\nSKALKA 先生：噢，很抱歉。道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡，Neubert, Pepe and Monteith，担任第11章受托人的本地律师，同时担任 Genever Holdings Corporation 和 Genever Holdings, LLC 的律师。\n\n法庭：谢谢。抱歉。由于某种原因，设备没有收录您的声音，因此我表示歉意，但我们只是要确保能恰当地听清每个人的发言。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：斯图尔特·萨诺夫，O'Melveny & Myers，代表债权人 PAX。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nSMITH 女士：安妮卡·史密斯，Robinson and Cole，PAX 的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：早上好。霍莉·克莱伯恩，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：早上好，法官阁下。欧文\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 5 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 30, 2022 5\n\n戈德曼，Pullman and Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nKINDSETH 先生：早上好，法官阁下。斯蒂芬·金德塞思，Zeisler & Zeisler，代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok，以及 Mei Guo 和 HK International。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nROMNEY 先生：早上好，法官阁下。艾伦·罗姆尼，Zeisler & Zeisler，也代表债务人、HK International 和 Mei Guo。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：早上好，法官阁下。詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂，Zeisler & Zeisler，代表相同当事人。\n\n法庭：早上好。好的。正如我所说、我已说明的，我们在主案中有五项事项列入日程，我希望按照这些事项在日程中出现的顺序审理。首先，斯卡尔卡律师，是在主案中提交的聘任申请。请继续。\n\nSKALKA 先生：是。早上好，法官阁下。再次说明，我是道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡，Neubert, Pepe & Monteith，就本所申请在 Genever Holdings, LLC 案中受聘担任共同律师一事出庭。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 6 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 30, 2022 6\n\n本所已受聘担任第11章受托人的本地律师，并担任 Genever Holdings Corporation 的律师，该公司是 Genever Holdings, LLC 的母公司。正如我相信您所知，法官阁下，Genever Holdings, LLC 案原在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提交，并于数周前移送至本辖区。因此，受托人和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的董事请求本所出庭并获聘，与 Goldberg Weprin（戈德堡·韦普林律师事务所）共同担任律师；后者此前一直担任债务人在纽约的律师。我未收到对该聘任申请的任何异议。我的意图是，本所很可能将主要担任首席律师的角色，但会就其在本案中掌握的部分历史和背景向 Goldberg Weprin 请教并予以依赖。因此，我请求批准该聘任申请。\n\n法庭：而这基本上是我审阅申请时唯一的问题，即两家律所将如何划分角色和职责，因为你们将担任共同律师。但显然，正如你已经知道、且我相信其他律师也知道的，我们必须尽最大努力确保不会出现工作重复及诸如此类的情形。不过，听起来您告诉我的是，贵所将比共同律师承担更积极的角色，但共同律师可能需要为您提供建议或补充信息，因为相关事项发生在纽约的案件审理期间，而您可能并不掌握这些信息？\n\nSKALKA 先生：正是如此，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我感谢您的说明。克莱伯恩律师？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。美国受托人不持异议。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。是否有人希望就聘任 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 为 Genever Holdings, LLC 案中债务人共同律师的申请发言？\n\n好的。未听到任何回应。那么，正如我所说，斯卡尔卡律师，我已审阅该申请。我理解债务人寻求聘任贵所担任共同律师的理由。该申请符合《破产法典》、相关规则以及我们的地方法规的要求。无人对您的动议——抱歉，对您的申请提出书面异议。美国\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 7 of 113\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 8 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 30, 2022 8\n\n受托人办公室已提交无异议陈述。我已审阅拟议命令。噢，克莱伯恩律师，您有什么想补充的吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：只是为更正记录，法官阁下，我未提交陈述，但我今天在此向法庭表示，我不持异议。\n\n法庭：感谢您更正记录。美国受托人已在记录中表示，其不反对聘任 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 担任 Genever Holdings, LLC 案中债务人共同律师的申请；该案显然与另外两起第11章案件共同管理。我已审阅拟议命令，对拟议命令没有任何疑问或担忧。克莱伯恩律师，您是否已审阅——\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我对该命令没有任何担忧，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，该申请获准，拟议命令可以作出。\n\nSKALKA 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。现在转至主案中的密封动议，ECF No. 1134，谁将就该动议进行陈述？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 9 of 113\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 30, 2022 9\n\nDESPINS 先生：我将陈述，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：正如法官阁下所知，我们已就债务人发起的社交媒体活动提交了一份陈述，即受托人陈述。我们仅删节了会对所提及当事人造成损害的信息，因为我们会重新发布这些内容，所以我们删节了相关链接、地址或姓名。例如，关于我的女儿们，我们没有写入她们的姓名。因此，我们认为我们已在可能的最低限度内进行了删节，任何人都可以阅读该文件并清楚理解正在发生的事情，但他们不会获得可前往查找的确切链接。当然，法官阁下以及债务人和其他当事人，例如美国受托人，我认为均可查阅该等信息，因此我们请求准许该动议。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。是否还有其他人希望就密封动议发言？\n\n（无人回应。）\n\n法庭：好的。密封动议已待决逾一周。尽管周一已就密封动议安排了听证，但无人提交任何\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 30, 2022\n\n1 对密封动议的反对意见。\n\n2 参加本次听证的任何人均未反对密封动议。\n\n3 \n\n4 并且，根据本案非常具体的事实和情形，\n\n5 法庭认为、相信并认定，对第11章受托人的经删节陈述予以密封是适当的。\n\n6 \n\n7 因此，基于记录中陈述的理由，\n\n8 密封动议将获准。\n\n9 并且，Despins 受托人，将作出一项电子命令，\n\n10 该命令将类似于已在相关——\n\n11 一项相关对抗程序中作出的命令，因为您已经\n\n12 删节了相当大的部分。\n\n13 \n\n14 很抱歉。我应该说恰恰相反。\n\n15 您已提交的陈述仅有有限删节，\n\n16 因此我将准许对该文件予以密封，\n\n17 并将作出一项命令，其内容大体相同，\n\n18 与对抗程序中被删节信息的规定非常相似。好吗？\n\n19 \n\n20 DESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n21 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n22 该命令显然要到今天晚些时候才会作出，\n\n23 但应当会在今天作出。\n\n24 关于下一事项，日程上的下一事项是关于进行 2004 审查的动议，\n\n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 10 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 11 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - November 30, 2022\n\n第11章受托人的其他法律和财务顾问代为提交。\n\n那么，谁将就该动议进行陈述？\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：\n我将代表受托人进行陈述，法官阁下。Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），来自 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思律师事务所）。\n\n法官阁下，这是受托人就一系列 2004 审查提出的第二份补充综合动议。我相信，这是受托人自其于夏季获任以来提交的第四份 2004 审查动议。\n\n该项动议拟审查最多 53 名受审查人，其被描述为顾问、关联人士、银行及供应商；受托人认为，他们可能掌握有关个人债务人财务状况、资产和负债的关键信息。\n\n该动议在结构和格式上与受托人申请的其他 2004 审查动议相似。在该动议中，我们说明了各名受审查人、他们与个人债务人的关系，以及受托人为何认为这些受审查人可能掌握与本案相关的信息，作为其在本案中调查的一部分。\n\n如法官阁下所知，受托人不得不在本案中进行一项非常广泛且全面的调查。在其调查债务人资产和负债的过程中，债务人给予的配合极少。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022\n\n该动议同样与此前的审查申请一致。\n\n该申请指出，所要求的部分信息具体涉及两名与 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）有关的受审查人，该两名受审查人在动议中被描述为 Apsley（阿普斯利）和 DWF（德伟）。受托人理解，Apsley 是 Lady May 的卖方，而 DWF 在 Apsley 出售 Lady May 时代表 Apsley。\n\n受托人针对该两名受审查人提出的实际文件请求范围较广。其寻求的文件与针对所有其他受审查人的文件相同，涉及债务人、关联方、家庭成员及申请中所述实体，因此，该项工作是受托人调查的一部分。其目的并非规避或绕开——亦非为在 HK International（HK 国际）提出异议所述的待决对抗程序中进行证据开示。\n\n针对其他可能涉及 Lady May 的受审查人的请求非常有限，但如所述，就受托人所知，这些当事人或受审查人与 Lady May 并无直接关联。他们并非该待决对抗程序中的被告或当事人，因此，债务人——抱歉，受托人主张，该证据开示、该审查、该调查是适当的，且不受所提异议中援引的在先待决程序原则约束。因此，受托人请求准许该申请，并允许其继续对申请中所述受审查人进行审查。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n法官阁下，仅就程序提出一个问题。我收到一则消息称，那个——我不知道是 AT&T 线路，还是供人旁听的线路——没有开放。我不知道这是有意为之，还是其他原因。\n\n法庭：\n这是有意为之。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n哦，好的。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n这是公开听证。如果有人想旁听，可以到法庭来。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的？目前我没有任何问题，Skalka 律师，谢谢。\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n显然，Mei Guo（郭梅）和 HK International 就你们的——就该动议提出了异议，那么谁将就该异议进行陈述？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1220\nFiled 12/11/22\nEntered 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n我将进行陈述，法官阁下。James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）。看来今天讲台是该待的地方。\n\n法庭：\n哪里让你觉得舒适，就在哪里，Moriarty 律师。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n谢谢。\n\n因此，法官阁下，Guo 女士和 HK International (USA)（HK International〈美国〉）提出的异议范围有限。受托人声称，在该动议获准后将送达 53 份传票，其中包括两份传票。一份发给 Apsley Yachts, Limited（阿普斯利游艇有限公司），另一份发给 DWFLOP（德伟有限责任合伙企业）。如刚才向法庭所述，Apsley Yachts, Limited 被认为是 2015 年 Lady May 的卖方。正如受托人动议第 5 页所述，DWFLOP 被认为是在 Lady May 出售过程中代表卖方的实体。\n\n送达这些传票的唯一理由，是取得有关 Lady May 出售的信息。而 Lady May 的出售是 HK USA 提起的对抗程序中的争议事项——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我不知道 Lady May 的出售是否为争议事项。Lady May 的所有权是争议事项。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n好的。您说得对，法官阁下。Lady May 的所有权是争议事项。而该传票所寻求的是与 Lady May 付款有关的文件。因此，款项来自何处？这直接涉及所有权问题。他们正在寻求——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，这未必正确。我不一定同意你的看法。Apsley Yachts, Limited 和 DWFLOP 并非该对抗程序的当事人。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n正确，法官阁下。他们并非该对抗程序的当事人。但通过这项 2004 审查所寻求的证据开示，直接涉及该对抗程序中的争议事项。受托人声称，购买该船、即 Lady May 的款项来自债务人，源自债务人。他们正在向这些实体寻求文件，以确定 Lady May 的付款来自何处。这直接涉及对抗程序中的问题。Guo 女士和 HK 有权获得联邦规则所提供的保护。\n\n法庭：\n他们并未被送达传票，那么他们有何权利，他们有权获得何种保护？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 15 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n具体而言，法官阁下，Rule 45（规则 45）规定传票的范围应当更窄。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，那是保护令。那并非说他们不能依据 Rule 2004（规则 2004）向其送达传票的问题。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n另一个问题，法官阁下——当然，Guo 女士和 HK 首先必须具备提出保护令的当事人资格。而他们确有资格在此提出异议，因为受托人正试图通过送达一份 2004 审查传票，绕开 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（联邦破产程序规则）和 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）；该传票的范围将远远大于依据适用于该对抗程序的联邦规则所能送达的传票。\n\n此外，根据 Rule 45，受托人必须向 Guo 女士和 HK USA 的律师提供其就拟送达的传票所取得的任何文件。我相信，该问题将在不久的将来某个时候提交法庭审理。受托人的立场将是：我们不会向你们提供那些文件，因为这些文件是依据 Rule 2004 传票取得的。我们正在进行调查。我们依据 Rule 2004 取得的任何资料均是该调查的一部分，因此属于我们的工作成果。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 16 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 17 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022\n\n根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure，任何依据传票从第三方取得的文件，均须向作为反诉被告的 Guo 女士，以及作为该对抗程序原告和反诉被告的 HK 提供。\n\n还有其他传票。我相信总数为 53 份。除了我们刚才讨论的两份外，还有 43 份附加传票，每一份均有一项具体请求，即提供所有有关 Lady May 的文件。根据 Rule 45，必须有善意依据相信这些当事人持有有关 Lady May 的文件。因此，法官阁下，异议的实质是，不应依据 Rule 2004 送达 Apsley Yachts 传票和 DWFLOP 传票。若受托人希望从该两个实体取得证据开示，应在该对抗程序中进行。\n\n法庭：\n那么，你为何具有当事人资格？你的委托人为何有资格反对向 Apsley Yachts 和 DWFLOP 发出的传票？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n因为我的委托人是对抗程序中的原告，也是对抗程序中的反诉被告。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 18 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022\n\n法庭：\n好的。在该程序中，Apsley Yachts 和 DWFLOP 并非当事人？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n正确，法官阁下。但是，他们正在寻求——受托人正依据 Rule 2004 寻求证据开示。判例汗牛充栋，一旦一项对抗程序——\n\n法庭：\n请向我出示一个案例，表明在你所说汗牛充栋的案例中，存在这样的事实情形，即相关人员并非对抗程序中被列名的被告或当事人。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n嗯，法官阁下，我不知道我能否找到一个当事人——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，难道这不正是你需要做的，以支持你的异议吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n我们的异议有依据，法官阁下。我本来要说的是，如果受托人要向该对抗程序中的当事人送达证据开示请求，不会通过传票进行，而会通过文件请求进行。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，你知道，他可以在对抗程序中向你方当事人送达传票。他绝对可以这样做。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n我同意您的看法。但通常的做法是依据 Rule 34 或 7034 进行。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 19 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022\n\n因此，法官阁下，我们在异议第 3 页开始援引了案例。例如，来自 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的 In re Enron（安然案），以及来自 Northern District of New York（纽约北区）的 In re Bennett Funding（贝内特融资案）。在 Bennett 案中，我们附有一段括注。广为承认的规则是，一旦对抗程序或争议事项已经开始，证据开示应依据 Rule 7026 et seq.（规则 7026 及后续条款）进行，而非通过——\n\n法庭：\n对。而那谈的是该对抗程序的当事人，律师。那些案例谈的是，你不能针对已经在对抗程序中列为被告的被告寻求 2004 审查。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n我明白，法官阁下，但其含义更进一步。因此，如果您看——\n\n法庭：\n其如何更进一步？请向我说明其如何更进一步。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n我们在第 7 段引用的 In re SunEdison, Inc.（SunEdison 公司案）。\n\n法庭：\n好的。好的。等一下。在我们交谈时，让我看看该案例。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n在第 3 页，你没有提供 SunEdison 的完整引注。你只引用了第一页——那一页……\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年11月30日 20 您所指的是哪个。\n莫里亚蒂先生：是 572 Bankruptcy，法官大人。您说得对。对第490页有具体引注。\n法庭：572 Bankruptcy 是什么？这不是完整引注。\n莫里亚蒂先生：我同意您的看法。异议书中有一处排版错误。\n法庭：好的。\n莫里亚蒂先生：但它是 572 的第490页。\n法庭：我明白。但这样无法检索到该案件，至少我正在使用的系统无法检索到。\n（暂停。）\n法庭：所以您是说在第490页？\n莫里亚蒂先生：是的，法官大人。\n法庭：好的。请稍等。\n（暂停。）\n法庭：那么，在 SunEdison（森爱迪生）案中，债务人正在寻求依据 Rule 2004 对 D.E. Shaw Composite Holdings, Inc.（D.E. Shaw Composite Holdings股份有限公司）进行审查，而 Shaw 对此提出异议，因为州法院已有一宗针对 Shaw 的待决案件。这并不是我们这里的事实情形。\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官大人，SunEdison 在第490页所述的是，待决程序规则基于 Rule 2004 与民事诉讼取证所附随的不同保障措施，并反映出以下担忧：诉讼当事人可能通过使用 Rule 2004 规避其对手的权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1220 提交于 12/11/22 录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第20页，共\n\n郭文贵- 2022年11月30日 21 而如我所述，此处可能被规避的权利包括：被告、反诉被告以及作为原告的 HK 所享有的权利，即获得受托人根据已送达传票收到的任何文件；该等权利在 Rule 2004 的情形下并不存在。此外，还有就将要发出的文件传票获得预先通知的权利——我们在本案中确实有这种预先通知——以及 Rule 45 下传票范围较窄的保障；这些正是受到保护的规则。\n法庭：Bernstein 法官说，待决程序规则基于民事诉讼取证所附随的不同保障措施。这是他所说的。但他还说，该原则适用于待决的州法院诉讼，而这正是他在该案，即 SunEdison 案中所处理的问题。这并不是您这里的事实情形。债务人——受托人正在向其寻求取证的当事人，并非对立程序中的当事人。\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官大人，我无法对此提出异议。\n法庭：好的。\n莫里亚蒂先生：我确实提出异议的是，存在——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1220 提交于 12/11/22 录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第21页，共\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore速记与转录服务公司）\n\n保障措施。我确实提出异议的是，受托人正试图\n\n郭文贵- 2022年11月30日 22 规避此处的保障措施。他正试图规避保障措施，而这些保障措施已被纳入 Rule 45。这些保障措施——\n法庭：那么，在——我应当查看 Rule 45 中的什么内容？\n莫里亚蒂先生：如我所说，法官大人——我相信这在 Rule 45 中；即使不在其中，至少也可从 Rule 45 中推定——即，根据诉讼中的传票取得的任何文件，都必须提供给您的对手方。\n法庭：哪里这样规定？\n莫里亚蒂先生：如我所说，法官大人，我——我无法为您指出具体条文，但至少可以推定，在诉讼中，如果您送达传票，您随后就有义务将文件提供给您的对手方。而 Rule 45——\n法庭：坦率地说，这——好的。我在您的任何书面材料中，或在任何支持您刚才所作主张的引注中，或在我正在查看的 Rule 45 中，都没有看到支持该主张的内容。\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官大人，Rule 45 有一项要求，即在送达文件传票之前，您必须向您的对手方发送送达通知。因此，您必须告知您的对手方，我将向该第三方送达文件传票。其理由是\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1220 提交于 12/11/22 录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第22页，共\n\n郭文贵- 2022年11月30日 23 双重的：其一，如果存在提出异议的依据，则给予对手方提出异议的机会；其二，使对手方知悉正在从第三方获取取证材料，且该等取证材料随后应提供给对手方。\n法庭：我没有看到 Rule 45 中哪里规定了您刚才所说的内容。\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官大人，如我所说，我现在无法为您指出具体条文，但我确知其中有此规定。\n法庭：好的。\n莫里亚蒂先生：提供预先通知的那项要求就在其中。\n法庭：在送达前向其他当事人通知的规定在 Rule 45(a)(3) 中，其中规定：如果传票要求在审判前提交文件、电子存储信息或其他有形物品，或检查场所，则在向受传票指向之人送达之前，必须向每一当事人送达通知及传票副本。哪里规定了在您取得这些文件后，您必须将其交给诉讼中的其他当事人？哪里这样规定？\n莫里亚蒂先生：如我所说，法官大人，我并不是说 Rule 45 明确如此规定。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1220 提交于 12/11/22 录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第23页，共\n\n郭文贵- 2022年11月30日 24 法庭：好的。好。\n莫里亚蒂先生：而且我有——\n法庭：还有其他内容吗？\n莫里亚蒂先生：——我的书面陈述中引用了判例法，但这是一个规则，而且至少可从 Rule 45 中推定，这是必需的。\n法庭：好的。还有其他内容吗？\n莫里亚蒂先生：没有了，谢谢您，法官大人。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好。我将对该动议留待裁定。现在让我们转到今天日程中的下一事项，即第11章受托人提出的动议，要求作出裁定，强制债务人、个人债务人 Mei Guo（郭美）及 HK International（HK International公司）遵从 Rule 2004 审查。律师，请为记录陈述您的姓名。\n卢夫特先生：是的，法官大人。我是代表受托人的 Paul Hastings（保尔·哈斯廷斯律师事务所）律师 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特）。\n法庭：谢谢。抱歉，我们只是需要为听证会的音频部分这样做。\n卢夫特先生：当然。如果——如果听不到我说话，请告知我。\n法庭：请。请继续。抱歉，我——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1220 提交于 12/11/22 录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第24页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1220 提交于 12/11/22 录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第25页，共\n\n郭文贵- 2022年11月30日 25 以为您是在和我说话。但您说得对。如因任何原因我们无法被听到，法庭书记官会告知我们。谢谢。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官大人，我们今天就此事项出庭，是因为受托人依据您作出的 2004 命令，向债务人、其女儿郭美、她控制的实体 HK USA（HK USA公司）——该实体控制该游艇——以及 Golden Spring（Golden Spring公司）和 Lamp Capital（Lamp Capital公司）送达了传票；后二者是理论上为债务人所做一切提供资金的两个实体。然而，我们为从这些人中的任何一人取得文件所作的努力，几乎完全受阻。对此，我想作出非常具体的说明。\n\n债务人总共提交了46份文件。他的主张是，那是他在全世界拥有的全部文件。我们要求的是十年以上期间的文件。我们会讲到这一点。他至少说，八年以上期间内，他拥有的就是这些。在这46份文件中，他找出了一张政府刺激款支票、一些 Genever（Genever公司）的公司文件、一份纳税申报表，以及一份诉讼——一些诉讼融资协议。\n\n没有任何一份通信记录。没有任何一笔资金转移记录，尽管他主张自己没有收入，却过着亿万富翁般的生活。他的任何文件中都没有这些内容。\n\n其女儿自称拥有一艘价值 \\$30 million 的游艇，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\n郭文贵- 2022年11月30日\n\n1 并被指称拥有包括 Eastern Profit（Eastern Profit公司）和 HK USA 在内的实体，在该期间内总共找到了19份文件。\n2 Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital 根本没有作出回应。\n现在，Golden Spring 此前曾两次在您的法庭出庭，之后请求退出代理；但当我们送达时——我们向二者均进行了送达，而它们一直保持沉默。\n因此，尽管它们自称支付债务人的全部费用，包括我相信本案诉讼以及其他诉讼的费用，它们甚至不向受托人作出回应，也不提供任何文件。\n尽管付出了大量工作，进行了多次会谈协商，并多次尝试获取这些文件，我们什么也没有得到。法官大人，这还是它们称将会提交的文件。\n现在，我们再谈谈它们称不会提交的文件。\n债务人、郭女士和 HK USA 均称，他们拒绝查找与并非“债务人的”任何资产有关的文件。在此我想说明清楚。\n所谓“债务人的”资产，是指债务人承认属于其本人的资产；法官大人从其资产清单中可以知道，这些资产总额不足 \\$4,000。\n因此，他们说，2004 是关于查阅债务人的资产。好，他只有不足 \\$4,000，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1220 提交于 12/11/22 录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第27页，共\n\n郭文贵- 2022年11月30日\n\n1 的资产，所以那些就是债务人的资产。\n2 他们剔除了这样一个事实，即 2004 谈及与资产有关的文件；而这项 2004 动议的明确设计目的，是鉴于他过着亿万富翁般的生活，查明他的资产实际在哪里。\n鉴于法院已认定他使用空壳公司隐藏自己。就 Lady May（“Lady May”号）一案而言，我们已有纽约州法院表示，当然，他是该游艇的受益所有人并控制该游艇。\n对吧？\n然而，他们说，不，我们不会提供。Lady May 除外，我们会对其作出例外，因为该法院以及 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内德兰）案中的法院已经作出司法认定，认定他事实上拥有它。\n我不知道。也许在过去一周后，Ace Decade（Ace Decade公司）可以落入这一范围，尽管截至目前，法官大人，它尚未落入。另一项他会主张——不介意——没有人可以获得与之有关的任何文件的资产。\n当然，这样做的影响是形成一个空集。对吧？如果您说自己只有不足 \\$4,000 的资产，然后又说我只会查找与“我的资产”有关的文件，那么毫不奇怪，您会说我没有文件，而您无法审查此事。这是荒谬的。\n我参加了这些通话。我无法理解——鉴于我们提出了一项 2004 动议，鉴于\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1220 提交于 12/11/22 录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第28页，共\n\n郭文贵- 2022年11月30日\n\n1 法院在任命受托人时明确指示，她希望对此进行调查——如果债务人确实采取这样的立场，即受托人不得调查可能由其他公司、空壳公司、家庭成员等持有的资产。\n双方书面材料中均提及一个 Lady May II 的例子。我想对此作出说明。据我所知，并不存在 Lady May II，法官大人。\n但我确实想弄清楚，因为他们已经提交了有关 Lady May 的文件。\n所以我说，如果存在一艘在各方面均与 Lady May 相同的游艇，即债务人会具有导致 Ostrager 法官认定其为受益所有人的所有相同事实和情形，对吧，如果您拥有关于这艘 Lady May 的所有那些材料，但与 Lady May 类似，郭女士和 HK USA 仍会主张他们拥有它，因此它不是“债务人的资产”，那么您会提交有关该船的文件吗？我得到的答复是，不会，因为那不是债务人的资产。\n他们在其书面材料中也是这样说的。\n因此，简而言之，我们面临的是他们制定的一项规则，即——他们作出的区分是，嗯，实际的 Lady May，Ostrager 法官已经实际作出了一项裁定。而且因为存在一项实际裁定，在该\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n若有任何裁定认定郭先生为实益所有人的案件，我们将予以提供。但如果 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）尚未作出此类裁定，那么事实上，我们不会提供有关该资产的信息。\n\n法官阁下，这就造成了一种情形，即受托人实际上必须先证明某项财产是资产，才能获得关于该资产的证据开示或调查信息，而这些信息又是证明该事实所必需的。这是循环论证，行不通。这不是 Rule 2004 的运作方式；我不必先证明某项财产是债务人的资产，才能就其进行 Rule 2004 调查。法官阁下，如果我已经能够证明这一点，就不需要调查它了。\n\n现在，在其书面文件及异议中，债务人转而称，尽管我们提出了这项异议并在这段期间内阻碍了你们，事实上，债务人实际上并未持有与其家人或其家人资产有关的任何文件，因此并未基于该理由扣留任何文件。\n\n现在，法官阁下，债务人曾多次向本院表示，其生活中的每一项开支——而这些开支相当多——均由其家人支付。他的住宅、游艇、豪华汽车，均由家人支付；但他却告诉您，我不会持有任何与此有关的文件。我不会持有任何资金转移文件，可以说明任何事情。这根本不可信。\n\n我现在想转向——同样地，Guo 女士（郭女士）和 HK USA（HK USA 公司）提出类似论点，只不过郭女士称，她不仅不会提供任何与家族中其他任何人或关联实体有关的文件，甚至不会提供任何关于其资产的文件。而且，有意思的是，在其异议第 6 段中，他们写道，郭女士有权拒绝提供这些类别的文件，因为“没有证据，甚至没有指称，债务人曾向郭女士转移任何资产或任何有价值之物。”\n\n现在，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：请稍等一下。律师，你在看哪一份文件？\n\nLUFT 律师：我在看他们的异议，法官阁下，第 6 段。\n\n法庭：你面前有文件编号吗？\n\nLUFT 律师：有，法官阁下。我相信是 ECF 1090。\n\n法庭：好的。请给我一点时间，以确保我正在阅读——\n\nLUFT 律师：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我希望能够准确阅读你所引述的内容。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n第 30 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n第 31 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\nLUFT 律师：当然。\n\n法庭：请给我一秒钟。\n\nLUFT 律师：如果有帮助的话，该内容位于该文件第 25 页中的第 3 页。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：抱歉。加载需要一点时间。\n\nLUFT 律师：请您慢慢来，法官阁下。准备好时请告诉我。\n\n法庭：第 3 页，第 6 段。\n\nLUFT 律师：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的，我找到了。请继续。\n\nLUFT 律师：好的。他们称，她不提供这些文件是正确的，因为“没有证据，甚至没有指称，债务人曾向郭女士转移任何资产或任何有价值之物。”现在，法官阁下，鉴于我们在本案中如此频繁地谈及 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇），我不知道任何人如何能够声称，甚至没有指称、更不用说证据证明，债务人曾向郭女士转移任何东西。她声称持有一艘游艇，而纽约一家法院已经认定该游艇属于债务人。类似地，纽约另一家法院，即联邦法院，Liman 法官（利曼法官）认定，Eastern Profit（Eastern Profit 公司）——一家由郭女士控制的空壳公司——“实质上是债务人的空壳公司”。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n因此，认为没有证据表明郭女士与从债务人处获得资产有任何关联，因而没有理由调查其资产的说法，根本不实。\n\n此外，法官阁下，我可以告诉您，通过我们的调查，我们发现该女儿是迄今已确认的至少九个 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）实体的实益所有人。\n\n据我所知，关于债务人的任何情况——郭女士作为其女儿——均未显示她为何会独立拥有众多 BVI 空壳公司。但这当然是债务人[原文如此]应当获准调查和审查的问题。\n\n然而，按照他们的论点，债务人——受托人将永远不被允许查看与那些实体、Eastern Profit 或其他任何事项有关的任何文件。\n\n他们的另一项论点实际上是歪曲事实。\n\n如果查看其异议第 47 段——\n\n法庭：同一份文件？\n\nLUFT 律师：同一份文件，法官阁下，谢谢。\n\n他们对受托人的请求提出异议——\n\n法庭：你在第几页？只是为了让我——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n我想跟上你的进度。\n\nLUFT 律师：当然，法官阁下。我看的是第 19 至 20 页。在第 19 页，您可以看到第 10 项请求，或其转录内容，其中受托人要求提供关于债务人、债务人财产、债务人家人及关联实体之间赠与、利益和贷款的信息。当然，这是关键所在，因为本案中的债务人声称，其使用的全部资金均来自赠与和贷款。然而，当我们试图从郭女士处获得有关此事的信息时，答复是——如果您翻到下一页第 20 页——歪曲并称，按字面理解，第 10 项请求将要求郭女士提供其在过去十年中曾向任何人作出的每一项赠与的所有文件，包括赠与受领人收到的感谢卡。\n\n当然，法官阁下，该请求并未要求涉及任何人。它要求的是我们所关心的人，即债务人、债务人财产、家庭成员及关联实体。而且我认为，她不会收到其所涉空壳公司寄来的感谢卡。这一切都是试图使这些请求看起来范围过宽且不合理。鉴于两家法院已经认定——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n第 33 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n第 34 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n郭女士参与的实体实际上是债务人的幌子，要求她提供其所掌握的关于赠与和贷款的信息并无任何不合理之处；赠与和贷款是债务人声称赖以维生的主要方式，与此直接相关。\n\n现在，我要指出，债务人的妻子 Ngok 女士（Ngok 女士）曾提出一项类似异议，该异议已在我们的书面文件中提及。她已撤回该异议。她的律师已——撤回该异议。因此，无须对该强制动议采取行动，因为就 Ngok 女士而言，已不存在任何待决争议。\n\n此时，法官阁下，我想转向下一个问题，即债务人、郭女士和 HK USA 拒绝提供文件所依据的理由。\n\n具体而言，他们称不会提供其顾问和代理人的任何文件，只会提供其实际持有的文件。\n\n现在，他们作出这一表述，尽管如其在同一份异议文件第 3 段中所称，他们从一开始就告诉我们，绝大多数回应性文件将由其专业人士持有。但他们不会检索这些文件。而且并非每个人都是专业人士。这意味着他们不会检索其秘书，不会检索我们已听说过的、为其撰写信息的 Wang 女士（Wang 女士），也不会检索其他任何人。他们称，好吧，这必须是债务人的文件。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n现在，这显然有悖于传票中对债务人的定义，即债务人连同其任何雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何其他代表其行事的人。\n\n为节省时间，法官阁下，我不会重复我们在简报中援引的全部法律，但非常清楚的是，债务人控制之下的文件包括我们刚才提到的所有这些人的文件。\n\n您知道，如果我们想到传统情形，若您要求您的秘书为您誊写一封信或代表您发送一封电子邮件，那仍然是您的文件。该文件可能出自她之手这一事实，并不意味着它不是您的文件。\n\n现在，尤其是在本案中，债务人告诉我们，他几乎没有任何与任何事项有关的文件，也没有任何通信，因此，他必须向代表其传递信息的顾问和代理人索取文件，这一点至关重要。\n\n现在，我们看到许多由 Wang 女士、Guo 女士、Francis 女士（Francis 女士）——一名律师——以及 Mitchell 先生（Mitchell 先生）撰写的电子邮件，其中人员显然通过这些个人与债务人通信，债务人也通过这些个人与他们通信。\n\n无论他本人是否拥有一台电脑，坦率地说，均无关紧要。如果他要求他人代表其使用他们的电脑，或发送信息以代表其进行通信，那些就是他的文件，他必须提供。然而，我们被明确告知，他们不会检索这些文件。\n\n现在，对此的答复是，好吧，你们似乎干得不错。你们正在向人们发出传票。法官阁下，我并不知道谁是其所有代理人或顾问。事实上，对于其中不少人，我找不到他们。Wang 女士一直逃避送达。Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）一直逃避送达。有不少这样的人。即便如此，我也不知道所有这些人。试图弄清郭先生利用谁与他人通信，并非受托人的责任。\n\n他掌握该信息。他可以提出其请求，并对他们说，请确保我们收集所有符合该请求的回应性文件。\n\n现在，如果其中一人已经收到传票，而他们说，您知道，这与我收到的一个问题重复，而且我已经提供过了，那很好。这正是我们已告诉他们的。当然，无须两次提供同一文件。\n\n但确保已检索所有文件是郭先生的义务。而郭先生的\n\n有义务确保每一位以其代理人身份行事的人都在这样做。\n\n这就引出下一个议题，法官阁下，即对郭先生所进行搜寻的质量。\n\n如果可以，请法庭再次查阅 ECF 1090 的第19和20段、第19和21段，其中载有债务人对所进行搜寻范围的陈述。\n\n再次说明，这并非受托人的描述，而是债务人对所做事项的说明。\n\n其中非常明确地表明，他们所做的是询问债务人是否拥有这些文件，而他说：“没有，并不是真的。没有，我没有那些文件中的任何一份。”\n\n并未尝试查看他的手机、搜查手机、独立核实，或提出：一定会有文件。你如何维持生活？我知道你与他人沟通。这是如何进行的？\n\n尤其值得注意的是，没有迹象表明他们曾询问：你与之沟通、你通过其进行沟通的所有个人怎么办；据我了解，那些会知情、会通过个人与债务人沟通的人怎么办。\n\n现在，其中包含的——我认为很有意思的是——他们作了两项评论，即债务人告诉他们：“嗯，他没有大多数这些文件，因为事实上，他甚至不知道大多数关联实体是谁。”\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n第38页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n现在，法官阁下，如果我们查看这些关联实体的完整名单，就会看到诸如 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）、Bravo Luck（博拉克）、Eastern Profit（东方利润）、GTV、Himalaya（喜马拉雅）、Saraca（萨拉卡）、World Law Foundation（世界法律基金会）等名称。\n\n法庭：你在读什么？\n\nLUFT 先生（卢夫特先生）：法官阁下，我在看这份传票。\n\n法庭：哦，他的传票。好的。请继续。好的。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 先生：这是一份关联实体名单，债务人声称他不知道其中大多数实体是什么。我猜法庭对这些名称中的大多数相当熟悉，更不用说此时的债务人了。我提出这一点，并不只是为了强调我认为债务人声称自己不知道这些人中大多数是谁的说法不可信，而是因为这本应当成为其律师的一个警示信号：他关于自己没有文件的陈述不可信，需要进一步——进行更深入的查找。法律很明确，特别是在你有所担忧、有理由相信有人正试图阻挠证据开示时，律师必须进行\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n更努力的查找，进行更多搜寻，而不能仅仅按表面意思接受陈述。\n\n我认为，他能够告诉他们自己不知道这些实体中大多数是谁，而我们所有人在本案的这个阶段都确切知道它们是谁，这本应敲响警钟。好的。\n\n同样，对郭女士所进行的、在第22段中描述的搜寻，也只是与她交谈。\n\n现在，她承认拥有电子邮件和短信，却声称在八年期间总共只有19份符合要求的文件。再次说明，这本应要求进行更深入的搜寻。这根本不可信。\n\n现在，我将简要谈及他们声称我们承认 HK USA（香港美国公司）没有文件一事，因为我们指出其没有收入、银行账户、董事、高管和雇员。\n\n法官阁下，我认为该论点完全是不合逻辑的推论。\n\n首先，他们实际上已经提交了——虽然文件不多——但明显多于郭先生和郭女士这两个自然人所提交的文件。\n\n事实上，郭女士的19倍，债务人的8倍，尽管债务人的律师表示，鉴于它们属于该类型实体，你们怎么会认为它们甚至会有一份文件。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n第40页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n但是，当然，它们确实有与此有关的文件，因为它们是一家控制 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）的空壳公司。因此，任何涉及其融资、费用及其他事项的文件都会包括在内。\n\n现在，再次出于时间考虑，我不会逐一讨论我们所援引的本巡回区判例法，即为何不能仅依赖客户陈述，其中最具代表性的是 Zubulake 案；但是，法官阁下，我确实想用一分钟谈谈缺失文件的类型，以说明没有人真正能够合理地接受不存在真正——不存在任何符合要求的文件这一事实。\n\n债务人提交的文件中缺少全部 WhatsApp 信息。\n\n现在，在 Bravo Luck（博拉克）对抗程序中，案号 22-05027，文件 3-2，载有郭先生于 February 5th, 2016 作出的声明书副本，以支持 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）针对 UBS（瑞银集团）的诉讼。\n\n如果查看第44至47段以及第63至69段，郭先生详细叙述了与 UBS 就其与该行的商业交易所进行的大量 WhatsApp 信息往来。\n\n显然，债务人使用信息服务从事商业活动。法官阁下，尽管他们随口提出这样的论点——他与 UBS 的业务与推翻 CCP（中国共产党）毫无关系——该业务涉及提供 UBS 将会提供的贷款。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n第41页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n他没有提交任何其他短信，尽管他声称自己通过 iPhone 完成所有沟通。他没有提交任何电子邮件或计算机文件，声称自己没有这些文件，但却方便地忽视了我们从其他来源看到的多封电子邮件：其代理人，如王女士或 Yung Yu（雍宇），或其律师所写的信息明确表示：“我的老板，或者董事，也就是郭先生，要让你知悉……”这些文件无一被提交。\n\n没有任何与向债务人转移资金有关的文件，尽管据称他仅靠他人的馈赠维持生活。也没有任何关于其持续工作的文件。\n\n法官阁下，如果现在在 iTunes（苹果音乐商店）上搜索 Miles Guo（郭文贵），就会发现他们正在出售他的音乐。在 Spotify（声田）、Amazon（亚马逊）以及我推定的其他服务平台上也是如此。他们以金钱出售这些音乐。那些钱必须流向某处。他的音乐必须从他那里传到平台。这必然会产生文件。\n\n认为他没有从事任何持续性业务的说法，恰恰被我们在互联网上所能看到的情况否定了。他显然在从事这些活动。没有人回应。他们在脚注中写道：“嗯，他不收取任何版税，因为他\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n只是为了推翻 CCP（中国共产党）而做这些事。”\n\n现在，首先，这并不意味着不存在任何符合要求的文件。\n\n法官阁下，我指出，若债务人在破产后正在赚取金钱或从事工作，那么如果确实正在发生这种情况，他无权自行选择将版税捐给任何人。那些是破产财产的资产，当然，受托人应当能够调查此事并查明情况。\n\n他在工作。他在创作。他正在从事这些活动。我们在加密货币和音乐方面看到了这一点。我相信还有其他事项。我们应当——必定会有文件。他声称自己没有任何纸质文件。\n\n而且，举一个我们必然预期会看到文件的实体例子，他没有提交任何与名为 Saraca（萨拉卡）的实体有关的文件。\n\n现在，法官阁下，Saraca 拥有 Miles Guo（郭文贵）和 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）两个名称的商标。该实体还为他的一处住宅付款。\n\n现在，至于是否——我认为，如果我们深入查找，如果我们最终从他们那里取得文件，我认为我们会发现，他当然控制着该实体，但事实是，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：让我问你一个问题。\n\nLUFT 先生：当然。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n第43页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n法庭：我不知道你刚才所述实体名称的拼写是否载入了记录，因此我请你向法庭书记员拼写该名称，以便庭审记录清楚。\n\nLUFT 先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我不记得该名称是否已载入记录，因此我将要求你确保其载入记录。\n\nLUFT 先生：我现在就把它调出来，以确保我准确无误地拼写它。\n\n法庭：当然，请慢慢来。\n\nLUFT 先生：该实体是 Saraca（萨拉卡）Media Group, Inc.（媒体集团公司），拼写为 S-A-R-A-C-A。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，这是一个最近与 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）以及 GTV 和名为 The Voice of Guo（郭之声）的实体一同达成同意判决的实体，以便向因一项加密货币计划而受骗的投资者返还近五亿美元资金。\n\n现在，尽管他们甚至声称拥有他的名字，却没有任何文件。简言之，我们所面对的是：实质上拒绝寻找任何文件，因为他说，任何在其他人处的东西都是他们的资产，我无需寻找。还提出一种论点，即我通过顾问从事工作以维持生活，但我不会调取他们的任何文件。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n录入于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n而且，这些搜寻事实上显然不足，因为他们只是询问这名债务人的意见，而他说：“没有，我没有。”尽管这显然不可信。\n\n我们还有几个其他相关的小事项。\n\n他们已经限制了搜寻范围，称我们只应被允许查找他来到美国之后的文件。\n\n我们请求的截止日期是 February 5th, 2012，这与关于欺诈性转让的诉讼时效最远期限一致。\n\n这也很重要，因为至少在当时的中国，我相信债务人承认——尽管谁知道呢，这似乎每天都不同——在某个时候他拥有大量资产。我希望能够说，好吧，你在这一天拥有大量资产。今天你告诉我，你拥有的资产不足 $4,000。我想追踪这些资产，并了解所有那些资产后来发生了什么。\n\n但他们已经将其截断。我认为这不恰当。\n\n他们拒绝提交债务人的护照。我们已经非常明确地说明了我们为何需要该护照。\n\n债务人声称在世界各地拥有资产，具体而言，他曾接受访谈，谈及在伦敦、香港和其他地方的住宅。了解他前往何处，将有助于我们就\n\n查找资产的地点。\n\n他们的异议中存在夸张之处，他们称，听着，如果你们要那样做，那么你们就必须对他进行24小时监视，才能知道他去过的每一个地方。受托人所要求的远非如此，法官阁下。他们只是要求查看他去过哪些地方，以协助查找资产。\n\n如果他们希望将其标记为高度保密，并受法官阁下所设立的保护令保护，当然这是适当的，我们对此没有任何问题。\n\n我还要指出——关于这一点再补充一点，关于所有这些异议，坦率地说，我甚至需要凭传票来到这里，这多少有些不必要。但是，如果不是因为债务人的行为——因为根据 521(a)(4)，他本应已经向受托人移交与破产财产有关的所有文件、记录和文书。该事项同样尚未发生。\n\n现在，法官阁下，在我转而讨论违约方并结束陈述之前，我确实想提出 Guo 女士（郭女士）和 HK USA（美国HK）提出的一项异议，我认为该异议与先前讨论的事项有关，即尚未结束的对抗程序，以及她们主张由于该对抗程序，受托人根据 2004 向她们提出的请求已不再适当。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 46 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n首先，法官阁下，我认为该论点已被放弃。\n\n事实是，如果查看向 Guo 女士提出的动议、针对 Guo 女士的 2004 动议，以及针对 HK USA 的第25项脚注，债务人明确强调了这一问题。我们不希望存在任何混淆。我们希望立即说明，尽管他们甚至在受托人获任之前便已提起对抗程序，但我们为何认为仍应获准进行 2004 程序。\n\n债务人没有提出异议，Guo 女士和 HK USA 也没有在其就 2004 动议提交的书面文件中提出异议。2004 程序已经获得命令。坦率地说，我认为此时这实际上是对 2004 命令的附带攻击。\n\n现在，他们唯一提出的异议是称，我们希望确保可以依据联邦规则，对你们送达的任何文件传票，在我们的异议和答复中提出异议。可以。Guo 女士或 HK USA 的答复和异议中，没有任何一项异议涉及尚未结束的程序。\n\n而且，如法官阁下所充分知悉，如果一方未在其对证据开示请求的异议和答复中提出异议，该等异议即被放弃。因此，我认为他们现在提出此事时，该问题已经过去了。\n\n现在，即使他们并未放弃该问题，法官阁下，我也想指出两点。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 47 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n第一，大多数请求与 Lady May（梅女士）或 HK USA 无关。它们要求查找其他家庭成员、关联个人及实体的文件。没有理由认为该对抗程序会以任何方式影响对这些文件的查找，因此，该异议应予排除。\n\n至于 Lady May 和 HK USA，法官阁下，即使其尚未放弃该论点，我仍主张，事实上，这是一项追溯性论点，并且在该意义上也是不适当的。\n\n传票及提交期限均早于对抗程序中反诉的提出。\n\n如果他们没有提出不当异议，如果他们及时提交了文件，我们本会在提出反诉之前收到 2004 程序下的文件。\n\n相反，由于他们的不合作，我们被迫在没有这些文件的情况下提出反诉。\n\n我认为，不应因他们实际上拖延至我们提交答辩和反诉的期限届至、从而迫使我们采取行动的这种策略性行为而使其获益，并以此声称，好吧，现在我就不必遵从此前作出的适当且经法院命令的传票。\n\n法官阁下，我最后仅谈一下 Golden Spring（金泉）和 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 48 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n正如我在开头所说，这些实体为债务人的生活方式及其诉讼提供资金。\n\n我们一再听到，这个人为谁支付费用？是 Golden Spring。哦，是 Lamp Capital 在支付那个。无论还有谁，他们都已如我们的书面文件所述被适当送达。\n\n此后，他们只是无视我们。\n\n我们请求认定他们藐视法庭，并因其无视我们而对其实施制裁，还应强制其遵从并向我们提交文件，法官阁下。\n\n实际上，每个人都在推诿谁持有文件，称文件在债务人那里。文件不在我的个人占有之中。我是自然人，不是我。一定在家族办公室。\n\n然后，果不其然，家族办公室当然是一家公司，并非自然人，却称我不出庭。\n\n法官阁下，这不过是一场旨在阻挠受托人调查的游戏。\n\n我们正试图查明这些资产在何处，以便将其返还给债权人。\n\n所有这一切都只是在试图确保该结果不会发生，这是不适当的。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。如果您有任何问题，我乐意回答。\n\n法庭：目前我没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 先生（卢夫特）：谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 49 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n法庭：好的。那么，债务人、HK International（国际HK）及 Mei Guo（郭美）已代表提出异议，是否正确？\n\nMORIARTY 先生（莫里亚蒂）：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nMORIARTY 先生（莫里亚蒂）：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表债务人、Guo 女士和 HK USA 的 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）。\n\n那么，我先说，Luft 律师做得很好，而且他确实掌握很多信息。他从哪里获得这些信息？他从受托人已收到的数十万页文件中获得了这些信息。受托人从哪里收到这些文件？从债务人的专业人士处。\n\n我们在9月与受托人的律师举行过会商，并告知受托人的律师，债务人不会持有很多文件，文件会由其专业人士持有。事实也是如此。专业人士已提交这些文件。\n\n我们同意——这一点载于受托人动议第43段——如果专业人士根据传票提交文件，债务人就不会再向专业人士索取同样的文件并再次提交。债务人通过其律师没有这样做，因为我们同意不会这样做。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n我们没有这样做。如果法官阁下记得，特别是关于 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）及其案卷文件的提交，我们获悉受托人的律师正与 Brown Rudnick 就检索词进行协商，Brown Rudnick 将在其案卷中运行这些检索词，以获取对传票作出回应的文件。\n\n我们在异议中称，我们相信受托人对已被送达传票的其他专业人士也采取了该做法，而受托人并未称该说法不正确，因此我们只能相信其为真实。\n\n因此，受托人正在向专业人士送达传票。我认为，截至目前——假定法院批准最近的动议——受托人将获授权依据 Rule 2004 发出113份传票。\n\n受托人正在与至少曾代理债务人的较大型律师事务所，就检索词进行协商，而绝大多数这些文件将来自这些律师事务所，以便受托人能够获得其确切想要的文件。\n\n法官阁下，不存在文件与债务人个人占有中不存在文件，两者之间存在根本区别。\n\n债务人的个人占有中没有文件。这些文件由其专业人士持有，并且已被提交。\n\n我们在异议的——我认为是第19至22段——中说明了，我们作为律师为与债务人合作确定债务人可能持有、继而将予提交的文件，所采取的措施。\n\n我们并非只是询问债务人是否有文件。他答称没有，而我们便说谢谢，祝您愉快。事情并非如此。\n\n实际情况是，我们通过视频会议与债务人举行了两次会议。我们与债务人讨论了所请求文件的具体类别。\n\n我们确实与债务人逐一讨论了关联实体，他确实称其中许多实体他没有听说过，并非全部。Luft 律师选择性挑出了其中一些，当然这些是我们所有人都会知道、债务人也会知道的。\n\n但是，如果你——如果你查看，我相信该文件作为异议附件 A 附上，如果你查看定义部分第7段中对关联实体的定义，我敢说其中列出的实体超过50个，可能接近75个。\n\n因此，债务人并未称——我们也未陈述——债务人不认识这些实体中的任何一个。我们所称的是，对于这些实体中的许多，债务人未曾听说过，并且没有\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 51 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n对传票作出回应的文件。\n\n关联个人的情况也是如此。我们与债务人逐一审查了这些名单，以确定其是否持有文件。\n\n我们与债务人逐一讨论了可能存放回应性文件的地点。\n\n请记住，2017年，可能持有回应性文件的香港办公室遭到中国政府突击搜查。债务人无法获取那些文件。\n\n债务人不使用电子邮件。这是向律师作出的陈述，而且在我审阅的文件中——与受托人所持有的相比只是很少一部分——我没有看到任何迹象表明该陈述不真实，受托人也没有向我们指出债务人发送或接收的任何具体电子邮件。\n\n债务人陈述他不使用计算机。我没有看到任何迹象表明该陈述不真实。\n\n债务人没有服务器。我们特别问过他，你是否知道某处有服务器可能存储电子存储信息？他说没有。\n\n我们询问他纸质文件可能存放在何处\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 53 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— November 30, 2022\n\n是否保管？\n\n债务人没有办公室。债务人不在其住所保管纸质文件。\n\n我们已在两次分别举行的视频会议中，就此与债务人讨论了两个多小时。\n\n债务人向我们提供了其持有的文件、纳税申报表及其他一些文件，且这些文件已被提交。\n\n就受托人的调查以及受托人从这些专业人士和其他个人处获取文件而言，债务人完全没有阻碍受托人。\n\n受托人的律师并未来找我们说，这一家特定的专业事务所不予配合。我们需要你们的帮助。如果他们这样做了，我们会尽力协助他们，但这并未发生。\n\n我们知道，受托人已收到并持续收到数十万页文件，其中许多文件依据特权令享有特权。\n\n因此，这并非债务人完全未提供任何文件的情形。文件正在被提供。\n\n法庭：那么，等一下。你不能这样说。你刚才说，这并非债务人未提供文件的情形。你刚开始时却说没有文件可提供。仅仅因为专业人士正在提供文件，并不意味着债务人正在提供文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 54\n\nMORIARTY律师（莫里亚蒂律师）：法官阁下，如果您假定——而且我相信受托人援引的法律是正确的——如果文件由债务人的专业人士持有，那么他就可以取得这些文件，那么债务人正在提供文件，并且他是通过其专业人士提供这些文件。\n\n法庭：不，他没有。不，他没有。我认为这不是一个准确的表述。债务人没有提供任何东西。\n\nMORIARTY律师：好的。\n\n法庭：正在提供文件的当事人，是收到传票的当事人，即这些专业人士。\n\nMORIARTY律师：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：所以我认为——我认为你需要继续下去。该陈述在本案中完全不准确。请继续。\n\nMORIARTY律师：债务人已提供其持有的文件。至于短信，我们——在会议期间，我们与债务人讨论了他对手机的使用情况，以及他有哪些类型的短信。债务人被要求在其短信中搜索与请求相关的文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 54 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1220\nFiled 12/11/22\nEntered 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n短信。债务人不懂英语，因此短信会是中文的。\n\n法庭：这并不意味着他没有任何短信。\n\nMORIARTY律师：法官阁下，我们要求他在其短信中搜索与请求相关的文件，向他说明所请求文件的类别，向他说明相关实体，并向他说明相关个人。\n\n他随后回去。他向我们表示，他已搜索过与请求相关的文件；他的短信涉及其推翻中国共产党的努力，而这些内容与请求无关。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，你没有查看债务人所查看的任何信息，以确定其是否与请求相关。你只是说：以下是类别。你是否有任何符合这些类别的东西？然后你接受了债务人的陈述，即他没有任何此类内容，而你没有采取任何进一步行动。对吗？\n\nMORIARTY律师：我们向债务人说明了所请求文件的类别。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nMORIARTY律师：我们要求债务人——\n\n法庭：那么，传票是否已经明确了所请求文件的类别？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 56\n\nMORIARTY律师：是的，法官阁下。债务人不懂英语。作为其律师，我们试图协助债务人，并履行我们搜索与请求相关文件的义务。\n\n法庭：那么，你如何知道他理解了你告诉他的内容？\n\nMORIARTY律师：当时有一名口译员在场，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那是谁的口译员？\n\nMORIARTY律师：如果您问的是这个，我们没有聘请该口译员。\n\n法庭：我问的正是这个。\n\nMORIARTY律师：据我所知，该口译员是债务人在其他场合使用过的一名口译员。我没有理由相信该口译员作出了错误口译。\n\n法庭：但你也没有理由相信该口译员作出了正确口译，因为你不知道该口译员向Kwok先生（郭先生）说了什么。\n\nMORIARTY律师：您说得对，法官阁下。但是，我与Kwok先生沟通的唯一方式是通过口译员，因此我必须依赖口译员进行正确口译。\n\n法庭：我明白你的意思。我明白你的意思。但是，正如——你正试图——你告诉了我许多事情，而案卷中没有证据支持你所说的内容。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 56 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 57\n\n证据支持你所说的内容。你说债务人在中国拥有的文件遭到了查抄。支持该主张的证据在哪里？没有债务人在宣誓后作出的陈述。案卷中没有任何信息。除了你告诉我你已向他说明这些类别，他告诉你他查找过并称没有任何东西以外，我没有任何可据以认定的内容。你要求法庭依赖这些作为他已遵守要求的证据。\n\nMORIARTY律师：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：我告诉你，无论是在任何案件中，无论某人是否懂英语，仅凭这一点不足以证明收到传票的个人已完成其应当完成的一切。通常，律师会与当事人逐一审查文件，以确定其是否与传票相关。你不能依赖该个人，因为那样你就没有履行《联邦民事诉讼规则》规定的、作为该当事人律师的义务。\n\nMORIARTY律师：我不同意您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。很好。请告诉我你所依据的内容，以支持你的不同意见。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 57 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 58\n\nMORIARTY律师：债务人不使用电子邮件。没有证据——\n\n法庭：那不是——\n\nMORIARTY律师：——表明他使用电子邮件。\n\n法庭：那不是——等一下。等一下。那不是——停下。这并非针对我刚才所问问题的回答。我说的是，请告诉我你依据什么来支持这样一种立场：作为债务人的律师，你不必与债务人逐一审查这些内容，以确定它们是否与传票相关？这是我问你的问题。\n\nMORIARTY律师：我们唯一可能逐一审查的，是载有中文短信的手机。这是他所拥有的唯一可能含有与请求相关文件的东西。我不懂中文，因此我依赖我的客户，即债务人，搜索他的手机并向我提供与请求相关的文件。这不是，法官阁下，Zubulake问题。债务人没有服务器。他没有信息技术专业人员。我们没有文件保管人。\n\n法庭：你如何知道这一点？\n\nMORIARTY律师：他是个人。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 59\n\n法庭：律师，你如何知道这一点？\n\nMORIARTY律师：他是个人，法官阁下。而且我们专门问过他。\n\n法庭：这并不意味着个人没有服务器。\n\nMORIARTY律师：我问过他这一点。\n\n法庭：个人——你问了他，他告诉你没有，但你并不知道这一点。你唯一可以向法庭报告的是，你问了被告——我是说本案中的债务人，不是对抗程序中的被告——你问了债务人，他告诉你没有。这就是你所能报告的一切。我想对你说的是，莫里亚蒂律师，案卷中有什么内容可供我据以依赖？我在案卷中所听到的一切，也就是说，如果只有这些也没有问题，但我听到的全部内容是：你问了他问题，他说没有。\n\nMORIARTY律师：法官阁下，他是个人。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nMORIARTY律师：所以——\n\n法庭：而且，无论你代理的是个人还是公司，就遵守传票而言没有区别——请向我指出《联邦民事诉讼规则》中规定，个人与公司实体在遵守传票的需要方面存在区别的条款。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 60\n\n公司实体。\n\nMORIARTY律师：而且——法官阁下，我并不是说存在这种区别。我所说的是，当涉及Zubulake之类的案件时，那是一个实体。实体有信息技术专业人员。它有文件保管人。它有——\n\n法庭：好的。我说的是，这完全无关紧要。这并不重要。\n\nMORIARTY律师：但是，法官阁下，这与——有关。\n\n法庭：个人可能有服务器。除他告诉你没有之外，你没有任何依据作出该陈述。这没有问题。如果这就是——如果这就是你所依赖的内容，我们就应当对此明确。你应当使案卷准确。案卷记载的是：这是他告诉你的，除此之外没有更多内容。\n\nMORIARTY律师：正确。\n\n法庭：对于该陈述是否真实，没有作进一步调查。\n\nMORIARTY律师：没有作进一步调查，我也认为没有必要作进一步调查。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nMORIARTY律师：好的。因此，就Guo女士（郭女士）而言，受托人向她要求的、而她提出异议的，是与其个人资产有关的文件、十年的银行账户对账单、其纳税申报表、任何信用卡对账单，或者她在过去十年中使用的任何信用卡。我们所说不存在转让指控，是指不存在任何指控——首先，没有证据表明债务人实际上曾经拥有Lady May。Lady May是在HK International从债务人处转让之后购得的。因此，Lady May并非从债务人转让给Guo女士。无论如何，他们所请求的是她十年的银行对账单，但并无任何指控称债务人曾向她作出任何可能以某种方式最终进入其银行账户的转让。因此，异议即在于此。受托人在此没有做、而地方法规要求做的，是列明具体请求和具体异议。因此，除受托人显然是在寻求一切资料外，我们不知道受托人寻求哪些具体请求。但是，就Guo女士而言——HK没有银行账户，受托人在其动议中这样说，因此我认为对此没有争议——Guo女士所反对的是披露其个人资产，理由首先是不存在任何会最终进入其银行账户、纳税申报表或诸如此类资料的、向她作出的转让指控。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 61\n\n信用卡对账单，或她在过去十年中使用的任何信用卡。我们所说不存在转让指控，是指不存在任何指控——首先，没有证据表明债务人实际上曾经拥有Lady May。Lady May是在HK International从债务人处转让之后购得的。因此，Lady May并非从债务人转让给Guo女士。无论如何，他们所请求的是她十年的银行对账单，但并无任何指控称债务人曾向她作出任何可能以某种方式最终进入其银行账户的转让。因此，异议即在于此。受托人在此没有做、而地方法规要求做的，是列明具体请求和具体异议。因此，除受托人显然是在寻求一切资料外，我们不知道受托人寻求哪些具体请求。但是，就Guo女士而言——HK没有银行账户，受托人在其动议中这样说，因此我认为对此没有争议——Guo女士所反对的是披露其个人资产，理由首先是不存在任何会最终进入其银行账户、纳税申报表或诸如此类资料的、向她作出的转让指控。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 61 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 62 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 62 第二，就第2004条规则而言，在根据第2004条规则向郭女士（Ms. Guo）送达传票时，她并非该对抗程序的一方当事人。我相信，反诉是在她就第2004条传票提出异议约三周后才提交的，因此，郭女士不可能放弃其对于受托人通过第2004条规则寻求与该对抗程序争议直接相关的证据开示所持有的任何异议。并请注意，法官阁下，目前尚有一项PJR申请和一项禁令申请待决，作为其中一部分，受托人正向郭女士寻求资产证据开示，同时也通过根据第2004条规则发出的传票向她寻求资产证据开示。而我们此前就该动议所作的论证，法官阁下，是说，这些人并非当事人。在本案中，郭女士和HK是该对抗程序的当事人，而受托人正试图利用第2004条规则获取与该对抗程序争议直接相关的信息。受托人已提交一份六十余页的反诉，并附有3100页证据材料。而且，再次说明，该反诉是在郭女士就第2004条传票送达其异议之后，以及在法官阁下准许签发该传票的动议之后提交的。因此，当时郭女士甚至还不是该对抗程序的当事人。至于债务人的护照，完整护照——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 63 法庭：债务人还是郭女士—— 莫里亚蒂律师：——该—— 法庭：——您现在说的是谁？我以为您在说郭女士。 莫里亚蒂律师：是的。我已经转到另一个问题了，法官阁下。 法庭：好的。 莫里亚蒂律师：我很抱歉。 法庭：我只是想确保我跟得上您的意思。 莫里亚蒂律师：不，没关系。 法庭：好的。 莫里亚蒂律师：因此，关于护照，债务人的护照，受托人寻求债务人护照的完整副本。债务人护照的第一页已经提供，因为该页是随——我相信是随其纳税申报表，或者是随其纳税人识别号申请一并提供的。受托人要求提供完整护照的唯一依据是，我们需要查看他去过哪里，因为那里也许有资产；但这并不成立，即债务人去了某个地方，就必然意味着那里有资产，我们就应当去调查。这并非要求提供债务人护照的善意依据。然后，关于八年与十年之间的——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交日期 12/11/22\n登记日期 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n1 年，受托人主张我们需要十年的文件，其依据是，这是欺诈性转让诉讼时效的最长期间。但依据的是哪一项法律？\n\n5 债务人直到2014年底才离开香港。我认为任何人对此均无争议。\n\n7 法庭：但这是否在案卷记录中？\n\n8 莫里亚蒂律师：这在我们的书面材料中，法官阁下。如果您问我是否有该事实的证据，没有。\n\n10 法庭：我的意思是，如果对此没有争议，我需要知道这一点。但我不能仅仅认定，对吧，债务人没有——抱歉，您刚才说，我认为债务人，我认为您使用的措辞是，直到2014年债务人才离开香港。您是这么说的吗？\n\n15 莫里亚蒂律师：而“离开”——“离开”是指离开以到其他地方居住。\n\n17 法庭：是的。但我的意思是，我不知道这一点。您只是这么说而已。我并不是说您不能这么说。如果所有人都同意，那没问题。但除您如此陈述之外，我没有任何证据，对吧？\n\n21 莫里亚蒂律师：是的。但再次说明，我不认为对此存在任何争议。\n\n23 法庭：那么，您必须——\n\n24 莫里亚蒂律师：如果有的话，卢夫特律师会告诉我。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 65 法庭：你们当事人会弄清楚这一点。 莫里亚蒂律师：好的。 法庭：好的。不过，请继续。 莫里亚蒂律师：谢谢，法官阁下。因此，为了我的论证，我们就假定该事实没有争议—— 法庭：好的。 莫里亚蒂律师：——对于债务人在2014年底逃离香港之前所作出的任何转让，适用何种法律？而且，该法律是否允许在转让十多年后提起欺诈性转让请求？受托人完全没有处理这一点。 法庭：那么您是否——但您是否——您是否反对自2014年起往后的期间？ 莫里亚蒂律师：不。我们反对的是2012年至2014年。 法庭：好的。 莫里亚蒂律师：我们所说的是，自债务人逃离香港之时，即自2014年底起往后—— 法庭：好的。 莫里亚蒂律师：——将提供回应性文件。我能占用一秒钟吗，法官阁下？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 登记日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第65页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 66 法庭：当然可以。 莫里亚蒂律师：谢谢。 （暂停。） 莫里亚蒂律师：法官阁下，除非您有问题，我没有其他要说的。 法庭：让我确认一下我没有任何问题。 （暂停。） 法庭：没有，我目前没有其他问题，莫里亚蒂律师。谢谢。 莫里亚蒂律师：在等待您的问题时，还有一点—— 法庭：您发现了什么。请继续。 莫里亚蒂律师：——我想补充。对卢夫特律师应有的尊重而言，他和我有良好的工作关系，但我们对于这次协商以及就这个假设性的Lady May II（“Lady May II”）所说的内容存在根本分歧。正如我们在异议书第9段中所述，如果存在一艘假设性的Lady May II，它与Lady May完全相同，并且纽约的一家法院作出命令，认定了奥斯特拉格法官（Judge Ostrager）所作出的认定，当然我们会提供回应性文件。但是，第一，这个假设性的Lady May II本身就是假设；第二，协商中的假设是，如果有一艘Lady May II，你们是否会提供文件？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 登记日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第66页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 登记日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第67页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n1 而不是在具有所有那些周边事实信息的情况下。答复是，如果存在一艘Lady May II，且债务人对其不享有权益，则不会提供回应性文件。\n\n6 换言之，我们不会提供与他人资产有关的文件。因此，如果债务人对一艘假设的船只不享有任何权益，当然我们不会提供与之有关的文件。这就是协商的要旨。\n\n11 就此，法官阁下，我没有其他要说的。\n\n12 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n13 卢夫特律师：法官阁下，我可以吗？\n\n14 法庭：可以。\n\n15 卢夫特律师：谢谢，法官阁下。保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（Paul Hastings）的阿维·卢夫特（Avi Luft）。\n\n17 法庭：谢谢。\n\n18 卢夫特律师：那么，我们不妨从结束的地方开始。我会——我会就Lady May II简要说明。我认为我已经讨论过这个问题。\n\n21 莫里亚蒂律师百分之百正确。我们的确关系很好。\n\n23 我再次请您看第9段，我会请求——我建议法庭通读全文。答案正如我所说，他们的规则是，必须由法院认定该资产属于债务人，他们才愿意提供文件。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交日期 12/11/22\n登记日期 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n1 该资产是债务人的资产，他们才愿意提供文件。他们对此说得再清楚不过。\n\n3 答复是，如果债务人对假设性的Lady May II不享有任何权益，债务人不会提供与该假设性的Lady May II有关的文件。\n\n7 法官阁下，如您所知，我们即将进行一项对抗程序。\n\n9 时至今日，尽管奥斯特拉格大法官——奥斯特拉格法官认定债务人享有受益所有权和控制权，他们仍继续主张债务人对Lady May不享有所有权权益。\n\n13 不可能要求我们必须先取得法院裁定，认定我们拥有该资产，才能开始就其进行第2004条规则证据开示。关于这一点，我只说这些。\n\n16 我想处理几个零散问题，然后再回到开头。\n\n18 具体而言，是护照，法官阁下，您会注意到我在其末尾加了一个“S”，我不知道郭先生（Mr. Kwok）有多少本护照。\n\n21 我确实认为，为了找到他的资产，了解他去过哪里完全相关。如果他们想将这些标记为高度保密，完全没有问题。我对此没有异议。\n\n25 但是，认为他们无需提供这些，或者我们无法根据他去过哪里获得关于其资产所在地的相关信息，这一说法根本站不住脚。了解他去了哪里、如何去的，完全合理。\n\n5 有人告诉我他有飞机。您知道我是怎么听说的吗？因为他在我有的一次采访中告诉别人，我有飞机。您知道他的日程表上没有什么吗？飞机。因此，了解他的行程将有助于我了解他是如何到达那里的，乘坐了哪些航班。也许有一架我们尚未找到的飞机。我相信债权人会想知道这一点。\n\n12 有人就十年期间提出了问题，我此前也提到过。这是我之前从未听到过的新论点，即事实上，他们不提供文件的原因是他们不确定香港法律将如何处理欺诈性转让。\n\n17 他们没有提出任何证据表明香港法律会以不同方式处理欺诈性转让，或者坦率地说，法官阁下在债务人作出欺诈性转让的问题上会受香港法律约束。\n\n21 而且，如我之前所说，这不仅仅是欺诈性转让。有一个确定日期，当时郭先生在中国，即使按照他自己对外界所述，在大多数日子里他拥有数十亿美元。如今他拥有的不足4,000。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 登记日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第70页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 70 本案最大的谜团是，在这段期间发生了什么。我需要知道他起初拥有什么，以便追踪那些资产去了哪里。这并非不合理的请求。并且，基于他们似乎能找到的文件数量，这当然不会造成很大负担。法官阁下问我们是否都同意他在所称日期离开香港。法官阁下，我不知道他何时离开香港。我知道，在其他诉讼中，对于他实际何时来到美国一直存在公开争议，而债务人曾给出日期。我不知道他离开香港的时间与离开中国大陆的时间之间是否存在重大差异，以及这是否影响扣押或其他任何事情。因此，我今天不能说我同意，也不能同意约定他在所称时间离开香港。我没有该事实的任何证据。我现在想回到他们开头所说的观点，即债务人没有义务搜寻文件，因为受托人正在尽职努力向专业人士设法取得文件。首先，所有这些当中值得注意的是，也是莫里亚蒂律师完全没有说的是，我们所称为替他工作、而他称为与他共事的任何人——我并不在乎——那些接收他的讯息、转交这些讯息的人，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 登记日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第71页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n伊薇特·王（Yvette Wang）、荣宇（Yung Yu）、所有这些人、马克斯·克拉斯纳（Max Krasner），他们遍布于他的所有文件中，担任其董事会成员，并代他发送信息；他们都不是专业人士，而且正在规避送达。我不知道还有哪些人。请注意，债务人有义务去查找这些资料。受托人为绕开这一问题而努力工作这一事实，并不——并不免除该义务。并且，十分明确的是，我们并未与债务人携手合作，以便与专业人士协调证据开示。这并非对实际情况的现实描述。我们不得不主动出去获取我们能够获取的资料。许多专业人士在我与他们通电话时告诉我：我是第三方，这负担过重，你为什么不从债务人那里取得？我并不试图每天都以出现的每一项证据开示争议来给法院增加负担。有时我必须妥协，有时我必须推迟处理。\n\n还有像 GTV（GTV）和 Golden Spring（黄金泉）这样的实体，迄今尚未向我们提供一份文件。本周我将再次与他们进行协商会谈。他们一直推诿搪塞，此事已持续数月。顺便说一下，法官阁下，如果您想知道，据我所知，GTV 和 Golden Spring 的唯一董事会成员是艾伦·米切尔（Aaron Mitchell），即郭先生（Mr. Kwok）的私人律师。\n\n法院：我可以问一下，您刚才所说的实体是 GTV，也就是 Victor 中的 V 吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 已于 12/11/22 提交 已于 12/11/22 13:08:08 登记 第 72 页，共 79 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022\n\n卢夫特先生（MR. LUFT）：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n卢夫特先生：即 G 代表 Guo，另加 TV。\n\n法院：是。\n\n卢夫特先生：与 G-Media、G-Fashion 相同。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n卢夫特先生：以及所有其他这些实体。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我只是想确保我正确听到了您的意思。\n\n卢夫特先生：当然。\n\n现在，莫里亚蒂先生（Mr. Moriarty）用了一个有意思的说法。他说，这并不意味着它们在其个人占有之中。我不知道有任何法律规定，一方当事人的义务是以其“个人占有”中的内容为基础。我见过“占有、保管”，以及最值得注意的“控制”，这才是法律标准。而且，正如我们在判例法中援引的那样，他显然对其专业人士、为其工作的人以及任何此类人员均拥有控制权。因此，这并不能解决问题。债务人负有义务。他必须让人检索其文件，并且他必须去找其所有顾问。\n\n我只想指出，称我挑选了实体并说不了解关联实体是不合理的这一说法，我不会通过逐一宣读我们都知道的无数实体而占用法院时间。但是，法官阁下，如果您愿意查看该清单，您会注意到，您知道其中的大多数名称，更不用说债务人不可能不知道其中的大多数名称；显然，这些名称均取自我们发现的文件和信息。有人提出了电子邮件问题。再次说明，债务人不使用电子邮件。您没有听到的是，他是否让其他人代表其发送电子邮件。我们知道他们确实如此。如果您查看布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所（Brown Rudnick）提供的文件，若布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所在此，他们会告诉您，哦，是的，我们发送过——每当我们想与债务人沟通时，因为我们必须如此做，因为我们正在申报破产债权，我们便通过马克斯·克拉斯纳、梅丽莎·弗朗西斯（Melissa Francis）、艾伦·米切尔发送信息。当他想买房时，他通过伊薇特·王与房地产经纪人来回发送信息。我不会涉及这些文件，但我知道法官阁下在非公开庭审中看过涉及王女士代表其老板发送信息的文件。关于债务人向莫里亚蒂先生所作的陈述——我想明确说明，我对莫里亚蒂先生评价极高，并且我相信他所说的是真实的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 已于 12/11/22 提交 已于 12/11/22 13:08:08 登记 第 73 页，共 79 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022 73\n\n坦率地说，法官阁下，当债务人说他不知道或不知道某件事物在哪里时，我并不作同样的相信。两周前，我参加了一次证言记录，他在宣誓后称，他不知道自己房屋的地址。他不知道据称亲自向伊薇特·王递送信息的保安人员的姓名；尽管与她共事多年，他还说，我完全不知道如何联系她。他不是一个可信的如实陈述者，法官阁下。这正是我们不得不面对的情况。\n\n但是，说“他告诉了我，因此我接受其为真实”，规则和法律都很明确，特别是在你对某人的诚实性存有疑虑时，你必须做得更多。\n\n现在，有人评论说，如果我们只是请求他们协助，我们就能取得这些资料。坦率地说，法官阁下，遗憾的是，情况并非如此。我曾请求他们协助我向王女士、Golden Spring 送达。我们曾写信给他们，询问你们能否向我们提供联系信息，能否告诉我们在哪里找到这些我们找不到的人；这与债务人配合受托人的义务相一致，但他们从未答应。我从未获得这些信息。\n\n现在，关于其所谓缺乏 IT 能力这一点，对于一个整天在 YouTube 上发布视频、在数字媒体服务上销售音乐、制作复杂视频的人而言，法官阁下，我只想说，认为不存在任何 IT、任何地方都不存在服务器，这种说法根本不可信。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 已于 12/11/22 提交 已于 12/11/22 13:08:08 登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022\n\n有一个其人员使用的 Golden Spring 电子邮件地址。我们不知道是否有人查看过该地址。更重要的是，似乎没有人正在询问。\n\n关于他们的检索是否充分这一问题，坦率地说，并不充分。我听到的是，他们说，好吧，我们告诉债务人传票中有什么。这并不够。我实际听到他们说的是，好吧，我们把传票读给了一名翻译，翻译告诉债务人其中有什么。这当然不够。\n\n我想暂时谈谈郭女士（Ms. Guo）。认为并无指控称债务人曾向她进行转让的这一观点，我已经指出过这一点，但我无法相信我还在听到这种说法：她持有 Lady May（梅夫人号），法官阁下，一艘法院已经认定属于债务人的船只。\n\n纽约南区（Southern District）的利曼法官（Judge Liman）已经认定，以她名义设立的一个实体 Eastern Profit（东方利润）实际上只是债务人的一个空壳。我们也已经发现了九个 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）实体，即空壳公司。当然有理由相信，债务人向她转移资产并将资产置于她名下。也许比其他任何人都更能说明问题的是，我们知道他这样做。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 已于 12/11/22 提交 已于 12/11/22 13:08:08 登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022\n\n现在，关于我们没有——以某种方式未遵守程序规则，即我们没有向他们列明每一项具体请求，而他们不知道我们申请强制执行的是何事这一论点，我认为即使您查看他们提交的文件，我当然会证明这一点，而且我认为莫里亚蒂先生不会不同意，我们进行了长时间的协商会谈。协商会谈是——\n\n我们特意逐一审查每项异议和答复，并表示：我想了解，这是你们最终的答复，这是我认为存在问题之处；我想了解你们的异议是什么，因为我将申请强制执行。我认为，说他们完全不知道我们正在就什么事项提出动议，并不诚实。\n\n确实，为了节省时间，鉴于他们全面拒绝检索其他个人、拒绝检索代理人、不查找家庭成员，以及——只采信债务人的说法等问题极其广泛，我们确实围绕这些重大的宏观问题来组织我们的动议，而不是重写每一项具体请求；我认为这绝不会妨碍他们获得充分通知，正如他们篇幅甚长的异议所证明的那样。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022 77\n\n最后，法官阁下，我确实想谈谈有关郭女士因技术性理由不属于未决程序范围的评论。我注意到，没有人主张 HK USA（HK USA）尽管提出了异议，却不属于该范围。因此现在他们说，好吧，真正的——他们改变了论点，称好吧，是郭女士在技术上不是当事人。现在，法官阁下，我认为放弃权利的论点完全没有改变。今天早些时候，您听到他们告诉您，他们认为对对抗程序的通知范围如此之大，以至于 Apsley（阿普斯利）和 DWF（DWF）也可被涵盖。郭女士是 HK USA 的唯一控制方，HK USA 是当事人；她看到了——她收到的综合通知与郭女士收到的是同一份，该通知中有同样提出此问题的脚注，而且她们的情况完全相同。但是，即使她不是，她于 September 22nd 被列为当事人。我从未收到补充异议、答复和异议，或者任何表明他们希望这样做的论点。直到他们提交异议时，他们才提出这一未决程序问题。我认为该项权利已被放弃。此外，法官阁下，基于我此前已陈述而不再重复的理由，即使该项权利未被放弃，我也不认为他们在提供文件方面一拖再拖的事实，能够使他们现在有理由主张 2004 不应适用。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 已于 12/11/22 提交 已于 12/11/22 13:08:08 登记 第 77 页，共 79 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022 78\n\n我相信这回应了莫里亚蒂先生的所有评论。如果法官阁下有任何问题，我很乐意回答。\n\n法院：谢谢。我没有。我目前没有任何问题。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：莫里亚蒂先生，您想发表意见吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是的，法官阁下。非常简短地说。如果我可以指出，法官阁下，在债务人、郭女士和 HK 提交的异议中，我们确实讨论了 Zubulake 案以及律师的义务。这在脚注 3 中，我相信该脚注始于第 12 页。Zubulake 案，我认为这是该系列案件中的第四或第五案，确实谈到了律师协助客户定位相关信息，并确保该信息得到保存和随后提供的义务。在该案中，法院作出如下表述——这在第 435 页。因此，引用为 229 F.R.D. 422，见第 435 页——确实，律师无需监督文件提供过程中的每一步，并且在某些方面可依赖其客户。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 已于 12/11/22 提交 已于 12/11/22 13:08:08 登记 第 78 页，共 79 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- November 30, 2022 79\n\n这正是我们在此就中文短信所做的。至于卢夫特律师的论点，他谈论了大量我推测是从专业事务所获得的信息。他向法院陈述，有马克斯·克拉斯纳、艾伦·米切尔及其他人代表债务人发送的电子邮件通信；法官阁下，这些内容均不在案卷记录中。这只是律师的陈述。因此，我确实想指出，卢夫特先生的大部分论点及其陈述仅仅是陈述。案卷记录中没有证据支持这些陈述。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。我认为目前就此事项的辩论已经足够。我将对此事项留待裁定。那么，让我们继续审理保护令动议。罗姆尼先生（Mr. Romney），您将就该事项进行辩论吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：是的。下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法院：请您尽可能靠近麦克风，可以吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：可以。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n罗姆尼先生：法官阁下，您能清楚听到我说话吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 已于 12/11/22 提交 已于 12/11/22 13:08:08 登记 第 79 页，共 79 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交日期 12/11/22\n录入日期 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n1 法庭：\n我们能听清他说话吗？\n2 法庭书记员：\n能。\n3 法庭：\n好的。如果听不清，我们会告诉你。\n4 好吗？\n5 ROMNEY 先生：\n法官阁下，我从未被人指责过声音太小。\n6 \n7 法庭：\n嗯，我明白。我也没有。不过，有时麦克风无法正确拾取我们的声音。\n8 \n9 ROMNEY 先生：\n我是 Aaron Romney（阿伦·罗姆尼），来自 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒律师事务所），代表债务人出庭。\n10 \n11 我今天在此就债务人关于其庇护申请的保护令动议进行陈述。\n12 \n13 法官阁下，目前提交法庭审理的这项关于庇护申请的动议，与法庭今天此前审理的任何问题均大不相同。\n14 \n15 坦率地说，它也不同于本破产程序整个过程中提交法庭审理的大多数问题，即使不是全部问题。\n16 \n17 \n18 \n19 该动议涉及债务人有权阻止包括受托人在内的第三方查阅其提交给 United States Department of Homeland Security（美国国土安全部）的庇护申请。\n20 \n21 \n22 \n23 该申请包含的信息，如被提供给不当人员，可能使债务人、其家庭成员及其他第三方面临严重的人身伤害，包括严重身体伤害，甚至可能更为严重。\n24 \n25 \n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1220\n提交日期 12/11/22\n录入日期 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n1 众多法律规范，包括本法庭作出的规范，均保护债务人就该庇护申请所享有的权利。\n2 \n3 \n4 \n5 我们已在本法庭于多个日期，就本案关于特权的经同意命令进行了不厌其烦的讨论。\n6 \n7 \n8 该命令第2段确定了在受托人获任命时，由债务人转移给受托人的信息——或者说特权——即受特权保护的信息。\n9 \n10 \n11 \n12 该段确定了两项特权：律师—当事人特权和工作成果特权。\n13 在此之内，当然包括共同律师—当事人特权和工作成果特权，但我认为后者属于前者的子集。\n14 \n15 这些是第2段所确定的特权，且这些特权与经界定的调查事项有关。\n16 \n17 \n18 该约定命令第4段确定了债务人保留的特权，该等特权并不限于律师—当事人特权和工作成果特权，尤其是在该信息不涉及调查事项时。\n19 \n20 \n21 \n22 我相信在场各位都知道，调查事项通常是指债务人的资产、财务事务和负债。\n23 \n24 \n25 该特权命令还在第7段规定，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 录入日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第82页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n1 即使某项内容推定应向受托人提供，或者受托人现已控制该项特权，法庭仍必须进行利益衡量，即提供该信息对债务人造成的人身伤害，是否被对债务人的任何利益所超过。\n2 \n3 \n4 \n5 \n6 \n7 我们就该特权命令举行过数次听证会。我相信是三次，甚至可能是四次。\n8 \n9 债务人作出了多项陈述，且法庭予以确认，即受托人并不寻求债务人的庇护申请。\n10 \n11 \n12 我们特别提到了 Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔）诉讼，该诉讼涉及债务人庇护申请的数据泄露；我们还在特权命令中明确规定，该诉讼不涉及庇护申请的实质内容。\n13 \n14 \n15 \n16 \n17 《移民和国籍法》经编纂载于《联邦法规汇编》208.6和1208.6；据我所知，两者在实质上相同。该法保护庇护申请的披露，除非国土安全部负责人因正当理由授权向特定人员披露，或债务人同意，否则不得向任何人披露。\n18 \n19 \n20 \n21 \n22 \n23 受托人以该规定不适用于私人当事人为由提出异议。\n24 \n25 我不知道法官阁下是否有机会查看我们昨天刚提交的答复——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 83\n\n法庭：\n没有。\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n——或其附件A；但那是一份由 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services（美国公民及移民服务局）编制的小册子，该机构是 Department of Homeland Security（国土安全部）的一个部门。其中包含 CFR 208.6 的条文、相关评注以及具体问答。\n\n我在答复中引用的一个具体问题，我相信是第7问，提出的问题是：根据该法规获准因正当理由取得庇护申请的第三方，其自身是否受该法规保密条款的约束；答案是毫不含糊的肯定。\n\nClark Hill 持有债务人的庇护申请，并不会使债务人的庇护申请不再享有特权，或不再受联邦法律保护。这不是律师—当事人特权，也不是工作成果特权。这是联邦政府给予所有庇护申请人的保护。\n\n除特权命令的条文外——嗯，让我退一步说。今天的听证中出现的一个问题是：哪些内容在案卷中，哪些不在案卷中，哪些是律师的陈述，证据在哪里？\n\n幸运的是，就这一问题而言，证据载于本法庭审理程序的庭审记录中。我引用了一些，但并非全部，律师所作的陈述；他们在回应我们的关切时明确表示，特权的移转会造成个人伤害。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 录入日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第83页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 录入日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第84页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n1 我们列举了庇护申请以及其他特别敏感的事项。\n2 \n3 \n4 \n5 \n6 \n7 他们一再表示，我当时是在——我是转述——但实质上是在提出一个转移焦点的问题，因为他们并不寻求债务人的庇护申请。\n8 \n9 \n10 \n11 他们是在知悉 Clark Hill 诉讼、并知悉该诉讼涉及庇护申请数据泄露的情况下作出这些陈述的。\n12 \n13 他们一再表示，他们并不寻求债务人的庇护申请。\n14 \n15 作为回应，法庭表示——这在我们的异议书第4页中有引述——抱歉，是在我们的保护令动议中，案卷编号1063，法庭表示：我对该动议的理解是，即使受托人希望取得该命令，他也会同意排除任何涉及庇护问题的内容。\n16 \n17 \n18 \n19 \n20 我的意思是，他并未主张，而且从未主张，他将行使该项权利。\n21 \n22 \n23 这是法庭在作出一项由当事人约定的命令前，依赖受托人在法庭前所持立场而作出的陈述。\n24 \n25 \n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 录入日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第85页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 85\n\n现在，受托人针对这一问题以及现在这项保护令动议辩称，好吧，我们不知道 Clark Hill 将其附于 Clark Hill 诉讼中的一份诉状。\n\n坦率地说，法官阁下，他们是否知道该文件附于一份诉状，是一个转移焦点的问题，原因有很多。\n\n第一，在约定的特权命令作出时，凡是反复出现在本法庭的人都知道 Clark Hill 诉讼以及其——实质内容。该诉讼的实质内容是涉及债务人庇护申请的数据泄露。\n\n第三方 Clark Hill 选择将其附于其简易判决动议这一事实，并不构成债务人的放弃，也不改变该诉讼中问题的性质。\n\n该诉讼中的问题是：Clark Hill 是否应依据多种法律理论对数据泄露负责，无论是律师失职、违约或违反信义义务；以及若是，应承担何种损害赔偿。\n\n该等损害唯一可能、可设想地涉及庇护申请实质内容之处，是对债务人造成的影响，即其庇护申请部分内容泄露至公共领域所导致的债务人精神影响。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 录入日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第86页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日\n\n1 无需向受托人提供完整、毫无删节、未经任何处理的庇护申请，即可通过多种方式审查这些问题。该受托人是一家律师事务所的合伙人，我不知道该所拥有数百名还是数千名律师，他们推定均可获取此信息；该所遍布世界各地的办事处也将可获取该信息。\n2 \n3 \n4 \n5 \n6 \n7 \n8 但现实是，法官阁下，已经达成了一项协议。\n9 已经作出了一项约定命令。\n10 我们对该命令的解释存在分歧。这没有问题。这就是我们都选择成为其中一员并奉献职业生涯的司法制度。存在分歧没有问题。\n11 \n12 \n13 \n14 但是，不可以的是达成一项明确无歧义的协议，然后又明确无歧义地说我改变主意了。\n15 \n16 这正是此处所发生的事。这不对。这违反法律。\n17 \n18 而且，与本案中其他涉及金钱的问题不同，金钱可以获得，金钱可以损失，财产可以取得，财产可以失去；庇护申请涉及人的生命以及政治迫害。\n19 \n20 \n21 \n22 无论是否相信这些指控，联邦政府都承认该申请中信息的神圣性。\n23 \n24 \n25 因此，法官阁下，我请求您\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1220 提交日期 12/11/22 录入日期 12/11/22 13:08:08 第87页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年11月30日 87\n\n批准该保护令，要求受托人遵守其所同意的约定命令，并保护债务人庇护申请中的信息。\n\n除非法庭还有进一步问题，否则，对于我今天未予处理的任何问题，我将依赖我的书面文件。\n\n法庭：\n目前我没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以，请。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n谢谢。法官阁下，我是 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），来自 Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所）。\n\n我想从 Romney 先生结束之处开始。他说，这不是关于金钱，而是关于人，关于他们的生命。\n\n现在，我认为我们应当真正坦诚地说明我们为何在此。我们没有请求取得庇护申请。我们请求取得受托人目前控制的各项诉讼中的文件。\n\n庇护申请是该诉讼的一份证据，并且是该诉讼的核心。为什么会这样？这不是 Despins 先生提起的诉讼。这是 Kwok 先生为金钱而提起的诉讼。\n\n他想为了金钱起诉其律师，他起诉他们的依据是其庇护申请被公开。那可能确实发生了。他可能因此受到了伤害。我\n\n1 我不对此作任何一方的争辩，但这就是他提出的\n2 主张。\n\n3 作为回应，Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔）最突出地提出了如下抗辩：\n4 你并未受到损害，因为你的庇护申请中的信息被公开，\n5 是由于\n6 事实上，所有这些信息此前已经公开。\n\n7 因此，在许多方面，Kwok先生（郭文贵）为取得金钱赔偿而提出的整个争议\n8 的核心在于，该等\n9 现已被各方一致同意属于公开的信息，\n10 究竟是由Clark Hill公开，还是此前由Kwok先生或其他当事人公开。\n11 \n\n12 因此，让我们——我理解，拯救\n13 生命及其他一切听起来很好，但让我们说得非常清楚。Kwok先生\n14 提起了一宗诉讼，该诉讼本身要求为取得金钱赔偿而讨论其\n15 庇护申请。他从未一次要求\n16 Clark Hill交出其庇护申请。\n\n17 他在哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院（District Court for the District of Columbia）\n18 诉讼整个案件时明知，不仅\n19 Clark Hill持有该申请，而且双方均聘请了专家，\n20 就该申请发表意见，包括其中是否载有该等信息、其遭受何种损害\n21 以及其他任何事项。\n\n22 现在，本案之所以来到我们这里，是因为存在一项尚待裁决的\n23 针对该项主张的简易判决动议，\n24 目前Despins先生（德斯平斯）必须为其进行抗辩。而我无法查看\n25 该动议，因为随附于该动议的是，A，庇护\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－November 30, 2022 89\n\n申请；B，据告知——这是Clark Hill的代理律师所述——有一张对比庇护申请内容的图表——是的，法官阁下？\n\n法庭：我可以问你一个问题吗？\n\nLUFT先生（卢夫特）：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：该案中是谁提出了简易判决动议？\n\nLUFT先生：是Clark Hill提出的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。请继续。\n\nLUFT先生：作为回应——据我理解，在很大程度上如此。再次说明，我尚未看到文件，因此这是Clark Hill在Jenner & Block（詹纳与布洛克律师事务所）的代理律师向我及债务人代理律师所作的陈述：该文件——被附于其中——有某种图表，对比庇护申请中载有的内容与此前在互联网上公开发现的内容。我的理解是，该图表基于一位专家的工作，而该专家——\n\n法庭：你无法查看，是因为该案有一项命令规定所有材料均须密封，还是情况为何——\n\nLUFT先生：并非所有材料，法官阁下。只是该材料被密封提交于一项——\n\n法庭：简易判决动议。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1220\nFiled 12/11/22\nEntered 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－November 30, 2022\n\n1 好的。请继续。我只是想了解清楚。请继续。\n\n2 LUFT先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n3 而且有一个奇怪的巧合，据我理解，\n4 该动议是在债务人申请破产的前一天提出的。\n5 因此，甚至不存在该动议的一份未删节副本。\n6 因为，当Jenner & Block要求Kwok先生当时的代理律师Ari\n7 Casper（阿里·卡斯珀）制作该副本时，\n8 Casper先生向法院提出异议，称他认为自己不会因该项工作获得报酬，\n9 因此不愿这样做，而法院准许了该请求。\n\n10 因此，事实是，我不仅无法查看完整的文件副本，\n11 我也无法查看任何副本；该简易判决动议目前尚待裁决，\n12 其针对的是现为我当事人的人就其主张所提出的动议，\n13 并且还有一项动议，要求排除现为我当事人、此前为\n14 债务人的所有专家证人。\n15 \n\n16 我已要求查看简易判决动议、\n17 要求排除专家证人的该项动议、相关专家报告以及证言记录。\n18 这些是\n19 该诉讼中从未有争议的核心要素。\n\n20 这不是一宗无关紧要的案件。债务人在其\n21 诉状中主张最高达$15 million的损害赔偿。并且据我\n22 理解，即使到今天，他仍主张这是一项数百万美元的请求权，\n23 其是债权人的一项潜在资产。受托人必须能够查看这些\n24 文件，以便能够评估案件、为其进行抗辩，并\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1220\nFiled 12/11/22\nEntered 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－November 30, 2022\n\n1 了解其价值。\n\n2 现在，法官阁下，另一项需要了解的重要事项是，\n3 该庇护申请不享有特权。\n4 Romney先生（罗姆尼）如此表示。该内容载于我们援引的电子邮件中。\n5 毫无疑问。这不是一份享有特权的文件。该文件\n6 多年前已向政府提交。其就是不\n7 享有特权。\n\n8 不过，在我转而讨论该命令之前，法官阁下，我\n9 确实认为，准确理解该文件的核心程度\n10 非常重要。\n\n11 法官阁下，我听说您没有机会\n12 查看债务人迟交的答复。\n\n13 法庭：没有，我们昨天开庭了。\n\n14 LUFT先生：完全可以理解，法官阁下。\n\n15 如果您不介意，我请求法院仅\n16 查看我认为是文件1174的材料，即债务人的\n17 答复，具体是第5段，其中载有\n18 债务人作出的陈述。\n\n19 庇护申请的全部实质内容\n20 并非题为Guo Wengui（郭文贵）v. Clark\n21 Hill的诉讼或该专业失当诉讼中的争点。该项关于\n22 庇护申请实质内容并非\n23 Clark Hill诉讼争点的陈述，直接与\n24 Clark Hill代理律师向债务人代理律师及受托人代理律师双方所述内容相矛盾。\n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 92 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－November 30, 2022 92\n\n如果法官阁下查阅我们在文件1105-1中提交的反对意见，其中包括证据材料，尤其是118页中的第97页，我认为这非常重要。法官阁下将会看到一串电子邮件。Vincent Lazar（文森特·拉扎尔）是Jenner & Block的律师——是Clark Hill的代理律师。他在一封电子邮件中答复Romney先生；Romney先生此前告诉他，他认为庇护申请与债务人的财产毫无关系。以下是该案代理律师就庇护申请所起作用所作的陈述。您指示我们不向受托人提供庇护申请，尽管您承认该申请不享有特权。与您所称庇护申请“与债务人的财产绝对毫无关系”的说法相反，债务人针对Clark Hill所提诉状的核心指控是，庇护申请的内容遭到泄露，因而损害了债务人。Clark Hill的一项主要抗辩是，据称被泄露的信息是由债务人自愿置于互联网或以其他方式向公众披露。因此，庇护申请以及据称被泄露的庇护申请信息，对于Clark Hill诉讼具有根本性的重要意义。他在下一段继续说道，如同\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1220\nFiled 12/11/22\nEntered 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－November 30, 2022\n\n1 上文所述，庇护申请中的信息\n2 与Clark Hill诉讼相关，并且确实对该诉讼\n3 具有根本性的重要意义，因而似乎属于加粗标示的\n4 例外情形。\n\n5 法官阁下，他所提及的例外情形，如\n6 您查阅即可发现，载于您的特权同意令第4段，\n7 其中明确排除了有关信息，即涉及\n8 案情实质、Clark Hill诉讼案情实质的\n9 信息。\n\n10 因此，尽管Romney先生关于整份庇护\n11 申请的实质内容并非争点的陈述没有任何引证，\n12 但事实上，如果我们查看实际参与该案的\n13 当事人，他们称其对于该诉讼具有根本性的重要意义。\n14 \n\n15 当然确实如此，法官阁下。没有该文件，我甚至无法查看\n16 针对我当事人尚待裁决的决定性动议。\n17 \n\n18 现在，如我所说，若法官阁下有兴趣，可以\n19 查看诉状，并看到债务人明确提出了这些关于信息\n20 被公开的指控，并称该公开直接且近因地\n21 造成了其损害。\n\n22 而且，事实上，如果查阅地区法院就\n23 驳回Clark Hill撤诉动议所作的裁定，\n24 其援引了那些段落，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 94 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－November 30, 2022\n\n1 即诉状第43及44段，并指出，据称——\n2 原告已主张因被告行为造成的实际损害。\n3 黑客随后公布了\n4 保密材料，包括原告的\n5 政治庇护申请和护照。\n\n6 法官阁下，这在根本上具有核心意义，并且\n7 构成争点，因为Kwok先生作出了决定，他愿意在Clark\n8 Hill诉讼中将其庇护申请作为争点，\n9 以便向其追索金钱赔偿。\n\n10 现在，同样在其答复第5段中，有\n11 一项论点称，受托人如果确实\n12 想知道庇护申请中与损害赔偿有关的信息，\n13 可以从公共领域收集。他们使用的就是这一表述。\n14 \n\n15 现在，我不仅认为这完全\n16 不可信，而且这也破坏了本项\n17 动议的全部要旨。\n\n18 首先，认为受托人应当搜遍\n19 互联网以试图找到庇护申请副本的想法，\n20 完全不合理。\n\n21 但更进一步说，若债务人认为\n22 这是一件可能且可行的事情，那么为何\n23 我们要在这里讨论保护令，若受托人所需做的\n24 仅仅是在理论上知道应当在互联网上何处查找？\n25 这不是享有特权的信息。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 95 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－November 30, 2022 95\n\n而且，事实上，Clark Hill诉讼中的各方似乎在一件事上达成一致。这甚至已不再是保密信息。他们双方均同意其属于公开信息；他们仅就其何时被公开存在分歧，即是在黑客入侵之前，还是由于黑客入侵而公开。此时，法官阁下，我想转而讨论同意令以及其享有特权这一观点。该特权同意令涉及享有特权的文件。债务人知道这一点。在其保护令动议的文件1063第6段中，他写道，同意令界定了受托人与债务人各自对律师—当事人特权和工作成果特权的控制范围，并规定了处理有关该等特权争议的若干程序。这就是同意令所处理的事项。它处理的是律师—当事人特权和律师工作成果特权。其中提及特权，但那些是特权。那是诸如共同利益特权之类、可以理解的特权。相反，鉴于债务人的代理律师已经承认这些文件并不属于律师—当事人特权或工作成果特权文件，我们现在面对的是他们虚构出了一项特权。再次，法官阁下，我请求您查阅他们的\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1220\nFiled 12/11/22\nEntered 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022 96\n\n1 答复见 ECF 1174，第 4 段，第 3 页，共 7 页——\n2 法庭：\n稍等。\n你说得太快了。\n3 LUFT 先生：\n抱歉，法官阁下。\n我道歉。\n4 法庭：\n没关系。\n5 （停顿。）\n6 法庭：\n那么，我正在看他们的——\n7 LUFT 先生：\n他们的答复，法官阁下。\n8 法庭：\n是。\n那是昨天提交的——\n9 LUFT 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n10 法庭：\n——下午 5:03。\n好的。\n请继续。\n11 哪一段？\n12 LUFT 先生：\n第 4 段，法官阁下。\n13 法庭：\n好的。\n我找到了。\n14 LUFT 先生：\n好的。\n尽管已完成的\n15 庇护申请版本在技术上并不受\n16 律师—当事人特权保护，但一旦其\n17 提交政府审议，该庇护\n18 申请仍然受到联邦法律的保护，不得披露，\n19 具体而言是 8 CFR, Section 208.6(a)，\n20 因此，其享有不被披露的特权。\n21 首先，这根本没有什么技术性可言，\n22 法官阁下。它根本不是一份享有特权的文件。它\n23 已在政府手中多年。而且，\n24 它似乎在更早之前就已被披露。\n25 因此，他们反而编造了一项特权，试图规避\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 97 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022\n\n1 同意命令。他们称，存在一项\n2 关于文件保密或\n3 保密处理的联邦法规——我会主张这是由\n4 联邦政府保密处理，他们会主张是由任何人保密处理，我\n5 认为这与当前争点无关——就使其\n6 享有特权。\n7 法官阁下经常作出保护令。\n8 当事人也经常订立保密协议。\n9 一份文件受其约束这一事实，并不会使该等\n10 文件享有特权。这意味着它们受到约束，它们\n11 具有保密性，甚至可能仅限律师阅览，但\n12 它们并不享有特权。它们只是受\n13 保护令约束。对于该\n14 文件不存在任何特权。\n15 因此，他们关于\n16 同意命令中所述内容以及同意\n17 命令所载内容的全部主张，实际上均不相关。\n18 法庭：\n那么，对于与债务人及在 District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区）待决案件中的律师就该信息订立保护令，您会同意吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n事实上，法官阁下，我已经同意了。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么问题是什么？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n我已签署保护令。这正是我的疑问，法官阁下。我已签署\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022 98\n\n保护令，这在我们的文书中，该保护令在 District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区）生效，以便能够查阅那些文件，即使该律师——\n\n法庭：\n债务人是该保护令的签署人吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n您说什么？\n\n法庭：\n债务人是该保护令的签署人吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n我相信因为他是当事人，他已经是了。\n\n法庭：\n那么，ROMNEY 律师，为什么——为什么该问题不能通过一项——这是一项保护令动议。这是你的动议。那么，为什么不能通过一项保护令解决整件事，这样我们就不必为整件事争论，因为你不能期待，或者我认为，诉讼的一方不能期待另一方因其被密封并受制于——它并不享有特权，而是一项保护——它受制于——一项保护令——就无法对动议作出回应。唯一的特权，如你所述，而且我认为根据特权命令所述正确的，是律师—当事人特权和工作成果原则。我理解你的论点，ROMNEY 律师，关于庇护申请。但是你现在面临的问题并不是受托人正在就以下事项寻求证据开示：\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022 99\n\n该庇护申请。受托人必须对简易判决动议作出回应，对吗？那么，为什么这一切不能都纳入一项保护令？你怎么能——你不能阻止他们就简易判决动议进行抗辩。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n我同意该说法，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么很好。我会让各位休庭一下，你们回来后向我出示你们的保护令，因为我不会——不存在一个——我们在争论什么？我理解你们的观点。我确实理解。我真的理解，也听到了你们的意见。但这是一个可以解决的问题。如果他们违反保护令，你就起诉他们。这就是运作方式，对吗？那么，让我们面对实际情况并促成此事。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n然后，每个人都能获得其为公平、完整地处理本法庭之外的诉因所需的资料。你有权确保该保护令在该诉讼范围内保护该信息。我同意这一点。但是我不同意受托人不能拥有该等\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 99 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022 100\n\n信息以便为该诉讼进行抗辩。这毫无道理。而且如果他们——你知道——我听到了你的意见。我听到了。你说，受托人在一家大型律师事务所工作。他们在各地都设有办事处。他们会向所有这些人披露该信息。如果 DESPINS 先生这么做，那么他将面临你当事人的诉讼，对吗？以及损害赔偿和所有那些事项。这正是法律所规定的。这就是《联邦民事诉讼规则》中设有这些条款的原因。我无需就此作出裁定。你们只需拟定一项使一切得以运作的命令。这是你们的职责。是你们双方的职责。我并不是说你们没有在努力这样做。但现在我要说的是，把它办妥。好吗？因为我不会就此作出裁定。这是——其他问题，我必须审查，我必须审查，但这一项——而且我必须根据今天提出的论点及所有这些其他事项，确定是否——我——本法庭能够或应当就那些事项采取何种措施。但是，就这个问题、这份庇护申请而言——而且，ROMNEY 先生，我甚至不会讨论，我认为我也无需讨论，债务人是否已经披露了该申请，以致不存在保密期待。我无需这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 100 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 101 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022 101\n\n我所需要做的只是让你们当事人就一项保护令达成一致。他们必须能够查阅该文件，以回应简易判决。以及该案中的任何其他事项。保护令。该案中的任何其他事项。你们所要做的只是去同 District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区）的法官交谈。你认为该法官会怎么说？该法官会说，既然他们现在是该诉讼的当事人，他们怎么能不对简易判决作出回应？他们怎么能不查阅这个？那么请继续。抱歉。我知道我问了你大约 12 个问题。我是在努力——我是在努力务实一些。好吗？\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n法官阁下，我对此表示感谢，而且在状态好的时候，我也许能不假思索地回答 12 个问题中的 7 个。\n\n法庭：\n我并没有要求你这么做。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n我知道。但是，我认为我随后会提出的请求是，我听到了法官阁下的意见，正如我在了解到 CFR 208.6 之前，已经就这个问题几乎逐字对 Avi 说过的那样，我是一名代理人，我只能做获授权做的事。但是我认为——我听到了法官阁下所说的。我认为，就如此敏感的问题在走廊里解决，会过于草率。\n\n法庭：\n好的。好的。\n\nROMNEY 律师：\n我们可以延期吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022 102\n\n法庭：\n可以。我的意思是，我们来谈谈这个问题。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n我不知道简易判决动议必须——答复必须在何时提交。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，我可以说几句吗？首先，我们有——每个月我都必须与该案律师提交一些材料，告诉他们我们的进展。我们现在已经让法官等待数月——\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n——实际上是告诉他，我在等待查阅这份文件。我不能做任何事。我不知道法庭还有多少耐心。我可以——\n\n法庭：\n那么，我能问一下为什么法官不能命令你可以查阅它吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，坦率地说，我认为我们现在已有相应安排。\n\n法庭：\n不。但我的意思是——\n\nLUFT 先生：\n不，我——\n\n法庭：\n——为什么你不能向他出示此处已有的安排，并说，法官，我需要能够查阅这个，以便回应简易判决动议。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n因为，法官阁下，他的案件中没有任何事项——DESPINS 先生依据 Rule 2012 代位进入该案件。\n\n法庭：\n对。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 102 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022 103\n\nLUFT 先生：\n他就在该案中。坦率地说，之所以仅受到阻挠，是因为债务人的律师介入其中，并告诉 Clark, Jenner & Block（克拉克、詹纳与布洛克律师事务所）的律师——即 Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔律师事务所）的律师——你们绝不能向他出示那份文件。\n\n法庭：\n谁是哥伦比亚特区案件中债务人的律师？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n曾是 Ari Casper（阿里·卡斯珀）。我不知道他现在是否仍是。他表示——\n\n法庭：\n那么，必须有人代理债务人，对吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n此前一直是 CASPER 先生。我们已经讨论过这个问题。但是，法官阁下，我相信您的思路正确——您有正确的想法。而且我认为，坦率地说，我们已经具备条件。哥伦比亚特区地区法院已有一项保护令。这里也有一项保护令。如果他们希望将此指定为高度保密，当然可以。我已经反复这样说过。我们会遵守任何人希望作出的任何指定。我们已有一项旨在保护这些文件的保护令。该文件并无不同。它是一份敏感文件。坦率地说，我不会理会有关我们在世界各地设有办事处，或者\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 104 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022 104\n\n不知为何我的律师事务所不会以最专业的方式处理该文件的暗示。我认为这甚至不值得回应。但是，坦率地说，法官阁下，我们这里有一项保护令，哥伦比亚特区也恰好有一项，因此我有两项受托人已同意遵守的命令。好吗？所以我——如果我们想再加一项第三份命令，我想我们可以。坦率地说，我认为那是对法官阁下已经作出之决定的重复。我们已有一项明确涵盖如何处理高度保密文件的命令。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我理解你的意思。因此，我将要做的是，我将休庭至 2:30。你们都去讨论。如果今天不能作出决定，我可能会同意延期。我会弄清楚。但我不会再花时间处理此事。好吗？这已经——这是你们作为本案律师必须解决的事情。而且必须解决。并且这不是高效的——这不是对法庭时间的高效利用。我不会处理。而且我会非常明确地说，他们需要查阅该文件，以便在地区法院回应并抗辩该案件。如果他们不能，如果没有就此达成某种协议，那么我可能会发出\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1220 Filed 12/11/22 Entered 12/11/22 13:08:08 Page 105 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—November 30, 2022\n\n——我不知道我会怎么做，但我告诉你，我不知道每个人都会喜欢那样做——所以我会——我会建议你花时间把这件事办妥。我们在本案及这些对抗程序中还有很多其他问题必须处理，这不应当是其中之一。好吗？\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。法庭休庭至 2:30。\n\nROMNEY 律师：法官阁下，如果我可以说一句——\n\n法庭：法庭休庭至 2:30。\n\n（于 2:30 p.m. 休庭，至 2:53 p.m. 复庭。）\n\n法庭：好的。我们休庭时，Luft 律师正在就保护令动议作出回应，我要求 Luft 律师和 Romney 律师就该保护令动议进行一些讨论。各方当事人是否有任何事项向法庭报告？\n\nKINDSETH 律师：是的，法官阁下。如果允许，我是代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的 Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思）。\n\n法庭：等一下。你没有进行辩论，那么你为什么要作报告？我刚才问的是 Romney 律师和 Luft 律师。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：因为我是联系——尝试联系客户、尝试联系移民律师，并且与受托人及受托人律师进行了实质性讨论的人，我想报告这些讨论的进展情况。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 106 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 11 月 30 日\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：首先，我想表示，我们已清楚地听取了法官阁下的意见，即法官阁下强烈表示——倾向于确保受托人及受托人律师收到庇护申请的副本，以确保受托人能够就本诉讼及基础诉讼进行抗辩和推进诉讼。\n\n话虽如此，我们需要结合现有的保护令和基础诉讼中已作出的命令开展工作。\n\n但不幸的是，目前，法官阁下，我们未能联系到我们的客户，也未能联系到移民律师，以获得他们对一项补充命令前景的意见和想法；该补充命令既回应法官阁下和受托人的关切，同时也确保我方客户的利益和关切得到处理。\n\n法官阁下，问题因我们无法获得基础诉讼中已作出的命令而更加复杂，因此不能——\n\n法庭：你怎么会无法获得该命令？\n\nKINDSETH 律师：我们现在没有。\n\n法庭：好的。那不一样。停下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 107 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 11 月 30 日\n\nKINDSETH 律师：抱歉。\n\n法庭：那不是无法获得。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：我道歉。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：一小时内。\n\n法庭：因为你是 Kwok 先生的律师。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：一小时内。\n\n法庭：那没问题。那是公平的。但不要告诉我你无法获得它。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：我的意思是一小时内。\n\n法庭：好的。那是公平的。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：此外，我们只能通过手机查看本案中已作出的保护令，这确实不利于拟定补充命令。\n\n法官阁下，根据我们对该命令的记忆，我准备强烈建议我们的客户同意一项补充命令，限制可以查看庇护申请的人员范围。\n\n如果法官阁下记得，特权命令实际上不仅允许受托人的律师和受托人接收此类文件，而且我相信，根据记忆，该等文件也可以提供给委员会和 PAX（派克斯）。\n\n我怀疑那对我的客户而言不会被接受，因此，我们将建议我们的客户，将可查看该文件的个人范围限制为负责本事项及基础诉讼的受托人和受托人律师。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 108 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 11 月 30 日\n\n我们还向受托人提出，并将建议我们的客户，就在 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）以电子方式存储该文件而言，应当限制访问权限。同样，限制为代表受托人处理本案或基础诉讼的同一组律师。\n\n因此，我们请求法庭延期审理该动议；我们事实上将向客户作出上述强烈建议，并向客户转达法庭关于有必要与受托人及受托人律师共享庇护申请的倾向。\n\n我们将请求把该动议延期至下周，或许是下周二，以便我们能够在此查看基础命令，查看基础诉讼中的基础命令，与移民律师交谈，通过口译员与我们的客户交谈，并拟定该补充命令。\n\n但是，再次说明，我正在记录中陈述律师将向我们客户作出的建议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 109 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 11 月 30 日\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我只想在记录中说得非常明确。我没有关切。各方当事人对法庭的表述方式，我除了说你们需要解决这个问题以外，并未采取立场。你们已有一项保护令。我被告知，哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院（District Court for the District of Columbia）有一项诉讼，其中有一份庇护申请以及——一项简易判决动议。我既没有倾向，也没有关切。我是在告诉你们，作为律师，你们有义务根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》和现有命令解决这个问题。因此，我希望就此说得非常明确。对本庭所言的歪曲并不受欢迎。我不是专门在对你说，Kindseth 律师。但我不会再在此事上花更多时间。这就是我要说的全部。好吗？\n\nKINDSETH 律师：我道歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么，Luft 律师，你对于将此事项延期至下周持何立场？\n\nDESPINS 律师：如果允许，法官阁下。我是受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 110 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 11 月 30 日\n\n此事已经持续三个月。我们认为应当延期至周五。周五有一场听证会。有充足时间解决此事。此事已待决三个月。我们已在此事上浪费数千美元。\n\n法庭：嗯，当你说待决三个月时，它并未在本庭待决三个月。\n\nDESPINS 律师：不是，不是。但我们一直试图不增加法庭负担。\n\n法庭：我只是想明确，我并非——我并未误解什么，好吗？所以，Kindseth 先生，已经有一项保护令。我理解你刚才所说的，并感谢你所说的，即你不——即使你强烈向客户建议此事，你认为唯一达成的协议将仅涉及受托人和受托人律师。这或许可行，好吗？但其他当事人可能会提出异议。我不知道会发生什么。但在我看来很奇怪的是，你们需要到下周二才能解决此问题，而你——你们应当能够与客户交谈。我要做的是将其延期至周五上午。我将听取你们的陈述。如果由于某种原因你们仍未能联系上客户，那么我需要——你们必须告诉我——你们必须以某种方式，不幸的是，可能作出某种宣誓书，或者将某些内容载入记录，说明你们如何尝试联系客户。你们的客户不愿意与你们交谈。无论情况如何。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 111 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 11 月 30 日\n\n但我需要记录中有关于此事的内容，因为这是一个——这些是严重——我的意思是，我知道你知道这一点。我并不是暗示你有不同想法。\n\n但正如我过去——嗯，我这么说已经很久了，但我最近说得更频繁，这是一个破产案件，对吗？这是一个破产案件。\n\n受托人被指定调查债务人的事务。这是他必须做的事。\n\n如果你的客户不喜欢这样，我对此感到遗憾，但这是受托人必须做的事。本案中发生的一切，在此时都受此约束。\n\n受托人被指定调查债务人的事务，这就是我们目前所处的情况。\n\n因此，如果债务人不回应你，那么你必须在宣誓书中说明，你曾三次尝试通过电话、电子邮件联系他，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1220\n提交于 12/11/22\n登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 11 月 30 日\n\n通过亲自去见他。无论情况如何，以及他不回应你。\n\n我理解他并不——嗯，我不该这么说。他可能对目前的情况不满意。我不知道。无论如何，那是相关指称。我们都知道这些指称是什么。\n\n那么就让我们——让我们完成这件事，并弄清楚它们是否属实，好吗？然后我们都可以继续推进。我不想在接下来的三个月、五个月、八个月里，一直讨论某人指称这个、某人指称那个。\n\n这项工作——本庭的工作是查明事实并适用法律。这是我应当做的事。每一天我们没有这样做，而是在本案中就另一事项举行另一场听证会、却没有取得进展，这并不是应有的运作方式。\n\n因此，我将给你们到周五上午 10:00，届时你们要告诉我情况进展到何种程度。如果你们无法与客户沟通，或者你们能够沟通，我可能会要求你们提交宣誓书。\n\n我们现在已到了只是在原地打转的地步。嗯，不幸的是，我们已经这样做了一段时间。但现在事情变得更加——我的意思是，已经变得更加严重，而我非常严肃地对待那些严重问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1220 提交于 12/11/22 登记于 12/11/22 13:08:08 第 113 页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 11 月 30 日\n\n这是一个破产案件。应当将其作为破产案件处理，而它已经完全失控。我只是——我们——我们所有人都必须履行各自职责，以确保这种情况不会发生，这包括我，也包括本庭内的每一个人。我们现在处于一个糟糕的境地，而这不是任何人在破产案件中应当处于的境地。\n\n所以我将这样做。我将此事项延期至周五上午 10:00，今天关于该事项就到此为止。\n\n现在，关于日程表上的最后一项事项，我们必须叫该事项，因为它是对抗程序。\n\n（程序于 3:04 p.m. 结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经认证电子法庭记录员及誊录员，证明上述内容系来自上述标题事项程序官方电子录音的正确誊本。\n\nDecember 9, 2022\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT\n\n誊录员","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings","Saraca","GTV","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","CCP","Himalaya","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1063,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1090,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1105,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1134,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1174,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":30927,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-12-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-12-11","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:36:03"}