{"id":"court_ctb_1291_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1291,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT | IN RE:             | )      | No.<br>22-50073","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n| IN RE:             | )      | No.<br>22-50073                    |\n|--------------------|--------|------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok, et al | )<br>) | Chapter 11<br>Jointly Administered |\n| Debtors            | )      | January 4, 2022                    |\n\n## **HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. AND LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.'S OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION REQUEST, MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR MOTION TO MODIFY 2004 EXAMINATION SUBPOENAS**\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45(c)(2) and 45(c)(3), applicable to this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. Pro 9016, Fed. R. Bankr. Pro 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1, HCHK Technologies, Inc., (\"HCHK Technologies\") HCHK Property Management, Inc. (\"HCHK Property\") and Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. (\"Lexington\") (collectively the \"Subpoenaed Parties\"), hereby object to the production requests contained in the Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despin's (the \"Trustee\") Rule 2004 Examination subpoenas served upon them on December 7 and December 8, 2022, and/or move to quash and/or modify same subpoenas as follows:\n\n1. On November 18, 2022, the Trustee filed a Second Supplemental Omnibus Motion for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004, seeking to examine numerous persons and entities pursuant to proposed attached subpoenas, including the Subpoenaed Parties (ECF 1116).\n\n2. On December 2, 2022, the Court granted the Trustee's Motion (ECF 1184), and the Chapter 11 Trustee served three identical Rule 2004 Examination subpoenas on the Subpoenaed Parties – HCHK Property Management Inc. on December 7, 2022, and HCHK Technologies, Inc. and Lexington Property Management, Inc. on December 8, 2022.\n\n3. Pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2), the Subpoenaed Parties had until December 21 and\n\nDecember 22, 2022 respectfully, to object to same subpoenas. The Chapter 11 Trustee\n\nconsented to a 2 week extension of this deadline to January 4 and January 5, 2023, respectively.\n\n4. Local Rule 2004-1(a) provides that:\n\nExcept for the provisions of FRCP 26 (a), (b), (d), (f), and (g), FRBP 7026 and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(a)-(e) and 37 shall apply to examinations and the production of documents under FRBP 2004. Proportionality considerations apply to a request for the production of documents or electronically stored information in connection with a FRBP 2004 examination.\n\n5. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45(c)(3) and (d) provide:\n\n(c)(3) *Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.*\n\n(A) *When Required.* On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:\n\n(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;\n\n(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);\n\n(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or\n\n(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.\n\n(d)(1) *Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.* A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena…\n\nThese rules apply to subpoenas issued in connection with a 2004 examination. Fed. R. Bankr. R.\n\n2004(c) (The attendance of an entity for examination and for the production of documents\n\n….may be compelled as provided in Rule 9016 for the attendance of a witness at a hearing or\n\ntrial).\n\n6. It is beyond cavil that 2004 examinations have been characterized as \"fishing\n\nexpeditions,\" and have a broad reach. But same reach is not limitless. The use of a 2004\n\nexamination is not permitted for matters not related to the financial condition of a debtor or a debtor's estate. Upon a creditor objection, the examiner must establish \"good cause,\" taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the importance of the information to the examiner and the costs and burdens on the creditor. *In re GYPC, Inc.,* 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 1848, at \\*10-11 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio June 24, 2020) *citing In re Countrywide Home Loans*, 384 B.R. 373, 393 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008). The level of good cause required to be established varies depending on the potential intrusiveness. *Id.*; *see In re Eagle-Pitcher Indus., Inc.*, 169 B.R. 130, 134 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1994) (citation omitted) (\"examination should not be so broad as to be more disruptive and costly\" to the party to be examined than beneficial to the party seeking discovery); *Hammond*, 140 B.R. at 201 (similar).\n\n7. In addition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, cited above, governs subpoenas issued to nonparties, and also applies to Rule 2004 examination subpoenas. When considering the propriety of enforcing a subpoena, a trial court should consider \"the relevance of the discovery sought, the requesting party's need, and the potential hardship to the party subject to the subpoena.\" *Pac. All. Corp. v. Wiggins*, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26661, at \\*2-4 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 20, 2019); *Schaaf v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.*, 233 F.R.D. 451, 453 (E.D.N.C. 2005) (citing *United States v. Star Scientific, Inc.*, 205 F. Supp. 2d 482, 484 (D. Md. 2002)). \"In the context of evaluating subpoenas issued to third parties, a court 'will give extra consideration to the objections of a non-party, non-fact witness in weighing burdensomeness versus relevance.'\" *Schaaf*, 233 F.R.D. at 453 (quoting *Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Eurocopter LLC*, 227 F.R.D. 421, 426 (M.D.N.C. 2005)). The determination of the reasonableness of a subpoena requires the court to balance the interests served by demanding compliance with the subpoena against the interests furthered by quashing it, weighing the benefits and burdens,\n\nconsidering whether the information is necessary and whether it is available from another source. *Pac. All, supra* (citations omitted).\n\n8. The Subpoenaed Parties object to the Chapter 11 Trustee's Instructions 1 and 2, which require them, among other things, to a) produce electronically stored documents as single page TIFF files with certain file naming protocols and to include bates numbering; b) produce a \"Concordance Data File,\" a program unfamiliar to undersigned counsel and the Subpoenaed Parties but which appears to be litigation management software that counsel and the Subpoenaed Parties do not possess; c) produce a \"Concordance Image OR Opticon Cross Reference File, the latter of which is also likely litigation management software that neither the Subpoenaed Parties or undersigned counsel possess; and d) producing extracted metadata in the form of a \"Concordance complaint load file (.dat),\" along with instructions as to formatting same.\n\n9. Complying with the above instructions is in part impossible, because neither Subpoenaed Parties nor undersigned counsel own the relevant software, and in part onerous and unduly burdensome, as the Subpoenaed Parties can potentially extract metadata from their electronic files, but only on a file-by-file basis, at a considerable investment of time and effort.\n\n10. This time and effort constitutes an unfair burden on the Subpoenaed Parties, as these instructions in essence attempt to force the Subpoenaed Parties to prepare and collate the Chapter 11 Trustee's discovery for him, a job better and more fairly suited to the one conducting the discovery. Likewise, it is \"settled law that a person cannot be compelled to prepare a document not now in existence in order to produce same,\" which is the effective result of the above instructions. In re Sutera, 141 B.R. 539, 542 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1992)\n\n11. The Trustee's Instructions at No. 3 also commands the Subpoenaed Parties to produce documents \"as kept in the usual course of business or are to be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in those requests,\" which appears contradictory to Instructions 1 and 2. The Subpoenaed Parties do not object to producing documents responsive to the subpoenas as kept in their usual course of business.\n\n12. The 2004 Examination Subpoenas Definition Section likewise defines Associated Individuals as \"all individuals that hold, control, have custody over, or discretion over assets owned, controlled or enjoyed by the Debtor or Debtor's Family; or have been employees, director, or otherwise are affiliated with one or more Associated Entities, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing. Such Associated Individuals *shall include, but are not limited to*…\" and then goes on to list approximately 29 individuals.\n\n13. The Definition Section also defines \"Associated Entities\" to include \"entities of any type that (1) have been owned, controlled, or invested in by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have an interest, whether directly or indirectly, in any assets owned, controlled, or enjoyed by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing. Such Associated Entities *shall include, but are not limited to*..\" and then goes on to list approximately 81 entities.\n\n14. The Subpoenaed Parties object to these Definitions, and the related document production requests (including without limitation Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 10) inasmuch they utilize these definitions, as they are the very definition of overly broad requests constituting an undue burden. The Subpoenaed Parties can review their records for documents related to the persons specifically named in their respective subpoenas. But they can not be reasonably expected to conduct that review based on the above referenced speculative, exceedingly broad, and\n\ncompletely subjective definitions, based on information they either do not have or have no reason to know they have, with a contemplated scope of hundreds or thousands of unknown persons.\n\n15. The Subpoenaed Parties are still reviewing their files in response to the Trustee's subpoenas. To the extent they locate responsive documents, and same were entrusted to them by their clients/customers, being compelled to produce same information would potentially cause the Subpoenaed Parties great embarrassment, and create a real danger that they could lose these customers/clients, to the extreme detriment of their businesses. The Trustee's Omnibus Motions for Orders for 2004 Examinations cover an extraordinarily wide range of examination deponents (See Trustee's Omnibus Motions for 2004 Examinations, ECF 637, 638, 839, 1116, 1259*)*. In light of same, to the extent the Subpoenaed Parties discover they possess documents from customers/clients that are also the subject of their own 2004 examinations by the Trustee, they should not be compelled to produce these documents when the Trustee will directly receive same from the customers/clients in question.\n\n16. The Subpoenaed Parties also object to the following requests:\n\n14. Documents sufficient to show all of Your Assets and sources of income or funding.\n\n15. For all Assets identified in response to Request 14 having a value of more than \\$50,000, all (i) Documents related to Your acquisition of such Asset and …\n\n16. Copies of Your tax returns.\n\n17. Documents sufficient to show all bank accounts and investment accounts within Your possession or control, including the balances of and transfers to and from each such account.\n\n19. All corporate governance and organizational Documents, including without limitation by-laws and certificates of incorporation and other Documents sufficient to show Your corporate structure, names of officers and directors,\n\nbusiness purpose, and relationship to the Debtor or to any member of the Debtor's Family.\n\n17. Obviously, it is potentially embarrassing and harmful for their businesses for the third party deponent Subpoenaed Parties to be compelled to produce their confidential internal financial and corporate governance documents. They should not be compelled to do so without the Trustee showing a greater need for same, nor should they be compelled to do so without appropriate protections and/or confidentiality measures/orders in place.\n\n18. Lastly, the Subpoenaed Parties reasonably require more time to respond to the Trustee's subpoenas. The holiday season and resulting lack of staff severely hampered the Subpoenaed Parties' efforts to review their files and emails in order to respond to these subpoenas. In particular, HCHK Technologies has approximately 50 email boxes that must be searched box by box for at least approximately 110 names, by employee(s) who also need to fulfill their employment duties.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Subpoenaed Parties object to the Trustee's Requests for Production,\n\nrespectfully request that this Court quash and/or modify his subpoenas, and/or respectfully\n\nrequest they be allowed more time to respond to same.\n\n## **HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.**\n\n\\_\\_/s/ Scott M. Charmoy\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Scott M. Charmoy, Esq. CT 15889 Charmoy & Charmoy, LLC 1465 Post Road East, Suite 100 Westport, CT 06880 (203) 255-8100 scottcharmoy@charmoy.com","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格区\n\n案由：　案号 22-50073\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等　第 11 章\n联合审理\n债务人　2022年1月4日\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.、HCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. 以及 LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC. 对文件出示请求的异议、撤销传票动议及/或修改 2004 调查程序传票的动议\n\n根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45(c)(2) 条及第 45(c)(3) 条（依据《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 9016 条适用于本案）、《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条以及《本地规则》第 2004-1 条，HCHK Technologies, Inc.（“HCHK Technologies”）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（“HCHK Property”）以及 Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（“Lexington”）（合称“受传票送达方”），特此对第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯宾斯）（“受托人”）于 2022年12月7日 和 12月8日 向其送达的《规则》第 2004 条调查程序传票中所包含的文件出示请求提出异议，及/或动议撤销及/或修改上述传票，理由如下：\n\n1. 2022年11月18日，受托人提交了《根据〈破产规则〉第 2004 条作出裁定的第二次补充综合动议》，请求根据随附的拟议传票对包括受传票送达方在内的多名个人和实体进行调查（ECF 1116）。\n\n2. 2022年12月2日，法院批准了受托人的动议（ECF 1184），第 11 章受托人随后向受传票送达方送达了三份完全相同的《规则》第 2004 条调查程序传票——于 2022年12月7日 向 HCHK Property Management Inc. 送达，于 2022年12月8日 向 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 和 Lexington Property Management, Inc. 送达。\n\n3. 根据《规则》第 45(c)(2) 条，受传票送达方对上述传票提出异议的截止日期分别为 2022年12月21日 和 12月22日。第 11 章受托人同意将该截止日期延长两周，分别延至 2023年1月4日 和 1月5日。\n\n4. 《本地规则》第 2004-1(a) 条规定：除《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 26 条 (a)、(b)、(d)、(f) 及 (g) 款的规定外，《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 7026 条以及《康涅狄格区本地民事规则》第 26(a)-(e) 条和第 37 条均适用于《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条项下的调查程序及文件出示。比例原则考量适用于与《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条调查程序相关的文件或电子存储信息的出示请求。\n\n5. 《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45(c)(3) 条及 (d) 款规定：(c)(3) 撤销或修改传票。(A) 应当撤销或修改的情形。经适时提出动议，要求履行传票所在地的地区法院必须撤销或修改存在下列情形的传票：(i) 未给予合理的履行时间；(ii) 要求个人履行的地点超出了第 45(c) 条规定的地理范围限制；(iii) 要求披露享有特权或其他受保护的事项，且不存在任何例外或放弃情形；或 (iv) 给当事人造成不当负担。(d)(1) 避免不当负担或费用；制裁。负责签发和送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，避免给受传票约束的人造成不当负担或费用……这些规则适用于与 2004 调查程序相关的传票。《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004(c) 条（可按照第 9016 条中关于强制证人出庭参加听证或审判的规定，强制实体出庭接受调查并出示文件……）。\n\n6. 毫无争议的是，2004 调查程序一直被定性为“摸底调查”（fishing expeditions），且涉及范围广泛。但该范围并非毫无限制。不得将 2004 调查程序用于与债务人或债务人财产的财务状况无关的事项。在债权人提出异议时，调查人必须在综合考量全部案情的前提下证明存在“正当理由”，包括该信息对调查人的重要性以及债权人承受的成本与负担。参见 In re GYPC, Inc., 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 1848, at *10-11 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio June 24, 2020) 引述 In re Countrywide Home Loans, 384 B.R. 373, 393 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008)。所需证明的正当理由程度因潜在的侵入性程度而异。出处同上；并见 In re Eagle-Pitcher Indus., Inc., 169 B.R. 130, 134 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1994)（引述省略）（“调查范围不应过于宽泛，以至于对接受调查的一方造成的干扰和成本高于对寻求证据开示的一方带来的利益”）；Hammond, 140 B.R. at 201（同类判例）。\n\n7. 此外，上述引用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45 条管辖向非当事人签发的传票，同样适用于《规则》第 2004 条调查程序传票。在考量执行传票的适当性时，一审法院应当考量“所寻求开示证据的相关性、请求方的需要，以及受传票约束方可能面临的困难。”Pac. All. Corp. v. Wiggins, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26661, at *2-4 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 20, 2019)；Schaaf v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 233 F.R.D. 451, 453 (E.D.N.C. 2005)（引述 United States v. Star Scientific, Inc., 205 F. Supp. 2d 482, 484 (D. Md. 2002)）。“在评估向第三方签发的传票时，法院‘在权衡负担性与相关性时，会对非当事人、非事实证人的异议给予额外考量。’”Schaaf, 233 F.R.D. at 453（引述 Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Eurocopter LLC, 227 F.R.D. 421, 426 (M.D.N.C. 2005)）。判定传票的合理性要求法院平衡要求履行传票所促进的利益与撤销传票所增进的利益，权衡利弊与负担，考量该信息是否确有必要，以及是否可从其他来源获取。Pac. All, 前引判例（引述省略）。\n\n8. 受传票送达方对第 11 章受托人的指示 1 和指示 2 提出异议，该等指示尤其要求其：a) 将电子存储文件作为单页 TIFF 文件出示，并采用特定的文件命名协议且包含贝茨编号（bates numbering）；b) 出示“Concordance 数据文件”，下述签字律师及受传票送达方对该程序并不熟悉，但这似乎是诉讼管理软件，而律师和受传票送达方均不拥有该软件；c) 出示“Concordance 图像或 Opticon 交叉引用文件”，后者同样很可能是诉讼管理软件，受传票送达方和下述签字律师均不拥有；以及 d) 以“符合 Concordance 规范的加载文件（.dat）”形式出示提取的元数据，并附带关于其格式化的指示。\n\n9. 遵守上述指示在一定程度上是不可能的，因为受传票送达方和下述签字律师均不拥有相关软件；在一定程度上则是繁重且构成不当负担的，因为受传票送达方虽然可能从其电子文件中提取元数据，但只能逐个文件进行，需要投入相当多的时间和精力。\n\n10. 这种时间和精力对受传票送达方构成了不公平的负担，因为这些指示实质上企图强迫受传票送达方替第 11 章受托人准备和整理其证据开示材料，而这项工作更适合、也更公平地应由进行证据开示的一方来承担。同样，“不得强迫他人编制目前尚不存在的文件以便出示该文件，这是确立已久的法律原则”，而上述指示的实际后果正是如此。In re Sutera, 141 B.R. 539, 542 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1992)。\n\n11. 受托人指示第 3 项还命令受传票送达方按照“在通常业务过程中保存的原样，或者应当按照与这些请求中的类别相对应的方式组织并标记”来出示文件，这似乎与指示 1 和指示 2 互相矛盾。受传票送达方对于按照其通常业务过程中保存的原样出示对传票作出回应的文件不持异议。\n\n12. 2004 调查程序传票的“定义”部分同样将“关联个人”定义为“持有、控制、保管或支配由债务人或债务人家属所拥有、控制或享有的资产的所有个人；或者曾担任一个或多个关联实体的雇员、董事或以其他方式与其存在关联的所有个人，以及前述任何一方各自的雇员、代理人、法律顾问、顾问或代表前述任何一方行事的任何人。该等关联个人应包括但不限于……”，随后列出了大约 29 名个人。\n\n13. “定义”部分还将“关联实体”定义为包括“满足以下条件的任何类型的实体：(1) 曾由债务人或债务人家属拥有、控制或投资；或 (2) 在由债务人或债务人家属拥有、控制或享有的任何资产中直接或间接享有权益，以及前述任何一方各自的雇员、代理人、法律顾问、顾问或代表前述任何一方行事的任何人。该等关联实体应包括但不限于……”，随后列出了大约 81 个实体。\n\n14. 受传票送达方对这些定义以及使用这些定义的相关文件出示请求（包括但不限于第 3、5、6 和 10 项）提出异议，因为它们正是构成不当负担的过宽请求的典型范例。受传票送达方可以审查其记录中与其各自传票中具体点名的个人相关的文件。但不能合理地期望他们依据上述推测性、极度宽泛且完全主观的定义（基于他们要么没有、要么没有理由知道自己拥有的信息，且预期范围涉及成百上千名未知人员）来进行此类审查。\n\n15. 受传票送达方目前仍在审查其档案以回应受托人的传票。如果他们找到了作出回应的文件，且该等文件是由其客户/委托人托付给他们的，那么被强迫出示该等信息可能会使受传票送达方极度尴尬，并造成其可能失去这些客户/委托人的现实危险，从而对他们的业务造成极端损害。受托人关于 2004 调查程序裁定的综合动议涵盖了极其广泛的调查证人范围（见受托人的 2004 调查程序综合动议，ECF 637, 638, 839, 1116, 1259）。鉴于此，如果受传票送达方发现其持有的来自客户/委托人的文件本身也是受托人对该等客户/委托人开展的 2004 调查程序的对象，那么当受托人将直接从相关客户/委托人处获取该等文件时，不应强迫受传票送达方出示这些文件。\n\n16. 受传票送达方还对以下请求提出异议：\n\n14. 足以显示您的全部资产以及收入或资金来源的文件。\n\n15. 针对为回应第 14 项请求而指明的价值超过 50,000 美元的全部资产，所有 (i) 与您获取该等资产相关的文件以及……\n\n16. 您的纳税申报表副本。\n\n17. 足以显示您占有或控制下的所有银行账户和投资账户的文件，包括每个此类账户的余额以及进出转账情况。\n\n19. 所有公司治理和组织文件，包括但不限于公司章程（by-laws）、公司注册证书（certificates of incorporation）以及足以显示您的公司结构、高级职员和董事姓名/名称、业务宗旨以及与债务人或债务人家属任何成员关系的其它文件。\n\n17. 显而易见，作为第三方受调查证人的受传票送达方若被强迫出示其机密的内部财务和公司治理文件，可能会给其业务带来尴尬和损害。在受托人未能证明对此有更重大需要的情况下，不应强迫他们这样做；在没有适当的保护措施及/或保密措施/保密令到位的情况下，也不应强迫他们这样做。\n\n18. 最后，被传唤各方合理地需要更多时间来回应受托人的传票。假期及由此导致的人员匮乏严重阻碍了被传唤各方为了回应这些传票而审查其文件和电子邮件的努力。特别是，HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）拥有大约50个电子邮箱，必须由同样需要履行其日常工作职责的员工逐个邮箱检索至少大约110个人名。\n\n据此，被传唤各方对受托人的出示证据请求提出异议，谨请求本法院撤销及/或修改其传票，及/或谨请求准予他们更多时间来回应前述请求。\n\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK科技股份有限公司）\nHCHK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.（HCHK物业管理股份有限公司）\nLEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING, INC.（列克星敦物业与人事股份有限公司）\n\n/s/ Scott M. Charmoy（斯科特·M·查莫伊）\nScott M. Charmoy, Esq.\nCT 15889\nCharmoy & Charmoy, LLC（查莫伊与查莫伊有限责任责任公司）\n1465 Post Road East, Suite 100\nWestport, CT 06880\n(203) 255-8100\nscottcharmoy@charmoy.com","key_entities":["Je","HCHK","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":637,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1116,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1184,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2015,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:05:48"}