{"id":"court_ctb_1301_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1301,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT )","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n)\n\n)\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ IN RE: ) Case No. 22-50073\n\nHO WAN KWOK, )\n\nDEBTOR, )\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ )\n\n## **MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA TO IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA, LLC**\n\nNon-party Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara, LLC (\"IBO\") respectfully submits this motion to quash a third-party subpoena served upon it by the Bankruptcy Trustee in this proceeding (the \"Bankruptcy Proceeding\"). The third-party subpoena to IBO is presently returnable on January 9, 2023 (the \"Subpoena\"). A copy of the Subpoena is annexed as Exhibit 1.\n\nIBO was previously counsel to non-party Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\") in connection with a real estate matter in February 2020. Greenwich Land is listed in the Subpoena as one of the many \"Associated Entities\" which \"(1) have been owned, controlled, or invested in by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have an interest in, 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.\" Ex. 1 at pg. 9, ¶ 8.\n\nIBO retained a copy of the file from its representation of Greenwich Land. However, it is respectfully submitted that it would be unduly burdensome for IBO to review that file for responsive documents and privilege and/or to appear for a deposition. It also unfairly and unnecessarily places IBO in the ethically precarious position of potentially being adverse to the\n\nposition of its former client, Greenwich Land, with respect to any privileged documents or matters. Greenwich Land, as the client, naturally owns and controls the attorney-client privilege, not IBO.\n\nGreenwich Land has already appeared in this Bankruptcy Proceeding, by counsel – Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. A review of the filings made in this Bankruptcy Proceeding indicates that Greenwich Land appears to have already been subpoenaed for documents and deposition testimony by the Trustee. A copy of the subpoena to Greenwich Land is annexed as Exhibit 2.\n\nOn January 6, 2023 we provided counsel to Greenwich Land in this Bankruptcy Proceeding (Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.) with a copy of IBO's file from its representation of Greenwich Land. Greenwich Land along with its counsel in the Bankruptcy Proceeding are in the best position to determine which documents it considers to be privileged and/or responsive to the IBO Subpoena.\n\nIn short, this is an incredibly complex Bankruptcy Proceeding into which IBO should not be thrust unwillingly and unnecessarily. Responding to the Subpoena works an undue burden on IBO. The more convenient and less burdensome source of documents and information is clearly Greenwich Land. The Trustee should seek Greenwich Land's file directly from Greenwich Land and its attorneys of record in this proceeding, rather than from IBO. It likewise should seek deposition testimony from Greenwich Land, not IBO. IBO thus respectfully requests that the Court quash the Subpoena, in its entirety.\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n# **A. The Portion of the Subpoena Seeking Documents from IBO Must be Quashed as it is Unduly Burdensome and Because it Seeks Documents Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege.**\n\nThird-party subpoenas must not impose an undue burden on the receiving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv) (a court must quash a subpoena that \"subjects a person to undue burden.\"); *BuzzFeed, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Just.*, 318 F. Supp. 3d 347, 356 (D.D.C. 2018) (*citing Watts v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n*, 482 F.3d 501, 508 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) (same). In evaluating undue burden, courts must consider Rule 26's bar on discovery that \"can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i); *Watts*, 482 F.3d at 508-09 (holding that the standards in Rule 26 determine when a discovery request creates an undue burden). When \"more convenient [or] less burdensome\" sources exist, \"those alternatives should be explored first.\" *Diamond Servs. Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP*, 339 F.R.D. 334, 339 (D.D.C. 2021) (alteration in the original) (*quoting Saperstein Palestinian Auth. (In re Subpoena to Goldberg)*, 693 F. Supp. 2d 81, 88 (D.D.C. 2010).\n\nThus, for example, in *Diamond Services Management Company, LLC*, the court quashed a third-party subpoena on an outside law firm because the plaintiffs could have sought the same information from defendant during discovery or \"subpoena[ed] relevant information … from the parties closest to the litigants: Barnes & Thornburg and Scheef & Stone,\" the defendant's current counsel. 339 F.R.D. at 340. The court held that either alternative obviated \"the more serious 'unwanted burden thrust upon' the non-party Respondents,\" by the plaintiff's subpoena. *Id*. (*quoting Watts*, 482 F.3d at 509); *see also Hughes v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.*, 507 F.Supp. 3d 384, 406 (D. Conn. 2020) (granting protective order against subpoenas that are \"cumulative and duplicative and seek information that is more conveniently obtained from [the defendant] than from the non-parties.\").\n\nMoreover, \"concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs in a Rule 45 inquiry. *Watts*, 482 F.3d at 509 (citation omitted). Rule 45 requires courts to \"protect a[ny] person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.\" Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n45(d)(2)(B)(ii). Thus, \"absent a showing that plaintiff either cannot obtain – or in fact *has not*  obtained – ample discovery on the essential elements of her claim[s]\" without subpoenaing a thirdparty, courts must avoid imposing \"costly search[es]\" on third-parties. *Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.*, 281 F.R.D. 85, 96 (D. Conn. 2012).\n\nIt also is black letter law that the attorney-client privilege \"belongs solely to the client, and may only be waived by him. An attorney may not waive the privilege without his client's consent.\" *In re von Bulow*, 828 F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1987).\n\nHere, it is respectfully submitted that there is no justifiable reason to impose upon IBO the heavy burden of reviewing, cataloguing and producing Greenwich Land's file from IBO's prior (and concluded) representation. Even more importantly, this Subpoena has placed IBO in a most unenviable position. It is in possession of various documents relative to its representation of Greenwich Land which are clearly protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege. Yet IBO cannot voluntarily waive the privilege it does not own. Only IBO's former client – Greenwich Land – can make the decision to waive the attorney-client privilege. It would be manifestly unjust to place IBO in the precarious position of potentially being adverse to the position of Greenwich Land in regards to these documents. IBO should not be forced to essentially guess at which documents, if any, Greenwich Land would seek to withhold from production on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Nor should IBO be burdened with the task of then preparing a timeconsuming log in relation to any privileged documents along with having to participate in further proceedings as to any disputes about the documents withheld as privileged.\n\nIBO has provided a copy of its file to Greenwich Land's counsel in this Bankruptcy Proceeding. There can be no question that Greenwich Land (described in the Subpoena as an \"Associated Entity\" of the Debtor) and whose counsel now possesses the relevant documents, is a\n\nmore convenient and less burdensome source of the documents and information relative to IBO's prior representation of Greenwich Land. Indeed, it will be far less burdensome for Greenwich Land and its counsel in this Bankruptcy Proceeding to review the IBO file and make decisions about which documents are privileged and which shall be produced. Thus, Rules 26 and 45, respectfully, demand that the Trustee seek Greenwich Land's file from Greenwich Land and its attorneys of record in this proceeding, rather than from IBO. *See also Burlodge Ltd. v. Standex Int'l Corp. (In re Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Direct to Dep't of Veterans Affs.*), 257 F.R.D. 12, 19 (D.D.C. 2009) (quashing subpoena and refusing to modify it \"because of the absence of any showing that the information sought is not available from other sources.\").\n\nFinally, it also bears mentioning that IBO is a third-party who had absolutely no prior role in this Bankruptcy Proceeding and is not a party to this Bankruptcy Proceeding. It similarly had no role in any of Greenwich Land's responses to any prior subpoena served upon it and how those responses may relate to the plethora of allegations/claims associated with this incredibly complex Bankruptcy Proceeding. IBO further had no role in negotiating the terms of the three prior consent orders with the Trustee (all of which are annexed as Exhibit 3) that govern Greenwich Land's responses to the subpoenas served upon it. These factors likewise warrant quashing of the Subpoena.\n\n# **B. The Portion of the Subpoena Seeking IBO's Deposition Must Likewise be Quashed as it is Unduly Burdensome and Unnecessarily Duplicative.**\n\nThe Subpoena's request for IBO's deposition also is unduly burdensome and unnecessary. This aspect of the Subpoena should be quashed as well.\n\nGreenwich Land is to be deposed and/or has already been deposed by the Trustee in connection with this Bankruptcy Proceeding. Ex. 2. The Trustee surely can obtain the information it seeks about IBO's representation directly from Greenwich Land (an \"Associated Entity\" of the\n\nDebtor) as a party closest to the Debtor. IBO should not be burdened by having to sit for such a duplicative deposition.\n\nIBO's knowledge also is limited to the information contained in its file (which has been provided to Greenwich Land) as well as knowledge obtained via protected attorney-client communications. Once again, this will unduly place IBO in a precarious position at any deposition when issues of attorney-client privilege inevitably arise as it is only Greenwich Land that can decide whether to waive or invoke attorney-client privilege, not IBO.\n\nIn short, the considerations discussed throughout this motion demonstrate that sitting for the subpoenaed deposition will work an undue burden on IBO. This is especially so given that IBO will be placed in an ethically tenuous position as it relates to the interests of its former client, Greenwich Land. The Trustee can and should seek the information directly from Greenwich Land, not IBO. The portion of the Subpoena seeking IBO's subpoena should therefore also be quashed.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, IBO respectfully requests that this Court quash the Subpoena, in all respects.\n\nDated: Greenwich, Connecticut January 6, 2023\n\nIVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA, LLC\n\nBy: */s/ Stephen G. Walko*\n\nStephen G. Walko, Esq. (ct27644) 170 Mason Street Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 Telephone: (203) 661-6000 Email: [swalko@ibolaw.com](mailto:swalko@ibolaw.com)\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on January 6, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid on any party unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to any party unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Stephen G. Walko* Stephen G. Walko, Esq. (ct27644)","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n)\n\n)\n\n______________________________ 关于： ) 案号：22-50073\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， )\n\n债务人， )\n\n______________________________ )\n关于撤销向 IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA, LLC 发出的第三方传票的动议\n\n非当事人 Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara, LLC（“IBO”）谨此提请动议，请求撤销本案程序（下称“破产程序”）中破产受托人向其送达的第三方传票。向 IBO 发出的该第三方传票目前的应诉答复日期为 2023年1月9日（下称“传票”）。传票副本附于附件 1。\n\nIBO 曾于 2020年2月 在一项房地产事务中担任非当事人 Greenwich Land, LLC（“Greenwich Land”）的律师。Greenwich Land 在传票中被列为众多“关联实体”之一，这些实体“(1) 曾由债务人或债务人家族拥有、控制或投资；或 (2) 直接或间接享有由债务人或债务人家族所拥有、控制或享有的任何资产中的权益，连同上述任一方各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表上述任一方行事的任何人。”附件 1 第 9 页，第 8 段。\n\nIBO 保留了其代表 Greenwich Land 期间的案卷副本。然而，谨此提请认定，要求 IBO 审查该案卷以寻找响应性文件和特权保护文件，以及/或者出席出庭作证，将构成过重负担。这还将不公且不必要地使 IBO 陷入在职业道德上极不稳妥的境地，即在涉及任何受特权保护的文件或事项时，可能处于与其前客户 Greenwich Land 的立场相冲突的状态。Greenwich Land 作为客户，自然享有并控制律师-客户保密特权，而非 IBO。\n\nGreenwich Land 已由律师 Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. 代表出席本破产程序。对本破产程序中所提交文件的审查表明，Greenwich Land 似乎已经收到了受托人要求提供文件和出庭作证证言的传票。向 Greenwich Land 发出的传票副本附于附件 2。\n\n2023年1月6日，我们已向 Greenwich Land 在本破产程序中的律师（Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.）提供了 IBO 代表 Greenwich Land 期间的案卷副本。Greenwich Land 连同其在破产程序中的律师，处于认定其认为哪些文件受特权保护及/或对 IBO 传票具有响应性的最佳地位。\n\n简而言之，这是一起极其复杂的破产程序，不应将 IBO 非自愿且不必要地强行卷入其中。对传票作出答复会对 IBO 造成过重负担。更便利、负担更轻的文件和信息来源显然是 Greenwich Land。受托人应当直接向 Greenwich Land 及其在本程序中的记录在案律师索取 Greenwich Land 的案卷，而不是向 IBO 索取。受托人同样应当向 Greenwich Land 索取录供证言，而非 IBO。因此，IBO 谨请求法院全面撤销该传票。\n论证\nA. 传票中要求 IBO 提供文件的部分必须予以撤销，因为该要求构成过重负担，且其所寻求的文件受律师-客户保密特权保护。\n\n第三方传票不得给接收方施加过重负担。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv)（法院必须撤销“使某人承受过重负担”的传票）；BuzzFeed, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 318 F. Supp. 3d 347, 356 (D.D.C. 2018)（援引 Watts v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 482 F.3d 501, 508 (D.C. Cir. 2007)）（同上）。在评估过重负担时，法院必须考虑第 26 条规则关于禁止通过证据开示获取“可从其他更便利、负担更轻或花费更少的来源获取”的信息的规定。Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)；Watts, 482 F.3d at 508-09（认定第 26 条规则中的标准决定了何时证据开示请求会产生过重负担）。当存在“更便利[或]负担更轻”的来源时，“应当首先探索这些替代途径。”Diamond Servs. Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, 339 F.R.D. 334, 339 (D.D.C. 2021)（原文有改动）（引自 Saperstein Palestinian Auth. (In re Subpoena to Goldberg), 693 F. Supp. 2d 81, 88 (D.D.C. 2010)）。\n\n因此，例如在 Diamond Services Management Company, LLC 案中，法院撤销了一份针对外部律师事务所的第三方传票，因为原告本可以在证据开示过程中向被告寻求相同的信息，或者向“与诉讼当事人关系最近的各方：Barnes & Thornburg 以及 Scheef & Stone”（被告的现任代理律师）“发出传票索取相关信息……”。339 F.R.D. at 340。法院认定，这两种替代途径均消除了原告传票“强加给非当事人受传票人的更为严重的‘不必要负担’”。同上（援引 Watts, 482 F.3d at 509）；另见 Hughes v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 507 F.Supp. 3d 384, 406 (D. Conn. 2020)（针对“累赘且重复，并且所寻求的信息从[被告]处获取比从非当事人处获取更为便利”的传票签发保护令）。\n\n此外，“对强加给非当事人的不必要负担的关切，是在第 45 条规则审查中评估竞争性需求平衡时应赋予特殊权重的因素。”Watts, 482 F.3d at 509（引文省略）。第 45 条规则要求法院“保护既非当事人亦非当事人管理人员的[任何]人免因遵从传票而产生重大费用。”Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii)。因此，“若未证明原告在不向第三方发出传票的情况下，无法获得——或事实上未能获得——关于其主张基本要件的充分证据开示”，法院必须避免向第三方强加“昂贵的检索”。Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 281 F.R.D. 85, 96 (D. Conn. 2012)。\n\n律师-客户保密特权“完全属于客户，且只能由其放弃。未经客户同意，律师不得放弃该特权”，这也是明确确立的法律原则。In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1987)。\n\n在本案中，谨此提请认定，没有任何正当理由强加给 IBO 审查、编目和出示来自 IBO 先前（且已结束）代理 Greenwich Land 的案卷这一沉重负担。更为重要的是，该传票使 IBO 陷入了极其棘手的境地。IBO 持有与其代表 Greenwich Land 相关的各种文件，这些文件显然受到律师-客户保密特权的保护而免于披露。然而，IBO 不能主动放弃其并不拥有的特权。只有 IBO 的前客户——Greenwich Land——才能作出放弃律师-客户保密特权的决定。使 IBO 陷入就这些文件而言可能与 Greenwich Land 的立场相冲突的不稳妥境地，显然是不公正的。不应迫使 IBO 实质上去猜测 Greenwich Land 会基于律师-客户保密特权主张不予出示哪些文件（若有）。也不应给 IBO 强加随后就任何受特权保护的文件编制一份耗时的特权清单的负担，并强加其就任何关于被作为受特权保护而拒绝出示的文件产生争议时必须参与进一步程序的负担。\n\nIBO 已向 Greenwich Land 在本破产程序中的律师提供了其案卷的副本。毫无疑问，Greenwich Land（在传票中被描述为债务人的“关联实体”）且其律师目前持有相关文件，是获取与 IBO 先前代表 Greenwich Land 相关的上述文件和信息的更便利且负担更轻的来源。事实上，由 Greenwich Land 及其在本破产程序中的律师审查 IBO 案卷并就哪些文件享有特权以及哪些文件应当出示作出决定，其负担要小得多。因此，谨此认为，第 26 条和第 45 条规则要求受托人直接向 Greenwich Land 及其在本程序中的记录在案律师索取 Greenwich Land 的案卷，而不是向 IBO 索取。另见 Burlodge Ltd. v. Standex Int'l Corp. (In re Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Direct to Dep't of Veterans Affs.), 257 F.R.D. 12, 19 (D.D.C. 2009)（“鉴于未能证明所寻求的信息无法从其他来源获得”，撤销传票并拒绝对其进行修改）。\n\n最后，同样值得一提的是，IBO 是一家在本次破产程序中绝对没有任何既往角色、且并非本次破产程序当事人的第三方。对于 Greenwich Land 对先前向其送达的任何传票作出的任何答复，以及这些答复可能如何与此极其复杂的破产程序相关的海量指控/主张产生关联，IBO 同样没有参与任何角色。此外，IBO 未曾参与规范 Greenwich Land 就送达其的传票作出答复的、与受托人达成的先前三项同意令（均作为附件 3 附后）之条款的谈判。这些因素同样支持撤销该传票。\nB. 传票中要求 IBO 出庭作证的部分同样必须予以撤销，因为其构成过重负担且属于不必要的重复。\n\n传票中要求 IBO 出庭作证的请求同样构成过重负担且是不必要的。传票的这一方面也应予以撤销。\n\nGreenwich Land 将接受受托人就本破产程序进行的录供作证，及/或已被其录供作证。附件 2。作为与债务人关系最近的一方，受托人完全可以直接从 Greenwich Land（债务人的“关联实体”）处获得其所寻求的关于 IBO 代理情况的信息。不应强加给 IBO 出席这种重复的录供作证的负担。\n\nIBO 所知晓的情况也仅限于其案卷中所包含的信息（该案卷已提供给 Greenwich Land）以及通过受保护的律师-客户通信获取的信息。这再次将在任何录供作证过程中不可避免地出现律师-客户保密特权问题时，使 IBO 不当地陷入棘手境地，因为只有 Greenwich Land 才能决定是放弃还是主张律师-客户保密特权，而不是 IBO。\n\n简而言之，本动议通篇论述的考量表明，出席传票所要求的录供作证将对 IBO 造成过重负担。鉴于 IBO 将因涉及其前客户 Greenwich Land 的利益而处于职业道德上站不住脚的境地，情况尤其如此。受托人能够且应当直接向 Greenwich Land 索取信息，而不是向 IBO 索取。因此，传票中要求 IBO 出庭作证的部分也应予以撤销。\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，IBO 谨请求本法院全面撤销该传票。\n\n日期：康涅狄格州格林威治 2023年1月6日\n\nIVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA, LLC\n\n签署人：/s/ Stephen G. Walko\n\nStephen G. Walko, 律师 (ct27644) 170 Mason Street Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 电话：(203) 661-6000 电子邮件：[swalko@ibolaw.com]\n送达证明\n\n我谨此证明，于 2023年1月6日，前述文件的副本已通过电子方式归档，并通过美国邮政平信寄送（预付邮资）送达给无法接受电子归档的任何当事人。本归档通知已通过法院电子归档系统的运作以电子邮件方式发送给所有当事人，或按照电子归档通知上的指示邮寄给无法接受电子归档的任何当事人。各当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次归档文件。\n\n> /s/ Stephen G. Walko Stephen G. Walko, 律师 (ct27644)","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1850,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:00:44"}