{"id":"court_ctb_1386_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1386,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2023-01-25","title":"EXHIBIT B OBJECTION LETTER","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **EXHIBIT B**\n\n## **OBJECTION LETTER**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1386-2 Filed 01/25/23 Entered 01/25/23 16:24:16 Page 2 of 3\n\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP 3000 Two Logan Square, Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\ntroutman.com\n\nFrancis J. Lawall francis.lawall@troutman.com\n\nJanuary 25, 2023\n\nVIA EMAIL\n\nPatrick R. Linsey Neubert, Pepe & Moneith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n## Re: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) – Objection to Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination\n\nMr. Linsey:\n\nWe write regarding the subpoena for testimony and documents dated January 11, 2023 (the \"Subpoena\") issued by your client Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee in the above-referenced chapter 11 case, on Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo\"). Despite our telephonic meet and confer on January 23, 2023, it is our understanding that the Trustee does not intend to withdraw the Subpoena. Although we intend to engage in good faith discussions regarding the scope of the Subpoena to the extent it is not otherwise quashed, I write to preserve the rights of Bravo under Rules 2004, 7026, and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and Rules 26 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Civil Rules\") by asserting the following objections.\n\nConcurrently with the sending of this letter, Bravo will be filing a motion to quash the Subpoena on the basis that: (i) it violates established Federal bankruptcy procedure by seeking to impose a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examination on Bravo, while it is a defendant in three adversary proceedings, including one filed by your client; (ii) it violates the geographical restrictions of Civil Rule 45(c); and (iii) it imposes an undue burden on Bravo, pursuant to Civil Rule 45(d)(3)(iv). Bravo reiterates these grounds as part of its objection to the Subpoena.\n\nBravo is a British Virgin Islands corporation—it does not reside and does not regularly transact business within 100 miles of the place of compliance listed in the Subpoena, in New York City. Likewise, to the extent that Civil Rule 45's out-of-state restriction for parties and their officers applies, Bravo does not reside and does not regularly transact business in person in the State of New York. Likewise, Bravo's principal and sole officer resides outside of the United States and is not employed in and does not regularly transact business in person in the State of Case 22-50073 Doc 1386-2 Filed 01/25/23 Entered 01/25/23 16:24:16 Page 3 of 3\n\nPatrick R. Linsey January 25, 2023 Page 2\n\n![](_page_2_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\nNew York. The demand for testimony in the subpoena is in violation of Civil Rule 45(c)'s geographical limitations. Similarly, to the extent that the Subpoena demands the production of any of Bravo's documents located in the British Virgin Islands and, thus, over 100 miles beyond the place of compliance in New York City, the Subpoena violates Civil Rule 45(c)'s geographical limitations.\n\nIn addition to the above reasons, Bravo objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, oppressive, and requires a search for, and production of documents in response to 23 sweeping categories of documents. The Subpoena takes no steps to avoid imposing an undue burden on Bravo as required by Civil Rule 45. Quite to the contrary, the Subpoena inappropriately requests \"all documents\" and/or \"all communications\" on several topics without reasonable limitation. In addition, the categories of documents inappropriately assume that Bravo has knowledge of the Debtor's involvement in matters having nothing to do with Bravo. By way of example, the Subpoena inappropriately requests \"All Documents regarding any income or Asset of the Debtor, the Debtor's estate, or an Associated Entity\" without reasonable limitation or explanation. Bravo further objects to each request in the Subpoena to the extent that it seeks the production of documents, materials, or information that is not \"proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit\" per the permissible scope of discovery under Civil Rule 26(b)(1). Bravo likewise objects to the Subpoena to the extent the requests seek the disclosure or production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or by any other applicable privilege or protection. Bravo likewise reserves all rights available to it under both Federal and local rules.\n\nFinally, please be aware that if and when we reach an agreement on terms for production, Bravo's willingness to produce any documents does not include the production of any privileged documents.\n\nPlease contact me at your convenience if you have questions.\n\nSincerely,\n\nFrancis J. Lawall","body_zh":"证据 B\n异议信\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1386-2 Filed 01/25/23 Entered 01/25/23 16:24:16 Page 2 of 3\n\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯有限责任合伙律师事务所） 3000 Two Logan Square, Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799\n\ntroutman.com\n\nFrancis J. Lawall（弗朗西斯·J·拉瓦尔） francis.lawall@troutman.com\n\n2023年1月25日\n\n通过电子邮件发送\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛） Neubert, Pepe & Moneith, P.C.（纽伯特·佩佩与莫内斯专业公司） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n事由：关于 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案，案号 22-50073 (JAM) —— 对依据第 2004 条规则进行调查之传票的异议\n\n林赛先生：\n\n我们谨就贵方当事人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其在上述破产法第 11 章案件中的第 11 章受托人身份向 Bravo Luck Limited（宝路有限公司，简称「Bravo」）发出的日期为2023年1月11日要求提供证言和文件的传票（以下简称「《传票》」）致信。尽管我们在2023年1月23日进行了电话会商，但据我们了解，受托人无意撤回该《传票》。虽然在《传票》未被撤销的前提下，我们打算就《传票》的范围进行善意讨论，但我特此致信，通过提出以下异议，以保留 Bravo 在 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》，简称「《破产规则》」）第 2004 条、第 7026 条和第 9016 条规则以及 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》，简称「《民事规则》」）第 26 条和第 45 条规则项下的权利。\n\n在发出本信函的同时，Bravo 将提出撤销该《传票》的动议，理由是：(i) 在 Bravo 作为三起对抗性诉讼（包括贵方当事人提起的一起）的被告期间，该传票企图对 Bravo 强行适用《破产规则》第 2004 条规则下的调查，这违反了既定的联邦破产程序；(ii) 其违反了《民事规则》第 45(c) 条的地域限制；以及 (iii) 依据《民事规则》第 45(d)(3)(iv) 条，其给 Bravo 造成了不当负担。Bravo 重申这些理由，作为其对该《传票》异议的一部分。\n\nBravo 是一家英属维尔京群岛公司——其不在该《传票》所列的履行地纽约市 100 英里范围内居住，也不在此范围内定期从事商业交易。同样，在《民事规则》第 45 条关于当事人及其高级管理人员的州外限制适用的范围内，Bravo 不在纽约州居住，也不在纽约州亲自定期从事商业交易。同样，Bravo 的负责人兼唯一高级管理人员居住在美国境外，未在纽约州受雇，也不在纽约州亲自定期从事商业交易。该传票中对证言的要求违反了《民事规则》第 45(c) 条的地域限制。同样，在该《传票》要求提交位于英属维尔京群岛、因而超出纽约市履行地 100 英里以外的 Bravo 的任何文件的范围内，该《传票》违反了《民事规则》第 45(c) 条的地域限制。\n\n除上述理由外，Bravo 对该《传票》提出异议的理由还在于：该传票含糊、模棱两可、范围过宽、具有压迫性，且要求针对 23 个宽泛的文件类别进行检索并提交文件。该《传票》未采取任何措施来避免依据《民事规则》第 45 条的要求向 Bravo 施加不当负担。恰恰相反，该《传票》不当地针对若干主题要求提供「所有文件」和/或「所有通讯」，而没有任何合理限制。此外，这些文件类别不当地假定 Bravo 知晓债务人参与了与 Bravo 无关的事务。举例而言，该《传票》不当地要求提供「关于债务人、债务人财产或关联实体的任何收入或资产的所有文件」，而未作合理限制或解释。Bravo 进一步对该《传票》中的每一项要求提出异议，只要其所寻求提交的文件、材料或信息按照《民事规则》第 26(b)(1) 条允许的证据开示范围，并不「与案件需求相称，并考虑到诉讼中悬而未决问题的重要性、争议金额、当事人获取相关信息的相对难易程度、当事人的资源、证据开示对解决问题的重要性，以及拟议的证据开示的负担或费用是否超过其可能带来的益处」。Bravo 同样对该《传票》提出异议，只要其要求披露或提交受律师-委托人保密特权、律师工作成果原则或任何其他适用特权或保护所保护的文件。Bravo 同样保留在联邦规则及本地规则项下对其可适用的所有权利。\n\n最后，请注意，如果我们达成了关于提交条款的协议，Bravo 提交任何文件的意愿均不包括提交任何享有特权的文件。\n\n若有疑问，请在方便时与我联系。\n\n此致，\n\nFrancis J. Lawall（弗朗西斯·J·拉瓦尔）","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":802,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:32:53"}