{"id":"court_ctb_1413_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1413,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n# DECLARATION OF SCOTT LIPNICK IN SUPPORT OF UBS AG'S OPPOSITION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL\n\nI, Scott Lipnick, declare as follows:\n\n1. I am eDiscovery Counsel, working in the UBS eDiscovery function, employed by UBS Business Solutions LLC. I have held that position since August 2019. The eDiscovery function supports the internal legal and investigation teams within the UBS group of companies (\"UBS\") on a variety of data law issues that center around the identification, preservation, collection, processing, review, and production of internal data for matters impacting UBS group companies including UBS AG (\"UBS AG\"), which is the entity which is relevant for the purpose of this declaration.\n\n2. I am based in the Americas region and partner with internal counsel at UBS to manage end-to-end eDiscovery requirements and processes on behalf of UBS globally. I have been asked to provide this declaration in support of UBS AG's opposition to the Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling UBS AG to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena (\"Motion to Compel,\" ECF No. 1362), and in particular to provide the Court with information relating to the time and resources that would be required to comply with a subpoena such as the Rule 2004 subpoena at issue in the Motion to Compel (the \"Subpoena\"), which I have reviewed.\n\n1\n\n### Introduction\n\n3. In this declaration, I will address the following from my perspective as eDiscovery Counsel: (i) the steps UBS initially takes to respond when a document request or subpoena is served on a UBS entity; and (ii) two points of concern specifically related to the Subpoena at issue here.\n\n4. I do not control nor am I am responsible for supervising or maintaining electronic communication archiving systems at UBS AG, but, based on information received from members of the relevant teams, I can confirm that there are several hundred thousand current and former employees that have their electronic business communications journaled globally in over a dozen different locations. Further, while I do not have direct access to or knowledge of storage data volumes, UBS AG has petabytes of electronic communication data in the archives.\n\n5. To start the process of collecting electronically stored information once UBS has been served with a document request or subpoena, a UBS employee submits a collection request to the eDiscovery team. The request typically includes general matter information (e.g., matter name; originating country; matter type; production deadlines; assigned counsel) and requestspecific information (e.g., custodian(s) or client account(s) implicated; data types; collection periods of interest) so that the eDiscovery service can collect relevant data. It is important for the employee using the eDiscovery service to \"scope\" the request to the greatest extent possible by being precise about what employee or client information needs to be collected. This way, irrelevant data is not pulled into the data set subject to review and production.\n\n6. Typically, it takes the eDiscovery team ten business days after approval by an eDiscovery counsel, such as myself, to deliver data requested under a collection request, but requests can take significantly longer than that in instances where (i) broad keywords are asked to\n\n2\n\nbe searched against custodians listed under the request or (ii) keywords are asked to be run across entire email archives. In addition, the data collection process can take substantially longer when non-US data needs to be processed and/or produced in the US. Globally, there are a patchwork of foreign data protection laws that UBS AG is legally obligated to consider prior to determining whether it can move forward with cross border discovery. If the law of a particular jurisdiction prohibits the collection of documents for transmittal to, or use in, the US, UBS AG does not have the ability to obtain documents from that jurisdiction.\n\n7. It is important to keep in mind that data collection is only the beginning of the document production process. Once collected, data typically is sent to an eDiscovery vendor for processing and data hosting. Costs associated with document processing, hosting and review can be substantial, especially in instances where document requests are not narrowly tailored. As such, in matters where document production requests are broad and matters stay open upwards of one year or longer, it would not be surprising for processing, hosting, and review costs to be in the six figures.\n\n#### The Subpoena in this Proceeding\n\n8. In reviewing the Subpoena in this proceeding, two areas stand out as points of concern: lack of specificity / overbreadth and extraterritoriality.\n\n#### Lack of Specificity / Overbreadth\n\n9. Execution of a request to collect electronic communications, business records, or other discoverable data from UBS AG requires that the requesting party be targeted in its requests. Several categories of documents requested in the Subpoena cannot be scoped in good faith due to a lack of specificity. Here are examples:\n\n> a. The Subpoena seeks production of documents relating to various individuals and entities defined in the Subpoena collectively as \"2004 Discovery Targets.\" The\n\n2004 Discovery Targets, in turn, include several individuals whose names are separately defined as including not only the individuals themselves but also their unidentified \"employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on his behalf,\" making it impossible to know who the actual targets of the Subpoena are.\n\n- b. The Subpoena also seeks \"[a]ll Documents\" from an 11-year period beginning on January 1, 2012 satisfying certain criteria, and \"Documents\" is defined extraordinarily broadly to include \"electronic mail, computer files maintained in electronic form, correspondence, memoranda, tapes, stenographic or handwritten notes, written forms of any kind, charts, blueprints, drawings, sketches, graphs, plans articles, specification, diaries, letters, telegrams, photographs, minutes, contracts, agreements, surveys, computer printouts, data compilations of any kind, telexes, facsimiles, emails, text messages, instant messages, voice messages, invoices, order forms, checks, drafts, statements, credit memos, reports, position reports, summaries, indices, books, ledgers, notebooks, schedules, transparencies, recordings, catalogs, advertisements, promotional materials, film, video tapes, audio tapes, CDs, computer disks, brochures, pamphlets, punch-cards, time-slips, Tweets, social media posts, or any written or recorded materials of any other kind, and all meta-data thereof, however stored (whether in tangible or electronic form), recorded, produced, or reproduced, and also including but not limited to, drafts or copies of any of the foregoing that contain any notes, comments, or marking of any kind not found on the original documents or that are otherwise not identical to the original documents.\" Subpoena § III, ¶ 16.\n- c. The Subpoena also does not indicate what custodians, current or former, should have their custodial files searched for potentially relevant information. UBS AG can run archive-wide searches for keywords, but running such searches can elicit a substantial number of false positive results if the keywords are not narrowly tailored.\n\n10. The result of the lack of specificity described above is it that it is impossible to scope what is actually sought by the Subpoena. It likewise would be extraordinarily time consuming and costly – if even possible – to structure search parameters adequate to search for materials requested in the Subpoena.\n\n11. The Subpoena's breadth poses additional challenges. As an example, \"You\" is defined in the Subpoena to include \"UBS AG, together with any of its affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries, and any of their employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on their behalf.\" Subpoena § III, ¶ 1. In responding to a document request or subpoena, UBS AG is limited to responding solely on its own behalf and not on behalf of individuals or entities distinct from UBS AG.\n\n*12.* In my more than three years as eDiscovery Counsel, I have never seen a motion to compel production relating to any document request or production demand as broad as the one at issue here. The requesting party's unwillingness to identify custodians, keywords, or jurisdictional limitations is without precedent in my personal experience.\n\n### Extraterritoriality\n\n13. Any order of a US court requiring the collection of data sourced to non-US custodians or non-US entities must consider foreign data protection laws. These laws, like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or China's Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), may place express restrictions on UBS AG's ability to have data sent to the US for processing and possible production in the instant proceeding. This is true even in instances where compliance with a court's document request is compulsory.\n\n14. Despite the obstacles set forth above, I understand from conversations with counsel that UBS AG has been able to search for accounts relating to certain of the 2004 Discovery Targets in several jurisdictions that I understand are of interest in this proceeding. I further understand that UBS AG's external counsel has reported on the results of those searches to counsel for the Trustee.\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on January 29, 2023.\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nScott Lipnick","body_zh":"United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区美国破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等人，\n\n第11章（Chapter 11）\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n（合并审理）\n\nScott Lipnick（斯科特·利普尼克）支持 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份有限公司）反对第11章受托人强制作出开示动议的声明\n\n我，Scott Lipnick，声明如下：\n\n1. 我是 eDiscovery（电子数据开示）法律顾问，在 UBS（瑞银）电子数据开示职能部门工作，受雇于 UBS Business Solutions LLC（瑞银商业解决方案有限责任公司）。我自2019年8月起担任该职务。该电子数据开示职能部门就围绕内部数据的识别、保存、收集、处理、审查和提供等一系列数据法律问题，向瑞银各公司集团（“UBS”）内部的法律和调查团队提供支持，涉及影响包括 UBS AG（“UBS AG”）在内的瑞银集团公司的各类事项，而 UBS AG 正是本声明所涉的相关实体。\n\n2. 我常驻美洲地区，并与瑞银内部法律顾问合作，代表瑞银在全球范围内管理端到端的电子数据开示要求和流程。我被要求提供本声明，以支持 UBS AG 反对第11章受托人关于签发命令强制 UBS AG 遵守《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第2004条传票的动议（“强制作出开示动议”，ECF No. 1362），特别是向法院提供关于遵守诸如强制作出开示动议中所涉第2004条传票（“《传票》”）此类传票所需时间和资源的相关信息，该《传票》我已审阅。\n\n引言\n\n3. 在本声明中，我将作为电子数据开示法律顾问从我的专业角度阐述以下内容：(i) 当向瑞银实体送达文件提供要求或传票时，瑞银最初采取的应对步骤；以及 (ii) 专门针对此处所涉《传票》的两点关切。\n\n4. 我既不控制也不负责监督或维护 UBS AG 的电子通信归档系统，但是，根据从相关团队成员处收到的信息，我可以确认，有数十万名现任和前任员工的电子业务通信在全球十几个不同地点进行日志归档。此外，虽然我无法直接访问或了解具体存储数据量，但 UBS AG 在归档中拥有数 PB（拍字节）的电子通信数据。\n\n5. 一旦向瑞银送达了文件提供要求或传票，为启动收集电子存储信息的流程，瑞银员工会向电子数据开示团队提交一份收集请求。该请求通常包括一般事项信息（例如，事项名称；发源国家；事项类型；提供截止期限；指派的法律顾问）以及特定于请求的信息（例如，涉及的托管人或客户账户；数据类型；需关注的收集期间），以便电子数据开示服务部门能够收集相关数据。使用电子数据开示服务的员工必须通过明确需要收集哪些员工或客户信息，在最大程度上对请求进行“界定范围”（scope），这一点非常重要。通过这种方式，无关数据就不会被纳入需要审查和提供的数据集之中。\n\n6. 通常情况下，在诸如我本人的电子数据开示法律顾问批准后，电子数据开示团队需要十个工作日来交付收集请求下所要求的数据，但在以下情况下，请求可能需要大幅长于该时间：(i) 要求根据请求下列出的托管人进行宽泛的关键词检索，或 (ii) 要求在整个电子邮件归档中运行关键词检索。此外，当非美国数据需要在美国进行处理和/或提供时，数据收集过程可能需要大幅延长的时间。在全球范围内，存在着一系列零散的外国数据保护法律，UBS AG 在法律上有义务在确定是否可以推进跨境开示之前考虑这些法律。如果某一特定司法管辖区的法律禁止收集文件以传输至美国或在美国使用，UBS AG 便无能力从该司法管辖区获取文件。\n\n7. 必须谨记，数据收集仅仅是文件提供程序的开始。数据一旦被收集，通常会被发送给电子数据开示供应商进行处理和数据托管。与文件处理、托管和审查相关的费用可能十分高昂，尤其是在文件提供要求未能进行狭义限定的情况下。因此，在文件提供要求宽泛且案件悬而未决达一年以上的事项中，处理、托管和审查费用达到六位数并不足为奇。\n\n本程序中的《传票》\n\n8. 在审阅本程序中的《传票》时，有两个方面作为关切点格外突出：缺乏明确性/过于宽泛，以及域外效力问题。\n\n缺乏明确性 / 过于宽泛\n\n9. 执行从 UBS AG 收集电子通信、业务记录或其他可开示数据的请求，要求请求方在其请求中具有针对性。《传票》中要求的若干类别文件由于缺乏明确性而无法在善意前提下界定范围。示例如下：\n\na. 《传票》要求提供与《传票》中统称为“2004条开示目标”的各类个人和实体相关的文件。而“2004条开示目标”又包括数名个人，其姓名被分别定义为不仅包括个人本身，还包括其身份不明的“雇员、代理人、法律顾问、顾问或代表其行为的任何人”，这使得根本不可能知晓《传票》的实际目标是谁。\n\nb. 《传票》还要求提供自2012年1月1日起为期11年期间内符合特定标准的“[所]有文件”，并且“文件”被定义得异乎寻常地宽泛，包括“电子邮件、以电子形式保存的计算机文件、通信往来、备忘录、磁带、速记或手写笔记、任何形式的书面表单、海报、图表、蓝图、图纸、草图、图示、计划方案、规格说明、日记、信件、电报、照片、会议纪要、合同、协议、调查报告、计算机打印件、任何类型的数据汇编、电传、传真、电邮、文本信息、即时通讯消息、语音留言、发票、订单、支票、汇票、对账单、贷记通知单、报告、头寸报告、摘要、索引、书籍、账簿、笔记本、附表、投影片、录音录像、目录、广告、宣传材料、胶片、录像带、录音带、CD、计算机磁盘、手册、宣传小册子、穿孔卡、工时单、推文、社交媒体帖子或任何其他类型的书面或记录材料，以及其所有元数据，不论以何种方式存储（无论以有形还是电子形式）、记录、制作或复制，并且还包括但不限于任何前述内容的草稿或副本，只要其包含原件上没有的任何类型的笔记、批注或标记，或者在其他方面与原件不完全一致。”《传票》第 III 节，第 16 段。\n\nc. 《传票》亦未指明应当对哪些现任或前任托管人的托管卷宗进行检索以寻找潜在相关信息。UBS AG 可以在全归档范围内运行关键词检索，但如果关键词未作狭义限定，运行此类检索可能会产生大量的假阳性结果。\n\n10. 上述缺乏明确性所导致的结果是，根本不可能界定《传票》实际所寻求的范围。同样，构建足以检索《传票》所要求材料的检索参数——即便可行——也将极其耗费时间且成本极其高昂。\n\n11. 《传票》的宽泛范围带来了额外的挑战。例如，《传票》中的“你方”被定义为包括“UBS AG 连同其任何关联公司、母公司和子公司，以及其任何雇员、代理人、法律顾问、顾问或代表其行为的任何人。”《传票》第 III 节，第 1 段。在回应文件提供要求或传票时，UBS AG 仅能代表其自身作出回应，而不能代表与 UBS AG 相互独立的个人或实体作出回应。\n\n12. 在我担任电子数据开示法律顾问的三年多时间里，我从未见过与任何文件提供要求或提供要求相关的强制作出开示动议有如此处所涉动议这般宽泛。请求方不愿确定托管人、关键词或管辖区域限制的做法，在我个人的执业经验中是史无前例的。\n\n域外效力\n\n13. 任何要求收集源自非美国托管人或非美国实体的数据的美国法院命令，都必须考量外国数据保护法律。这些法律，如 European Union（欧洲联盟）的 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)（《通用数据保护条例》）或中国的 Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL)（《个人信息保护法》），可能会对 UBS AG 将数据发送至美国进行处理以及可能在本程序中提供数据的能力施加明确限制。即使在必须遵守法院文件提供要求的情况下，亦是如此。\n\n14. 尽管存在上述障碍，但据我从与法律顾问的交谈中了解到，UBS AG 已经能够在若干据我了解在本程序中受关注的司法管辖区内，检索与部分“2004条开示目标”相关的账户。我还了解到，UBS AG 的外部法律顾问已将这些检索结果向受托人的法律顾问作了汇报。\n\n依据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，我谨在受伪证罪处罚的规定下声明：上述内容属实且正确。\n\n签署于 2023年1月29日。\n\n_________________________________\n\nScott Lipnick","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1362,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1505,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:54:38"}