{"id":"court_ctb_1465_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1465,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-01-24","title":"Richard N. Freeth Freeth & Associates, LLC 260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor New York, New York 10016 (917) 775-7082","summary_zh":"撤销传票动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1465（2023-01-24立案）。非当事人刘佳明（Jiaming Liu）向法院申请撤销受托人发出的 Rule 2004 传票及寻求保护令。其主张自己系亚利桑那州送货司机，与债务人及破产案件无任何关联，仅因注册了名为 Himalaya Investment LLC 的公司而被错误送达传票，并请求对受托人施加制裁和判付律师费。","summary_en":"Motion to Quash Subpoena — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB Case No. 22-50073 ECF #1465 (filed Jan 24, 2023). Third party Jiaming Liu moved to quash a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoena issued by the Trustee, stating he is an Arizona delivery driver with no connection to the Debtor or the bankruptcy proceedings despite owning a company named Himalaya Investment LLC. He requested the subpoena be quashed and sought sanctions and attorney's fees against the Trustee.","body_en":"Richard N. Freeth Freeth & Associates, LLC 260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor New York, New York 10016 (917) 775-7082\n\nAttorneys for Jiaming Liu\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nIn Re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al. Chapter 11\n\nCase No.: 22-50073(JAM)\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\n## **NOTICE OF JIAMING LIU'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA**\n\nDebtor.\n\nTO: Patrick R. Linsey, Esq. NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church St., 13th Floor New Haven, CT 05610 Attorneys for Trustee\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut\n\nJiaming Liu (the \"Movant\") respectfully, by and through his undersigned counsel, Richard N. Freeth, hereby files this motion (the \"Motion\") for entry of an order, to quash the subpoena issued by the Trustee in the above-captioned matter, dated January 24, 2023 (the \"Subpoena\"), attached hereto as \"Exhibit A,\" and represents in support hereof as follows:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n**1.** The Trustee, in complete disregard for the Federal Rules regarding the serving of subpoenas upon non-parties, has sent an impossibly overbroad and unduly burdensome set of demands, and demand -- on an erroneous party -- to appear at a counsel's offices in Connecticut on February 27, 2023, to the Movant who works and resides in Arizona – considerably more than 100 miles from this Honorable Court. On this basis alone the subpoena must be quashed.\n\n**2.** Further, the Trustee has failed to perform to that level of professionalism expected of Federally appointed trustees, in that he failed to perform sufficient due diligence to confirm the identity of the Movant before serving him with an overbroad and unduly burdensome set of discovery demands, as the Movant is in no way connected to the Debtor, or the Creditors, or any asset, claim or item subject to the proceedings in this action.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n**3.** This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334(b). Venue of these cases and this Motion in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (2).\n\n**4.** The legal predicates for the relief requested herein are Rule 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\").\n\n## **FACTS**\n\n**5.** The Movant does not have first-hand knowledge regarding what business(es) the Debtor was in prior to the Petition Date, or is in at present. Upon information and belief, the Debtor was and is principally engaged in real estate development and finance.\n\n**6.** The Movant has had no prior contact with any of the parties.\n\n**7.** The Movant immigrated from China to the USA in December 2010 at the age of 23.\n\n**8.** In the last two years he has worked as a delivery driver with a monthly income at around \\$3000.\n\n**9.** On December 22, 2022, Mr. Liu received a two-pound package of nearly four hundred pages of documents from Defendants. Mr. Liu thought the delivery was a mistake.\n\n**10.** Then, on January 20, 2023, Mr. Liu received a FedEx delivery of a Connecticut Bankruptcy Court order, dated January 13, 2023, which provided for limitations against certain individuals and entities\n\n2\n\nfrom engaging in protests against certain parties involved in this proceeding, and other related individuals and entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n**11.** On January 23, 2023, Mr. Liu made a phone call to 203-821-2000. He was connected to the Trustee's office at the offices of Paul Hastings. Mr. Liu tried to explain to the Trustee's office that he was not the person they were looking for, that his company was not the company the trustee should go after, and that the trustee's office must have made a mistake.\n\n**12.** Rather than listen to Mr. Liu, the Trustee's lawyer's office confirmed Mr. Liu's name and address, but otherwise did not answer any further questions, nor acknowledge Mr. Liu's warning that he was not connected to these proceedings.\n\n**13.** Very next day, on January 24, 2022, around 2:00 pm MST, Mr. Liu was served with the subpoena by a court officer from Maricopa County Superior Court, Tonya Arruda.\n\n**14.** As a result of this repeated and gratuitous service of a massive set of documents on Mr. Liu, he started to panic. He could not focus his attention for the remaining of the day and becoming fearful, anxious and disoriented. Indeed, during this period, while operating his vehicle, a 2015 Toyota Prius near his residence in Scottsdale Arizona, Mr. Liu was unable to focus his attention because of his concerns on being subpoenaed. As a result of such disorientation, Mr. Liu failed to yield from a stop sign and hit the vehicle from the opposing direction.\n\n**15.** The Movant suspects that he was served the Subpoena because he is the registered owner of Himalaya Investment LLC, a corporation registered in the state of Arizona. The Movant registered Himalaya Investment LLC in June 2020. The Movant does not know Ho Wan Kwok. Movant does not follow the Whistleblower Movement, with which Ho Wan Kwok is associated.\n\n#### **RECIPIENT SHOULD BE AWARDED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS**\n\n**16.** The Court should impose sanctions against the Trustee under Federal Rule 45 because he did not take any reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense to Movant. Under Federal Rule 45(d)(1), \"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.\" Further, \"[t]he court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). \"Under Rule 45(d)(1), a court must conduct a two-part inquiry to determine: (1) whether the challenged subpoena imposed an undue burden or expense on the person(s) subject thereto; and (2) if so, what, if any, 'reasonable steps' the subpoenaing party and its counsel took to avoid imposing such a burden.\" Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197754, at \\*14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2015) (imposing sanctions because the subpoenas \"were not reasonably tailored to produce information relevant to [the]\" case and they should not have been issued). \"The burden falls upon the serving party to prove that it has complied with this mandate.\" In re Faiella, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1452, at \\*13 (Bankr. D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2008).\n\n**17.** Here, the Trustee took no steps to avoid imposing a burden. It was utter disregard to the Movant as a person, and disrespect for his time, and energy, and financial situation. The Movant even called the Trustee's firm to explain how they had the wrong person, and he was utterly ignored. Rather than check their information, the Trustee has the Movant served with the same mass of documents via in-person service.\n\n**18.** Sanctions under Federal Rule 45(d)(1) are meant to protect parties from the misuse of subpoenas. \"Sanctions are properly imposed and attorney's fees are awarded where\" the party improperly issuing the subpoena \"refused to withdraw it, requiring the non-party to institute a motion to quash.\" Breaking Media, Inc. v. Jowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67473, at \\*18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021).\n\n**19.** The undersigned contacted the law offices of Newbert, Pepe & Monteith, listed at the attorney representing the Trustee, February 15, 2023 and February 20, 2023 in an effort to negotiate a stipulation in lieu of this motion, and Trustee's counsel declined to participate in any meaningful way, thus obligating the filing of this motion.\n\n4\n\nDated: February 20, 2023 Freeth & Associates, LLC\n\nBy:\n\nRichard N. Freeth\n\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10016 (917)775-7082\n\nAttorneys for Jiaming Liu\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n*--------------------------------------------------------------------X*\n\nIn Re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al. Chapter 11\n\nCase No.: 22-50073(JAM)\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nDebtor.\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\nThis matter having come on before the Court on the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed on behalf of Jiaming Liu. The parties appeared by and through their respective counsel of record.\n\nThe Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, including all of the records, files, and proceedings herein, finds that the Subpoena is unreasonable, oppressive, and without merit.\n\nIT IS ORDERED that the Subpoena dated January 24, 2023, and served on Jiaming Liu, is QUASHED. THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED.","body_zh":"Richard N. Freeth\nFreeth & Associates, LLC\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor\nNew York, New York 10016\n(917) 775-7082\n\nJiaming Liu（刘嘉明）的代理律师\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等 第11章\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\nJIAMING LIU（刘嘉明）撤销传票动议之通知\n\n债务人。\n\n致：Patrick R. Linsey, Esq.\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church St., 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 05610\n受托人代理律师\n\n美国康涅狄格区破产法院\n\nJiaming Liu（以下简称“动议人”）谨通过其下述署名律师Richard N. Freeth，特此提出本动议（以下简称“本动议”），请求下达一项裁定，以撤销受托人在上述标题案件中发出的日期为2023年1月24日的传票（以下简称“传票”，随附于此作为“附件A”），并特此陈述支持理由如下：\n初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人完全漠视关于向非当事人送达传票的联邦规则，向工作和居住在亚利桑那州——距离本受尊崇法院远超100英里——的动议人发出了极其宽泛且造成不当负担的一整套要求，并要求——向一个错误的当事人——于2023年2月27日出席位于康涅狄格州的律师办公室。仅凭此项理由，该传票就必须予以撤销。\n\n2. 此外，受托人未能达到对联邦任命的受托人所期望的专业水准，因为他在向动议人送达极其宽泛且造成不当负担的一整套证据开示要求之前，未能进行充分的尽职调查以确认动议人的身份，而动议人与债务人、债权人，或本诉讼程序所涉及的任何资产、主张或标的物均毫无关联。\n管辖权与审判地\n\n3. 根据28 U.S.C. §§ 157及1334(b)，本法院对本案具有管辖权。根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408及1409，这些案件及本动议在本司法管辖区的审判地是适当的。根据28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)，这是一项核心程序。\n\n4. 本文所请求救济的法律依据是《联邦破产程序规则》（以下简称“《破产规则》”）第9016条和《联邦民事诉讼规则》（以下简称“《联邦规则》”）第45条。\n事实\n\n5. 动议人并不直接知悉债务人在申请日前从事何种业务，或目前从事何种业务。据信，债务人过去及现在主要从事房地产开发与金融业务。\n\n6. 动议人此前与任何当事人均无任何接触。\n\n7. 动议人于2010年12月从中国移民至美国，时年23岁。\n\n8. 在过去两年中，他一直担任送货司机，月收入约为$3000。\n\n9. 2022年12月22日，刘先生收到了来自被告的一份重达两磅、近四百页的文件包裹。刘先生以为该递送是一次失误。\n\n10. 随后，于2023年1月20日，刘先生收到了一份通过联邦快递寄送的康涅狄格区破产法院日期为2023年1月13日的裁定，该裁定规定了对某些个人和实体的限制，禁止其对参与本程序的某些当事人以及与中国共产党相关的其他相关个人和实体进行抗议活动。\n\n11. 2023年1月23日，刘先生致电203-821-2000。他被转接到了设于Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）办公室的受托人办公室。刘先生试图向受托人办公室解释，他不是他们要找的人，他的公司也不是受托人应该追究的公司，受托人办公室一定是弄错了。\n\n12. 受托人律师办公室没有听取刘先生的意见，而是确认了刘先生的姓名和地址，但除此之外没有回答任何进一步的问题，也没有理会刘先生关于他与这些诉讼程序毫无关联的告诫。\n\n13. 就在次日，即2022年1月24日山地标准时间下午2点左右，马里科帕县高等法院的一名法庭官员Tonya Arruda向刘先生送达了传票。\n\n14. 由于屡次且无端向刘先生送达大量文件，他开始恐慌。他在当天剩余的时间里无法集中注意力，并变得恐惧、焦虑和心神不宁。事实上，在此期间，当刘先生在亚利桑那州斯科茨代尔的住所附近驾驶他的车辆（一辆2015年丰田普锐斯）时，由于担心被传唤而无法集中注意力。由于这种精神恍惚，刘先生未能按停车标志让行，撞上了迎面驶来的车辆。\n\n15. 动议人怀疑他被送达传票是因为他是Himalaya Investment LLC（喜马拉雅投资有限责任公司）的注册所有人，该公司是在亚利桑那州注册的公司。动议人于2020年6月注册了Himalaya Investment LLC。动议人并不认识Ho Wan Kwok。动议人也不关注与Ho Wan Kwok有关联的Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）。\n应向接收方裁定支付律师费及诉讼费用\n\n16. 法院应根据《联邦规则》第45条对受托人实施制裁，因为他未采取任何合理措施以避免给动议人造成不当负担或费用。根据《联邦规则》第45(d)(1)条，“负责签发和送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，以避免给受到传票约束的人造成不当负担或费用。”此外，“要求服从传票的地区所在法院必须执行该项义务，并对未履行的当事人或律师处以适当的制裁——其中可包括收入损失和合理的律师费。”Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)。“根据第45(d)(1)条，法院必须进行两项调查以确定：(1) 被异议的传票是否对受其约束的人造成了不当负担或费用；以及 (2) 如果是，传票签发方及其律师采取了何种‘合理措施’（如果有的话）以避免造成此类负担。”Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197754, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2015)（实施制裁的原因是传票“未合理剪裁以获取与[该]案相关的信息”，且本不应签发）。“证明其已遵守该项法定指令的举证责任由送达方承担。”In re Faiella, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1452, at *13 (Bankr. D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2008)。\n\n17. 在本案中，受托人未采取任何措施来避免造成负担。这是对动议人人格的完全无视，也是对其时间、精力以及财务状况的不尊重。动议人甚至致电受托人的律师事务所解释他们找错了人，但他被完全置之不理。受托人不但没有核对其信息，反而通过当面送达的方式向动议人送达了同样的大量文件。\n\n18. 《联邦规则》第45(d)(1)条项下的制裁旨在保护当事人免遭滥用传票之害。“在不当签发传票的一方‘拒绝撤回传票，从而迫使非当事人提起撤销动议的情况下，应当当实施制裁并裁定支付律师费。’”Breaking Media, Inc. v. Jowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67473, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021)。\n\n19. 下述署名人分别于2023年2月15日和2023年2月20日联系了列明为代表受托人的律师事务所Neubert, Pepe & Monteith，试图通过协商达成一项规定以代替本动议，但受托人律师拒绝进行任何有实质意义的参与，从而不得不提起本动议。\n日期：2023年2月20日\nFreeth & Associates, LLC\n\n签署人：\n\nRichard N. Freeth\n\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.\nNew York, NY 10016\n(917) 775-7082\n\nJiaming Liu（刘嘉明）的代理律师\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等 第11章\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n___________________\n\n债务人。\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\n本案系就代表Jiaming Liu（刘嘉明）提起的撤销传票动议向本法院提出。各方当事人均已通过其各自的记录在案代理律师出庭。\n\n本法院在审议了各方当事人提交的材料，包括本案的所有记录、案卷和诉讼程序后，认定该传票是不合理的、压迫性的且毫无根据的。\n\n现命令：日期为2023年1月24日并送达给Jiaming Liu的传票予以撤销。保护令动议予以批准。","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Himalaya","CIPA","Chinese Communist Party","Paul Hastings","RICO"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1401,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:51:40"}