{"id":"court_ctb_1517_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1517,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                            |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|----------------------------|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11                 |\n| HO WAN KWOK<br>et al.,                                           | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073<br>(JAM) |\n| 1<br>Debtors.                                                    | :<br>:      | Jointly Administered       |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                            |\n\n# **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S RESPONSE TO DECLARATION OF LEE VARTAN, ESQ. IN OPPOSITION TO TRUSTEE'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS AND JANUARY 20, 2023 ORDER**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), files this response (the \"Response\") to the *Declaration of Lee Vartan, Esq. in Opposition to Trustee's Order to Show Cause Regarding Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas and January 20, 2023 Order* [ECF No. 1512] (the \"Attorney Declaration\"), filed on behalf of Mei Guo (\"Ms. Guo\") and HK International Funds Investments *and* (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\" and, together with Ms. Guo, the \"HK Parties\") In support of this Response, the Trustee states the following:\n\n### **I. HK PARTIES FAILED TO SATISFY COURT'S FEBRUARY 13, 2023 ORDER**\n\n1. The HK Parties have fallen far short of compliance with the Court's February 13,\n\n2023 *Order Granting in Part Motion for Order to Appear and Show Cause Why the Court Should*\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n*Not Hold the HK Parties in Contempt of Court* [ECF No. 1455] (the \"Order to Show Cause\") by submitting the Attorney Declaration, which is both procedurally and substantively deficient.\n\n### **A. HK Parties Have Facially Failed to Comply with Document Production Obligations and Declaration Requirement of Order to Show Cause**\n\n2. Counsel to the HK Parties represented in their February 10, 2023 *Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Order Compelling Production* [ECF No. 1454 at ¶ 13] (the \"Extension Motion\") that the HK Parties \"would continue to produce documents on a rolling basis[.]\" *Id.* at ¶ 13. On the basis of this representation, the Court stated in the Order to Show Cause that it \"expects that the HK Parties will be producing documents to the Trustee on a rolling basis during the ongoing mediation.\" Order to Show Cause at 2. The Court further instructed that, \"[on] or before 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2023, the HK Parties shall file a sworn declaration on the docket of this case detailing full compliance with the Order Compelling Production or, failing that, describing in detail the efforts taken to comply.\" *Id*. at 3.\n\n3. The Trustee did not receive a *single document production* during the mediation, despite the HK Parties' promise to make rolling productions and the Court's expectation that they do so. Instead, after 8 p.m. last night, the HK Parties finally produced *a total of 11 documents* and filed the Attorney Declaration. The HK Parties thus (i) failed to fulfill their promise to make rolling productions during the mediation, and (ii) filed the Attorney Declaration in an untimely manner, three hours after the deadline. The HK Parties' delinquencies are not insignificant: as the Court recognized in the Order to Show Cause, the parties must be able to engage in a dialogue about discovery issues and compliance with court orders to productively move this case forward. The HK Parties' untimely actions have made this impossible.\n\n4. The Attorney Declaration is also deficient because it is a declaration of counsel and not of the HK Parties themselves. The Order to Show Cause unambiguously required the *HK*\n\n2\n\n*Parties*, not Attorney Vartan, to submit a declaration detailing their compliance with their document production obligations. This distinction is extremely important given the many incredulous assertions in the Attorney Declaration about Ms. Guo's purported lack of documents and lack of access to relevant information. To the extent Ms. Guo is going to assert, among other things, that (i) she does not ever communicate with her father electronically, (ii) does not communicate with her family using messaging applications, (iii) has no access to any of her bank accounts, and (iv) has a grand total of only 11 additional documents responsive to the Trustee's subpoena in her possession, custody, or control, she needs to attest to those assertions under penalty of perjury—she cannot rely on her attorney to do so.\n\n5. Finally, although the Order to Show Cause made clear that *both* HK Parties were required to submit a declaration describing the satisfaction of their document production obligations, the Attorney Declaration is virtually silent with respect to HK USA. The Attorney Declaration instead focuses solely on Ms. Guo's purported life experiences and practices with regard to electronic communications and retention of documents. No information has been provided regarding the document creation and retention practices of HK USA or whether and to what extent HK USA took steps to collect documents responsive to the Trustee's subpoena. , Accordingly, HK USA has not complied with the Order to Show Cause. 2\n\n#### **B. Attorney Declaration Fails to Adequately Describe Ms. Guo's Compliance with Court's Order Compelling Production or Her Inability to Comply**\n\n6. Even assuming a declaration from Attorney Vartan could be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Order to Show Cause (it should not be), the Attorney Declaration is\n\n<sup>2</sup> If Ms. Guo does not have knowledge of HK USA's documents and records, then an individual in possession of such knowledge or understanding must submit a declaration that may satisfy the Court's order. Ms. Guo's apparent lack of knowledge is consistent with the fact that Ms. Guo owns HK USA in name only, while the entity is, in reality, beneficially owned and controlled by her father, the Debtor.\n\nsubstantively deficient in describing Ms. Guo's compliance with her document production obligations under the Court's January 20, 2023 order [ECF No. 1353] (the \"Order Compelling Production\"). This is so for numerous reasons, some examples of which are described below.\n\n7. **The Attorney Declaration does not make clear what electronic documents Ms. Guo may have in her possession**. The Attorney Declaration says nothing about the quantity and types of electronic devices that are within Ms. Guo's custody, possession or control. Thus, the Trustee can only speculate as to whether Mei Guo has access to computers, additional cellular telephones, tablets, or other mobile devices that may contain responsive documents.\n\n8. **The Attorney Declaration does not describe an adequate email search.** The Attorney Declaration provides that Ms. Guo \"*presently*\" maintains three email addresses [Attorney Decl. at ¶ 28 (emphasis added)], but it does not disclose how many email addresses she maintained in the recent past; if she still has access to those accounts; and, if such accounts have been searched by anyone. The Attorney Declaration further provides that Ms. Guo only uses electronic communications for \"limited and discrete\" purposes—but, again, it doesn't explain what those purposes are and whether they are relevant to the subpoena. *Id.* ¶ 27. Likewise, counsel claims he was provided with \"unfettered access\" to an email account on February 20, 2022 to run search terms, yet counsel has made no representations with respect to any acts taken to ensure that documents or information has not been deleted or destroyed. *Id.* at ¶ 30.\n\n9. In addition, the search terms that counsel purportedly applied appear woefully inadequate. To give just a few examples based on the Trustee's preliminary review:\n\n> • Searches for the Debtor and Qiang Guo include only full names, indicating that a simple message to \"dad\" or \"Miles\" or \"Qiang\" is unlikely to be identified as \"responsive.\" In fact, not a single individual has been included in a search with less two names. *Id.* at ¶ 31.\n\n> > 4\n\n- Similarly, references to \"ACA\" would likely be overlooked only because \"ACA Investment Management Limited\" and \"ACA Capital Group Limited\" are the full-named shell entities the Debtor uses to funnel funds around. *Id.* The same is true for other legal entities in the search terms.\n- Documents concerning a confidant and advisor working on behalf of the Debtor, such as \"Yvette Wang,\" should not be so unilaterally limited by requiring a hit only when both names are identified, as it stands to reason that Ms. Guo may have referred to such persons by one name only. *Id*.\n\n10. **The Description of Mei Guo's purported means of record-keeping and communicating with her family is vague and strains credulity.** The Attorney Declaration provides that Ms. Quo doesn't \"typically\" communicate with her family on WhatsApp and Telegram but fails to (i) provide any quantum of communications on WhatsApp and Telegram that Mei Guo *does* have with her family or (ii) explain why those communications were not searched. *Id*. at ¶ 34. Similarly, the Attorney Declaration provides no information as to whether Ms. Guo has engaged in responsive WhatsApp or Telegram messages with *non-family members*, such as the individuals listed in paragraph 31 of the Attorney Declaration. *Id.*\n\n11. **The Attorney Declaration provides no detail as to what hard copy documents were searched.** While the Attorney Declaration provides that Mei Guo searched her \"hard copy records\" for responsive information, it provides no information as to what such records entail and how they were searched. *Id.* at ¶ 36. Whether counsel supervised this purported hard copy records search, where it was done, and how Mei Guo performed it remain unclear based on the vague conclusions in the Attorney Declaration.\n\n12. **The Attorney Declaration's description of Ms. Guo's access to bank account records is not credible and incomplete.** The Attorney Declaration states, remarkably, that Ms. Guo does not presently have access to a single one of her bank accounts. She states that three accounts she opened in the past are closed and that she no longer has access to account statements or other documents. *Id*. at ¶ 38. She further states that, although she has an account at Bank of China, she cannot access that account because she does not have electronic access and refuses to visit a branch location out of fear for her safety. *Id*. These assertions are both not believable and woefully insufficient to prove that Ms. Guo has done everything she reasonably can to access her bank records. To the extent she is truly unable to access her now-closed accounts, she needs to provide account numbers to the Trustee so he can subpoena the records from the banks. As for the Bank of China account, it is not credible that Ms. Guo has no means of accessing that account. If she does not presently have electronic access, she should request it. If she does not want to visit a branch personally, she should send an attorney or other designee in her stead. Simply put, there are clearly ways for Ms. Guo to access her bank account information, and her failure to do so constitutes a failure to comply with the Order Compelling Production.\n\n13. **The Attorney Declaration contains no discussion of steps Ms. Guo has taken to identify documents in the possession of other individuals or entities that are within her custody or control.** The Order Compelling Production required Ms. Guo and HK USA to produce responsive documents within their custody or control, \"including without limitation documents in the files of their current or former counsel and other agents and advisors, unless such documents have already been produced . . . but without consideration of any potential future production by their current or former counsel and other agents and advisors.\" Order Compelling Production at 6. The Attorney Declaration *contains no discussion whatsoever* of any effort undertaken by Ms. Guo or HK USA to identify and collect responsive documents in the files of their current and former counsel and other advisors. Accordingly, the Attorney Declaration is deficient.\n\n# **II. SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE BOTH TO FORCE COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER AND FOR TRUSTEE'S EXPENSES INCURRED TO DATE**\n\n14. For all the reasons noted above, the HK Parties have plainly failed to comply with the Order to Show Cause. The result is that the Trustee still—*nearly seven months after initially serving his subpoenas*—does not have access to critical information relating to the HK Parties that he needs to conduct his investigation and administer this case. The Court should issue appropriate sanctions necessary to compel the HK Parties to finally satisfy their document productions and comply with the orders of this Court in an expedited manner.\n\n15. Even if the Attorney Declaration could be construed as constituting compliance with the Order to Show Cause (it does not), sanctions are appropriate to compensate the Trustee for having to bring the motion for contempt and finally ensure compliance from the HK Parties. There is simply no excuse for the HK Parties' delays. As the Attorney Declaration concedes, counsel to the HK Parties remarkably did not even obtain access to certain limited electronic storage accounts, digital drives, or email account until February 20, 2023, nearly three weeks after the deadline under the Order Compelling Production. Under these circumstances, sanctions requiring the HK Parties to compensate the Trustee for his fees and expenses in moving to compel compliance with the orders of this Court are plainly appropriate.\n\nDated: March 6, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n等人， :\n:\n: 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 :\n: 联合审理\n\nx\n第 11 章受托人对 Lee Vartan, Esq.（李·瓦尔坦律师）反对受托人关于遵守第 2004 条规则传票及 2023 年 1 月 20 日裁定的说明理由令之声明的答辩\n\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）以在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）第 11 章案件中被指定的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）身份，就代表 Mei Guo（郭美）（“郭女士”）及 HK International Funds Investments and (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）（“HK USA”，与郭女士合称“HK 当事方”）提交的《Lee Vartan, Esq.（李·瓦尔坦律师）反对受托人关于遵守第 2004 条规则传票及 2023 年 1 月 20 日裁定的说明理由令之声明》[ECF No. 1512]（“律师声明”）提交本答辩（“答辩”）。为支持本答辩，受托人陈述如下：\n一、HK 当事方未能履行法院 2023 年 2 月 13 日的裁定\n\n1. HK 当事方提交的律师声明在程序上和实体上均存在缺陷，远远未达到遵守法院 2023 年 2 月 13 日《部分批准要求出庭并说明法院为何不应裁定 HK 当事方蔑视法庭的命令动议的裁定》[ECF No. 1455]（“说明理由令”）的要求。\n\n脚注 1：这些第 11 章案件中的债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和通信目的）。\n\nA. HK 当事方在表面上未能遵守文件提供义务及说明理由令中的声明要求\n\n2. HK 当事方的律师在其 2023 年 2 月 10 日的《延长遵守强制提供文件裁定之期限的动议》[ECF No. 1454 第 13 段]（“延期动议”）中表示，HK 当事方“将继续滚动提供文件[。]”同上，第 13 段。基于该陈述，法院在说明理由令中指出，其“期望 HK 当事方在持续进行的调解期间向受托人滚动提供文件。”说明理由令第 2 页。法院进一步指示，“在 2023 年 3 月 6 日下午 5:00 或之前，HK 当事方应在本案卷宗中提交一份宣誓声明，详细说明完全遵守强制提供文件裁定的情况，或者在未能完全遵守的情况下，详细描述为遵守该裁定所做出的努力。”同上，第 3 页。\n\n3. 尽管 HK 当事方承诺滚动提供文件且法院对此寄予期望，但在调解期间，受托人未收到任何一次文件提供。相反，昨晚 8 点之后，HK 当事方终于一共提供了 11 份文件，并提交了律师声明。因此，HK 当事方 (i) 未能兑现其在调解期间滚动提供文件的承诺，并且 (ii) 逾期提交了律师声明，比截止时间晚了三个小时。HK 当事方的怠于履职并非无关紧要：正如法院在说明理由令中指出的那样，各方必须能够就证据开示问题和遵守法院裁定的情况展开对话，以有效推进本案。HK 当事方的拖延行为已使这变得不可能。\n\n4. 律师声明同样存在缺陷，因为它是律师的声明，而不是 HK 当事方本人的声明。说明理由令明确要求由 HK 当事方、而非 Vartan（瓦尔坦）律师提交一份详细说明其遵守文件提供义务情况的声明。鉴于律师声明中关于郭女士所谓缺乏文件且无法获取相关信息的诸多令人难以置信的断言，这一区分至关重要。如果郭女士要主张（除其他事项外）：(i) 她从未与父亲进行过电子通信，(ii) 不使用即时通讯软件与家人交流，(iii) 无法访问自己的任何银行账户，以及 (iv) 在其占有、保管或控制下，响应受托人传票的额外文件总共只有 11 份，那么她需要在作伪证将受惩罚的前提下对这些断言进行证实——她不能依赖其律师代为证实。\n\n5. 最后，尽管说明理由令已明确要求两名 HK 当事方均须提交一份描述其履行文件提供义务情况的声明，但律师声明对于 HK USA 几乎只字未提。相反，律师声明仅侧重于郭女士在电子通信和文件留存方面的所谓生活经历和习惯。关于 HK USA 的文件制作与留存惯例，或者 HK USA 是否以及在多大程度上采取了措施来收集响应受托人传票的文件，均未提供任何信息。相应地，HK USA 未遵守说明理由令。脚注 2\n\nB. 律师声明未能充分说明郭女士遵守法院强制提供文件裁定的情况或其无法遵守的原因\n\n6. 即使假设 Vartan 律师的声明可以被视为符合说明理由令的要求（实则不应如此认定），该律师声明在说明郭女士遵守法院 2023 年 1 月 20 日裁定 [ECF No. 1353]（“强制提供文件裁定”）项下的文件提供义务方面，仍存在实体缺陷。原因有很多，以下列举部分示例。\n\n脚注 2：如果郭女士不了解 HK USA 的文件和记录，则必须由知晓或理解此类情况的个人提交一份可能符合法院命令要求的声明。郭女士显而易见的不知情，与其仅名义上拥有 HK USA、而该实体实际上由其父亲（即债务人）实益拥有和控制的事实是一致的。\n\n7. 律师声明未说明郭女士可能占有哪些电子文件。律师声明对处于郭女士保管、占有或控制之下的电子设备的数量和类型一字未提。因此，受托人只能推测郭美是否可以使用可能包含响应文件的电脑、其他手机、平板电脑或其他移动设备。\n\n8. 律师声明没有描述充分的电子邮件检索。律师声明指出郭女士“目前”保有三个电子邮件地址 [律师声明第 28 段（强调为后加）]，但并未披露她在不久前保有了多少个电子邮件地址；她是否仍能访问这些账户；以及是否有人对这些账户进行过检索。律师声明进一步指出，郭女士仅将电子通信用于“有限且特定”的目的——但是，这同样没有解释这些目的是什么，以及它们是否与传票相关。同上，第 27 段。同样，律师声称他在 2022 年 2 月 20 日获得了对一个电子邮件账户的“不受限制的访问权”以运行检索词，但律师未就为确保文件或信息未被删除或销毁而采取的任何行动作出任何陈述。同上，第 30 段。\n\n9. 此外，律师据称所采用的检索词显得极其不足。根据受托人的初步审查，仅举几例：\n\n• 对债务人和 Qiang Guo（郭强）的检索仅包含全名，这意味着发给“dad”（爸爸）或“Miles”或“Qiang”（强）的简单信息不太可能被识别为“符合要求的”。事实上，检索中没有一个人是以少于两个字的名字被包含进去的。同上，第 31 段。\n\n• 同样，对“ACA”的提及很可能会被忽略，仅仅是因为“ACA Investment Management Limited”（ACA投资管理有限公司）和“ACA Capital Group Limited”（ACA资本集团有限公司）是债务人用于转移资金的全名空壳实体。同上。检索词中的其他法律实体也是如此。\n\n• 涉及代表债务人工作的密友和顾问（例如“Yvette Wang”（王雁平））的文件，不应如此单方面地限制为仅在两个名字都被识别时才算命中，因为郭女士完全可能仅用一个名字来指代这些人。同上。\n\n10. 关于郭美所谓的记录留存及与家人通信方式的描述含糊不清且令人难以置信。律师声明指出郭女士“通常”不在 WhatsApp 和 Telegram 上与家人交流，但未能 (i) 说明郭美与家人在 WhatsApp 和 Telegram 上实际存在的通信数量，或 (ii) 解释为何未对这些通信进行检索。同上，第 34 段。同样，律师声明没有提供任何关于郭女士是否与非家庭成员（例如律师声明第 31 段列出的人员）进行过相关的 WhatsApp 或 Telegram 通信的信息。同上。\n\n11. 律师声明未提供关于检索了哪些纸质文件的详细信息。虽然律师声明指出郭美检索了她的“纸质记录”以寻找响应信息，但并未提供关于此类记录包含什么以及如何对其进行检索的任何信息。同上，第 36 段。根据律师声明中含糊的结论，律师是否监督了这次所谓的纸质记录检索、检索在何处进行以及郭美是如何执行检索的，仍不清楚。\n\n12. 律师声明对郭女士获取银行账户记录途径的描述既不可信也不完整。引人注目的是，律师声明指出郭女士目前无法访问自己的任何一个银行账户。她声称自己过去开设的三个账户已被关闭，并且她不再能够获取对账单或其他文件。同上，第 38 段。她进一步声称，尽管她在 Bank of China（中国银行）拥有一个账户，但她无法访问该账户，因为她没有电子访问权限，且出于对自己安全的担忧而拒绝前往网点分行。同上。这些断言既令人难以置信，又极不足以证明郭女士已尽一切合理努力来获取其银行记录。如果她确实无法访问现已关闭的账户，她需要向受托人提供账号，以便受托人可以向银行调取记录。至于中国银行的账户，郭女士没有任何途径访问该账户的说法是不可信的。如果她目前没有电子访问权限，她应该提出申请。如果她不想亲自前往分行，她应该派律师或其他指定代表代其前往。简而言之，显然有办法让郭女士获取其银行账户信息，而她未能做到这一点构成了对强制提供文件裁定的不遵守。\n\n13. 《律师声明》并未论及 Guo 女士（郭女士）为识别由其保管或控制但由其他个人或实体占有的文件所采取的任何步骤。《强制提供命令》要求郭女士及 HK USA 提供其保管或控制范围内的应答文件，“包括但不限于其现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问的档案中的文件，除非该等文件此前已提供……但无需考虑其现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问未来可能进行的任何提供。”《强制提供命令》第 6 页。《律师声明》完全没有论及郭女士或 HK USA 为识别和收集其现任和前任律师及其他顾问档案中的应答文件所作出的任何努力。因此，《律师声明》存在缺陷。\n\nII. 给予制裁既适于强制遵守命令，也适于补偿受托人迄今所产生的费用\n\n14. 基于上述所有理由，HK 方显然未能遵守《说明理由令》。其结果是，在最初送达传票近七个月后，受托人仍无法获取开展调查和管理本案所需的与 HK 方有关的关键信息。法院应当作出必要的适当制裁，以强制 HK 方以加急方式最终完成其文件提供并遵守本法院的命令。\n\n15. 即使《律师声明》可被解释为构成对《说明理由令》的遵守（事实并非如此），给予制裁对于补偿受托人因不得不提出民事藐视法庭动议并最终确保 HK 方予以遵守而产生的费用也是适当的。HK 方的拖延绝无任何借口。正如《律师声明》所承认的那样，令人震惊的是，HK 方的律师直到 2023年2月20日（比《强制提供命令》规定的截止日期晚了近三周）才获得对某些有限的电子存储账户、数字驱动器或电子邮件账户的访问权限。在此种情况下，要求 HK 方补偿受托人因提出动议以强制其遵守本法院命令而产生的律师费和费用的制裁，显然是适当的。\n\n日期：2023年3月6日\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文（New Haven, Connecticut）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（经特许出庭许可出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（经特许出庭许可出庭）\nDouglass Barron（经特许出庭许可出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人之代理律师","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1353,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1454,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1455,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1512,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2364,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:13:59"}