{"id":"court_ctb_1805_30","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1805,"sub_number":30,"doc_type":"SUBPOENA","filed_date":"2023-05-18","title":"Exhibit D-3 ![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **Exhibit D-3**\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\nPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 31 West 52nd Street | New York, NY 10019-6131 | tel 212.858.1000 | fax 212.858.1500\n\n22\n\nCarolina A. Fornos tel: +1.212.858.1558 carolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\nJanuary 9, 2023\n\n# **VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL**\n\nMr. Patrick R. Linsey Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nMr. Avram E. Luft Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\nMr. Jonathon Kosciewicz Paul Hastings LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606 jonathonkosciewicz@paulhastings.com\n\n# Re: *In re Ho Wan Kwok Bankruptcy* Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination to G Club US Operations LLC U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Connecticut, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDear Counsel:\n\nOn behalf of G Club Operations LLC (\"G Club\"), enclosed please find G Club's Responses and Objections to the Trustee's subpoena for a Rule 2004 Examination (\"Rule 2004\"). We are available to meet and confer regarding same.\n\nG Club expressly reserves all rights and waives none.\n\nVery truly yours,\n\nCarolina A. Fornos\n\n## **IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*,\n\nDebtors.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n## **G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS**\n\nPursuant to Rules 26, 34 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable here by Rules 7026, 7034 and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and pursuant to the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for the District of Connecticut (the \"**Local Rules**\"), non-party G Club Operations LLC (\"**G Club**\") hereby responds and objects to the Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination of G Club (the \"**Subpoena**\") and Requests for Production of Documents (the \"**Requests**\") issued by Luc Despins, in his capacity as chapter 11 trustee of the abovecaptioned Debtors' estate (the \"**Trustee**\"). As discovery in this matter is ongoing, G Club reserves the right to amend, change or supplement its responses. G Club is willing and prepared to meet and confer with the Trustee in an effort to narrow or eliminate these objections.\n\n## **G CLUB'S GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\nG Club hereby asserts the following General Objections on Scope or Form and Reservation of Rights (\"**General Objections**\") to the Trustee's Requests, which are incorporated in and made a part of each specific response set forth below. The assertion of the same, similar, or additional objections in the specific response to these Requests does not waive, limit or modify any of G Club's General Objections. G Club has undertaken good-faith and reasonable efforts to explain the specific factual or legal reasoning for each General Objection and is willing to meet and confer to discuss them.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 4 of 22\n\n1. G Clubs objects to each Request as overbroad, not proportional, unduly burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, because each Request assumes relation or affiliation with the Debtor and more than 60 identified and unidentified entities with *non-party* G Club. All the Requests seek documents or information that are not proportional to the needs of the case, at least in part, because the documents or information should be available from others, including entities under the Trustee's control. <sup>1</sup> *See* Local Rule 2004-1(a). *See* Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); (b)(2)(C)(i); (g)(1)(B)(iii); *Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.*, 281 F.R.D. 85, 96 (D. Conn. 2012) (refraining to order broad and costly search because plaintiff failed to show that it \"either cannot obtain – or in fact *has not* obtained – ample discovery on the essential of her claim[s]\" without subpoenaing a third-party); *Breaking Media, Inc. v. Jowers*, Civ. 1:21-mc-00194-KPF, 2021 WL 1299108, at \\*5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021) (finding, among other things, that the subpoena was burdensome and respondent failed to establish that it could not reasonably obtain information from other available sources). The Requests further exceed the scope of Rule 2004.\n\n2. G Club further objects to each Request as overbroad, not proportional, unduly burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, because they request a single non-party to produce, for example, ten years of documents (February 5, 2012 – present) from persons and entities that are vaguely and ubiquitously defined (*see* below objections to definitions). The Trustee includes \"Associated Individuals\" and \"Associated Entities\" (including their affiliates) within the definitions of the \"Debtor's Son,\" \"Debtor's Daughter,\" \"Debtor's Purported Wife,\" \"Debtor's Family,\" which includes but is not limited to their alleged respective employees, agents,\n\n<sup>1</sup> Pursuant to the Court's Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 1505, (A) Confirming that Chapter 11 Trustee Holders all of the Debtor's Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country On Behalf Of Estate, (C) Granting Related Relief (Doc. No. 717), the Trustee effectively controls the entities or individuals which presumably would have documents responsive to the Requests.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 5 of 22\n\ncounsel, advisors, or \"anyone\" acting on their behalf. The breadth of these definitions renders it impossible to know the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the Requests. *See* Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); (b)(2)(C)(i); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B)(iii).\n\n3. G Club objects to each Request that calls for \"all\" documents as unduly burdensome and overbroad because requests for \"all documents\" are inconsistent with G Club's discovery obligations – which are limited by principles of reasonableness and proportionality – and such requests do not align with the mandate of specificity of Rule 34. *See Lutes v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA*, Civ. No. 3:10CV1549 (WWE), 2014 WL 718546, at \\*7-8 (D. Conn. Dec. 16, 2014) (\"All documents regarding any warnings, instructions, restrictions, or other limitations related to the hazards of tow line or rope or safe handling or storage issues . . . is overbroad in both substantive and temporal scope . . . .\"); *Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. Rice Derivative Holdings, L.P.*, No. 00 Civ. 5056 (RO), 2001 WL 1135620, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2001) (plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents by non-party denied as subpoena contained \"non-specific, overbroad production requests\").\n\n4. G Club objects to each Request that calls for identification of documents or information subject to or protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, any other applicable privileges or doctrines limiting discovery, and any applicable law or regulations. G Club does not intend to waive any privileges or claims of confidentiality associated with documents or information that are produced in response to the Subpoena. *See In re von Bulow*, 828 F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1987) (the attorney-client privilege \"belongs solely to the client, and may only be waived by [the client]. . . .\").\n\n5. G Club objects to each Request insofar as the Requests require G Club to comply with the Subpoena beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c)(2).\n\n3\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 6 of 22\n\n6. Much of the information sought in the Requests is highly confidential and proprietary and consists of valuable commercial information, trade secrets, or business confidential materials, the disclosure of which would be highly prejudicial to G Club and the value of which cannot be calculated. G Club objects to each Request that seeks documents or information that are protected as trade secrets by applicable law or include proprietary or confidential commercial information. To the extent such documents or information are discoverable, production will be made pursuant to the confidentiality provisions of a Confidentiality or Protective Order applicable to this action and acceptable to G Club. *See Uniroyal Chem. Co. Inc. v. Syngenta Crop. Protection*, 224 F.R.D. 53, 56-58 (D. Conn. 2004) (granting protective order and limiting disclosure of proprietary information to counsel).\n\n7. G Club objects to each Request to the extent it seeks discovery of information that only tangentially implicates the Debtor without regard to relevance and proportionality. G Club further objects to each Request that is inconsistent with or enlarges the scope of permissible discovery under applicable law, including, but not limited to, the proportional scope of discovery mandated by the Federal and Local Rules, and the specificity requirements of Rule 34 and mandates of Rule 45(d)(1), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7034 and 9016.\n\n8. G Club objects to each Request to the extent it seeks documents or information not within G Club's possession, custody, or control. *See* Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). G Club also objects to each Request that seeks documents or information not kept by G Club in the ordinary course of business. *See* Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(1)(A). G Club has no obligation to create documents or information that do not exist simply for the purposes of discovery. *See, e.g.*, *Boudreau v. Smith*, Case No. 3:17-cv-589 (SRU), 2020 WL 532321, at 3 (D. Conn. Feb. 3, 2020) (finding that court cannot compel \"documents that do not exist.\"); *A & R Body Specialty and Collision Works, Inc. v.*\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 7 of 22\n\n*Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.*, Civ. No. 3:07CV929 (WWE), 2014 WL 5859024, at \\*6 (D. Conn. Nov. 10, 2014) (\"As a general rule, non-parties are not required to create documents that do not exist, simply for the purposes of discovery\") (quoting *Gonzales v. Google, Inc.*, 234 F.R.D. 674, 683 (N.D. Cal. 2006)).\n\n9. Any response to a Request that indicates that non-privileged documents will be produced is in no way to be construed as a representation that such documents exist, that the Request seeks Documents and Communications within the scope of Rule 2004, or as an admission of any legal or factual contention contained in any Request.\n\n10. G Club does not waive or intend to waive, by reason of its Responses and Objections to the Subpoena, its right to:\n\na) revise, amend or supplement these Responses and Objections;\n\nb) object on any ground to the use of documents or information produced in response to the Subpoena for any purpose, in whole or in part, in this or any other proceeding, action, or matter;\n\nc) object on any ground, at any time, to other discovery procedures or the Subpoena;\n\nd) object on the grounds of admissibility of any documents or information produced in response to the Subpoena; and\n\ne) file any appropriate motions with the court.\n\n11. In addition, to the extent that objections are resolved via a meet and confer, G Club will not produce any documents until a protective order is entered into by the parties and so ordered by the Court.\n\n## **OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS**\n\nG Club objects to any \"definition\" that attempts to expand or alter its obligations in responding to discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**You**\" or \"**Your**\" or \"**Yourself**\" to the extent that it seeks information beyond G Club.\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Debtor**\" because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and that it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the definition because, among other things, the definition includes vague and ubiquitous qualifiers.\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Debtor' Son**\" because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and that it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the definition because, among other things, the definition includes vague and ubiquitous qualifiers.\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Debtor's Daughter**\" because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and that it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the definition because, among other things, the definition includes vague and ubiquitous qualifiers.\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Debtor's Purported Wife**\" because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and that it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the definition because, among other things, the definition includes vague and ubiquitous qualifiers.\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Debtor's Family**\" because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and that it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the definition because, among other things, the definition includes vague and ubiquitous qualifiers.\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Associated Individuals**\" because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and that it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the definition because, among other things, the definition includes vague and ubiquitous qualifiers.\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Associated Entities**\" because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and that it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the definition, including affiliates of the Associated Entities because, among other things, the definition includes vague and ubiquitous qualifiers.\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Regarding**\" because it is vague, overbroad and ambiguous as to the terms \"supporting, favoring, opposing, bolstering, detracting from, located in, considered in connection with . . . .\"\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Communication(s)**\" because it is vague, overbroad and ambiguous as to the phrase \"internally or with third parties.\"\n\nG Club objects to the definition \"**Asset(s)**\" because it is vague, overbroad and ambiguous as to the phrase \"any item that can be used to produce positive economic value.\"\n\n#### **OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nG Club objects to any \"instruction\" that attempts to expand or alter its obligations in responding to discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\nG Club objects to **Instruction No. 2** as overbroad, disproportionate and burdensome insofar as it seeks all documents in its \"possession, custody, or control\" or \"in the possession, custody, or control of anyone acting on [G Club's] behalf including [G Club's] counsel or other representatives and advisors,\" and \"[e]ach Document shall be produced in its entirety.\" G Club will only produce, once objections are resolved, either by agreement or a final court order, nonprivileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that can be located after a good faith and reasonable search and with reasonable diligence.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 10 of 22\n\nG Club objects to **Instruction No. 6** as overbroad, disproportionate and burdensome insofar as it seeks information beyond that required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Local Rules, and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence about documents that are no longer within G Club's custody and control.\n\nG Club objects to **Instruction No. 8** as overbroad, disproportionate and burdensome insofar as it seeks to impose on G Club obligations to identify \"each Person who received or saw the original or any draft, copy, or reproduction of the [privileged information]\" and \"whether [the privileged information] itself, or any information contained or referred to in the [privileged information] is in the possession, custody, or control of any other Persons, and if so, the identity of such Persons, as well as a statement addressing how the information came into their possession.\"\n\nG Club objects to **Instruction No. 10** as incomplete, disproportionate and overbroad insofar as it seeks supplemental information beyond that required by Rule 26(e) and the Local Rules.\n\nG Club objects to **Instruction No. 12** as overbroad, disproportionate and burdensome insofar as \"all references to Entities includes all affiliates thereof\" when it is not possible to know all of the entities and affiliates that the Trustee purports to include within the term \"Entities.\"\n\nG Club objects to **Instruction No. 14** as overbroad, disproportionate and burdensome insofar as it seeks information from February 5, 2012 to present, in excess of ten years with no effort to tailor the Requests to be proportional in nature..\n\n# **OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1:**\n\nAll Documents regarding any income or Asset of the Debtor, the Debtor's estate, or an Associated Entity.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 1 on each of the grounds stated in its General Objections, Objections to Definitions and Objections to Instructions (collectively, the \"**Overarching Objections**\"), which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 1 as overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 2:**\n\nAll Documents related to the Debtor's financial condition and obligations to his creditors, including without limitation all Documents related to any effort to avoid paying such obligations and All Documents related to this or any other actual or potential bankruptcy or similar insolvency proceeding.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 2 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club also objects to Request No. 2 because it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrases \"All Documents related to the Debtor's . . . obligations to his creditors\"; \"any efforts to avoid paying such obligations\"; \"the Debtor's financial condition\"; and \"any other actual or potential bankruptcy or similar insolvency proceeding.\"\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 3:**\n\nAll Documents regarding any balance sheet, bank statement, account statement, financial statement, statement of account, wire transfer instructions and/or confirmation, proof of funds, certificate of deposit, certificate of holdings, investment portfolio summary, or similar document relating to the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, an Associated Entity, or an Associated Individual, including without limitation all Documents sufficient to show all Transfers to any of the foregoing.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 3 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 3 as overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 3 because it is vague and ambiguous to the extent it seeks \"all Documents sufficient to show all Transfers to any of the foregoing.\"\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 3 insofar as it seeks information that is publicly available.\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 4:**\n\nAll Documents regarding any investment, business dealing or transactions made by, with, or on behalf of the Debtor.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 4 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 4 because it is vague, overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks \"all Documents regarding any investment, business dealing or transactions made by, with, or on behalf of the Debtor.\"\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 4 insofar as it seeks information that is publicly available.\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 5:**\n\nAll Communications with the Debtor, and Documents related to Communications with the Debtor, related to the operation, management, or decision-making of any Entity, including without limitation the Associated Entities.\n\n10\n\n## **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 5 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 5 as vague, overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome to the extent that the request seeks all documents and communication with the Debtor \"related to the operation, management, or decision-making of any Entity, including without limitation the Associated Entities.\"\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 6:**\n\nAll Documents regarding any Transfer, investment, or other transaction or business dealing made to, by, or with the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or an Associated Entity.\n\n## **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 6 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 6 as overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 6 because it is duplicative of Request No. 4 to the extent it seeks documents relating to G Club and the Debtor's business dealings and transactions made to, by, or with the Debtor.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 6 because it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the phrase \"other transaction.\"\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 7:**\n\nAll Documents regarding any property ever occupied or used by the Debtor, including without limitation the *Lady May*; the Sherry Netherland Hotel / Condominium; the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 373 Taconic Rd.; the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 33 Ferncliff Rd.; and the residential property located in Wilton, Connecticut at 354 Nod Hill Rd.\n\n## **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 7 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 7 as overbroad and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 7 because it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase \"All Documents regarding any property ever occupied or used by the Debtor . . . .\"\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 8:**\n\nAll Documents related to any investments or trading by the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or an Associated Entity, in or around July 2020, or at any other time, in crude oil futures or any similar commodity, including without limitation Communications with Jiang Yunfu Be regarding any such investments or trading.\n\n## **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 8 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 8 as overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club also objects to Request No. 8 because it vague and ambiguous as to the phrase \"All Documents related to any investments or trading . . . in or around July 2020 or at any other time, in crude oil futures or any similar commodity . . . .\"\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 9:**\n\nAll Documents related to any aircraft owned, controlled, or used by the Debtor, including without limitation the aircraft bearing tail number T7-GQM and any other aircraft registered in San Marino, including without limitation copies of all registration documents and flight manifests showing flights taken by such aircraft and the individuals onboard such flights.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 9:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 9 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\n12\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 15 of 22\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 9 as overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\nSubject to and without waiving any objections, G Club states that it is not in the business of procuring aircraft or otherwise managing aircraft.\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 10:**\n\nAll Documents regarding any gifts, benefits or loans, to, from or on behalf of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or the Associated Entities, including without limitation Documents sufficient to show the amounts of such gifts, benefits, or loans; the purposes for which such gifts, benefits, or loans were used; when the gifts, benefits, or loans were provided; and the terms of any loans, all representations and warranties made in connection with any loans, the interest rate on any loans, and all evidence of payments of any loans.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 10:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 10 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 10 because it is vague, disproportionate, overbroad, and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks \"All Documents regarding any gifts, benefits or loans, to, from or on behalf of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or the Associated Entities . . . .\" Compliance with this request would require G Club to search for and collect and produce \"all\" documents regarding any of the items listed in the request from the Debtor's Family when it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the such definition, and from an Associated Entity, which is defined to include more than sixty (60) entities plus their affiliates (per Instruction No. 12).\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 11:**\n\nAll Documents concerning any trust or similar instrument set up by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or an Associated Entity,\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 16 of 22\n\nincluding without limitation Documents sufficient to show when the trust(s) was created, by whom it was created, for whose benefit it was created, and the corpus of the trust.\n\n## **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 11:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 11 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 11 because it is vague, overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks \"All Documents concerning any trust or similar instrument set up by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or an Associated Entity . . . .\" Compliance with this request would require G Club to search for and collect and produce \"all\" documents regarding any of the items listed in the request from the Debtor's Family when it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within such definition, and from an Associated Entity, which is defined to include more than sixty (60) entities plus their affiliates (per Instruction No. 12).\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 12:**\n\nAll Documents related to any obligation, claim, liability, or debt associated with any legal dispute involving the Debtor, including but not limited to those relating to any litigation before any local, state, federal, or international body, whether an administrative body, court, panel, or alternative dispute resolution entity.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 12:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 12 on each of the grounds stated in its General Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 12 because it is vague, overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks \"All Documents related to any obligation, claim, liability, or debt associated with any legal dispute involving the Debtor . . . [including] any litigation before any local, state, federal, or international body, whether an administrative body, court, panel, or alternative dispute resolution entity.\" Compliance with this request would require\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 17 of 22\n\nG Club to search for and collect and produce \"all\" documents regarding any of the items listed in the request from the Debtor when it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within such definition.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 12 insofar as it seeks information that is publicly available.\n\n## **REQUEST NO. 13:**\n\nAll Documents and communications between any of your outside counsel or other advisors and the Debtor.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 13:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 13 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club also objects to Request No. 13 it is vague, overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 13 because it exceeds the scope of Rule 2004.\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 14:**\n\nDocuments sufficient to show all of Your Assets and sources of income or funding.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 14:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 14 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club also objects to Request No. 14 because it is overly broad, vague, disproportionate and ambiguous.\n\nG Club also objects to Request No. 14 because it is beyond the scope of a Rule 2004 request to ask all \"[d]ocuments 'sufficient to show all Your [non-party G Club's] Assets and sources of income and funding\").\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 14 because it exceeds the scope of Rule 2004.\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 15:**\n\nFor all Assets identified in response to Request 14 having a value of more than \\$50,000, all (i) Documents related to Your acquisition of such Asset and (ii) Communications with the Debtor or the Debtor's Family regarding such Asset.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 15:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 15 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club also objects to Request No. 15 because it is overly broad, disproportionate, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 15 to the extent production of \"Asset\" includes the phrase \"any item that can be used to produce positive economic value\" and \"Communications with the Debtor or the Debtor's Family regarding such Asset\" when it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within the definitions of \"Debtor\" or \"Debtor's Family.\"\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 15 because it exceeds the scope of Rule 2004.\n\n## **REQUEST NO. 16:**\n\nCopies of Your tax returns.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 16:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 16 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 16 because it exceeds the scope of Rule 2004 and thus is not discoverable in the Debtor's chapter 11 case.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 16 because it is overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 16 because it exceeds the scope of Rule 2004.\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 17:**\n\nDocuments sufficient to show all bank accounts and investment accounts within Your possession or control, including the balances of and transfers to and from each such account.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 17:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 17 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 17 as overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 17 because it exceeds the scope of Rule 2004 and thus is not discoverable in the Debtor's chapter 11 case.\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 18:**\n\nAll Documents regarding any credit cards used by You, including without limitation monthly statements or other procurements sufficient to show all purchases related thereto for the benefit of the Debtor or an Associated Entity.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 18:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 18 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 18 as overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 18 because it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term \"any pledge(s)\" of its assets to any other entity.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 18 because it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase \"All Documents . . . or monthly statements or other procurements 'sufficient to show' all purchases related thereto for the benefit of the Debtor or an Associated Entity.\" Based on the\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 20 of 22\n\ndefinitions of \"Debtor\" and \"Associated Entities,\" it is not possible to know all of the persons and entities that the Trustee purports to include within each definition.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 18 because it exceeds the scope of Rule 2004.\n\n#### **REQUEST NO. 19:**\n\nAll corporate governance and organizational Documents, including without limitation bylaws and certificates of incorporation and other Documents sufficient to show Your corporate structure, names of officers and directors, business purpose, and relationship to the Debtor or to any member of the Debtor's Family.\n\n## **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 19:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 19 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 19 as overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 19 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase \"other Documents . . . sufficient to show [its] . . . relationship to the Debtor or to any member of the Debtor's Family.\"\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 19 insofar as it is duplicative of Request No. 4.\n\n## **REQUEST NO. 20:**\n\nAll Documents related to any pledge(s) of Your Assets to any other Entity.\n\n#### **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 20:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 20 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 20 as neither relevant to, nor discoverable in, the Debtor's chapter 11 case.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 20 as overbroad, disproportionate and unduly burdensome.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1805-30 Filed 05/18/23 Entered 05/18/23 23:05:44 Page 21 of 22\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 20 because it is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term \"any pledge(s)\" of its assets to any other entity.\n\nG Club further objects to Request No. 20 because it exceeds the scope of Rule 2004.\n\n## **REQUEST NO. 21:**\n\nAll Documents related to Transfer(s) you made in January 2015 to Bravo Luck Limited in the approximate amount of \\$520 million.\n\n## **RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 21:**\n\nG Club objects to Request No. 21 on each of the grounds stated in its Overarching Objections, which are incorporated by reference herein.\n\nDated: January 9, 2023 New York, New York\n\n> By: */s/ Carolina A. Fornos*  PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Carolina A. Fornos 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-858-1558 carolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\n*Attorney for G Club Operations LLC*\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on January 9, 2023, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be served via\n\nFirst Class Mail to the addresses listed below. In addition, courtesy copies were sent via email to\n\nthe email addresses listed below.\n\nMr. Patrick R. Linsey Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nMr. Avram E. Luft Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\nMr. Jonathon Kosciewicz Paul Hastings LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606 jonathonkosciewicz@paulhastings.com\n\n> */s/Carolina A. Fornos* Carolina A. Fornos","body_zh":"附件 D-3\n\nPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP（Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 有限责任合伙律师事务所） 31 West 52nd Street　New York, NY 10019-6131　电话 212.858.1000　传真 212.858.1500\nCarolina A. Fornos（卡罗琳娜·A·福诺斯）电话：+1.212.858.1558 carolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\nJanuary 9, 2023\n通过电子邮件及一级邮件送达\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）先生 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 专业公司） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nAvram E. Luft（艾弗拉姆·E·卢夫特）先生 Paul Hastings LLP（Paul Hastings 有限责任合伙律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\nJonathon Kosciewicz（乔纳森·科西维奇）先生 Paul Hastings LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606 jonathonkosciewicz@paulhastings.com\n事由：In re Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产案——向 G Club US Operations LLC 发出的 Rule 2004 审查传票 美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院，案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n尊敬的律师：\n\n代表 G Club Operations LLC（“G Club”），随函附上 G Club 对受托人为进行 Rule 2004 审查（“Rule 2004”）而发出的传票所作的答复及异议。我们可就此进行会谈协商。\n\nG Club 明确保留所有权利，且不放弃任何权利。\n\n谨致，\n\nCarolina A. Fornos\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并管理）\nG CLUB OPERATIONS LLC 对要求出示文件传票的答复及异议\n\n根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 26、34 及 45 条（经《联邦破产程序规则》第 7026、7034 及 9016 条适用于本案），以及根据《康涅狄格州地区破产程序地方法规》（“地方法规”），非当事人 G Club Operations LLC（“G Club”）特此就 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）以其作为上述债务人财产第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）的身份发出的针对 G Club 的 Rule 2004 审查传票（“传票”）及文件出示请求（“请求”）作出答复并提出异议。鉴于本案中的证据开示仍在进行，G Club 保留修改、变更或补充其答复的权利。G Club 愿意并准备与受托人进行会谈协商，以缩小或消除这些异议。\n\nG CLUB 的一般异议及权利保留\n\nG Club 特此对受托人的请求提出以下关于范围或形式的一般异议及权利保留（“一般异议”）；该等异议纳入并构成下文所列各项具体答复的一部分。在对该等请求的具体答复中提出相同、类似或额外的异议，并不放弃、限制或修改 G Club 的任何一般异议。G Club 已本着善意并作出合理努力，说明每项一般异议的具体事实或法律依据，并愿意进行会谈协商以讨论该等异议。\n案号 22-50073 文件 1805-30 于 05/18/23 提交 于 05/18/23 23:05:44 登记 第 4 页，共 22 页\n\n1. G Club 对每项请求提出异议，理由是每项请求均过于宽泛、不符合比例原则、造成不当负担、具有压迫性、含糊且不明确，因为每项请求均假定债务人与非当事人 G Club 之间存在关系或关联，且涉及 60 多个已识别和未识别的实体。所有请求均寻求不符合本案需要比例的文件或信息，至少部分原因在于，该等文件或信息应可从其他方获得，包括受托人控制下的实体。1 参见地方法规 2004-1(a)。参见 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); (b)(2)(C)(i); (g)(1)(B)(iii); Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 281 F.R.D. 85, 96 (D. Conn. 2012)（因原告未能证明其在未向第三方发出传票的情况下“无法获得——或事实上尚未获得——其请求权核心事项的充分证据开示”，故未下令进行宽泛且成本高昂的搜索）；Breaking Media, Inc. v. Jowers, Civ. 1:21-mc-00194-KPF, 2021 WL 1299108, at 5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021)（认定传票具有负担性，以及答复方未能证明其无法从其他可用来源合理获得信息等）。该等请求还超出了 Rule 2004 的范围。\n\n2. G Club 进一步对每项请求提出异议，理由是其过于宽泛、不符合比例原则、造成不当负担、具有压迫性、含糊且不明确，因为其要求单一非当事人出示例如十年的文件（February 5, 2012 – present），而该等文件来自定义模糊且无所不包的个人及实体（参见下文对定义的异议）。受托人在“债务人之子”“债务人之女”“债务人所谓妻子”“债务人家庭”的定义中纳入“关联个人”和“关联实体”（包括其关联方），其中包括但不限于据称分别受雇于其的雇员、代理人、\n\n1 根据法院作出的《根据〈破产法〉第 363、521、541、1108 和 1505 条作出的命令：(A) 确认第 11 章受托人持有债务人在债务人控制实体中的全部经济权利及公司治理权利，(B) 授权第 11 章受托人代表财产在任何外国行事，(C) 准予相关救济》（文件编号 717），受托人实际上控制着推定会持有对该等请求作出回应的文件的实体或个人。\n案号 22-50073 文件 1805-30 于 05/18/23 提交 于 05/18/23 23:05:44 登记 第 5 页，共 22 页\n\n律师、顾问，或代表其行事的“任何人”。该等定义的宽泛性使人无法知晓受托人声称纳入请求范围内的个人和实体。参见 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); (b)(2)(C)(i); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B)(iii)。\n\n3. G Club 对要求提供“所有”文件的每项请求提出异议，理由是其造成不当负担且过于宽泛，因为对“所有文件”的请求与 G Club 的证据开示义务不一致——该等义务受合理性和比例原则限制——且该等请求不符合 Rule 34 的具体性要求。参见 Lutes v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA, Civ. No. 3:10CV1549 (WWE), 2014 WL 718546, at 7-8 (D. Conn. Dec. 16, 2014)（“有关拖曳线或绳索危害，或安全操作或存放问题的任何警告、说明、限制或其他局限的所有文件……在实质和时间范围上均过于宽泛……”）；Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. Rice Derivative Holdings, L.P., No. 00 Civ. 5056 (RO), 2001 WL 1135620, at 4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2001)（因传票载有“非具体、过于宽泛的出示请求”，驳回原告要求非当事人出示文件的强制动议）。\n\n4. G Club 对要求识别受律师—当事人特权、工作成果原则、任何其他适用的限制证据开示的特权或原则，以及任何适用法律或法规约束或保护的文件或信息的每项请求提出异议。G Club 无意放弃与为回应传票而出示的文件或信息有关的任何特权或保密主张。参见 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1987)（律师—当事人特权“仅属于客户，且只能由[客户]放弃……”。）。\n\n5. 就请求要求 G Club 在超出 Rule 45(c)(2) 规定的地域限制范围内遵守传票而言，G Club 对每项请求提出异议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1805-30 于 05/18/23 提交 于 05/18/23 23:05:44 登记 第 6 页，共 22 页\n\n6. 请求所寻求的大量信息具有高度保密性和专有性，并包含有价值的商业信息、商业秘密或商业保密材料，披露该等信息将对 G Club 造成重大不利影响，且其价值无法计算。G Club 对寻求受适用法律作为商业秘密保护，或包含专有或保密商业信息的文件或信息的每项请求提出异议。在该等文件或信息可予证据开示的范围内，将根据适用于本案且 G Club 可接受的保密令或保护令的保密条款予以出示。参见 Uniroyal Chem. Co. Inc. v. Syngenta Crop. Protection, 224 F.R.D. 53, 56-58 (D. Conn. 2004)（作出保护令并将专有信息的披露限制于律师）。\n\n7. 就每项请求在未考虑相关性和比例原则的情况下寻求仅与债务人具有间接关联的信息的范围内，G Club 提出异议。G Club 还对任何不符合或扩大适用法律下允许的证据开示范围的请求提出异议，包括但不限于《联邦规则》和地方法规规定的合比例证据开示范围，以及经 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7034 和 9016 适用的 Rule 34 的具体性要求和 Rule 45(d)(1) 的规定。\n\n8. 就每项请求寻求不在 G Club 占有、保管或控制之下的文件或信息的范围内，G Club 提出异议。参见 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii)。G Club 还对寻求非由 G Club 在日常业务过程中保存的文件或信息的每项请求提出异议。参见 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(1)(A)。G Club 没有义务仅为证据开示之目的而制作并不存在的文件或信息。参见，例如，Boudreau v. Smith, Case No. 3:17-cv-589 (SRU), 2020 WL 532321, at 3 (D. Conn. Feb. 3, 2020)（认定法院不能强制提供“并不存在的文件”）；A & R Body Specialty and Collision Works, Inc. v.\n案号 22-50073 文件 1805-30 于 05/18/23 提交 于 05/18/23 23:05:44 登记 第 7 页，共 22 页\n\nProgressive Cas. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 3:07CV929 (WWE), 2014 WL 5859024, at 6 (D. Conn. Nov. 10, 2014)（“作为一般规则，非当事人无需仅为证据开示之目的制作并不存在的文件”）（引自 Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 683 (N.D. Cal. 2006)）。\n\n9. 对某项请求作出的任何表明将出示非特权文件的答复，绝不应被解释为表示该等文件存在、该请求寻求属于 Rule 2004 范围内的文件和通信，或承认任何请求中包含的任何法律或事实主张。\n\n10. G Club 不因其对传票作出的答复及异议而放弃，或无意放弃其以下权利：\n\na) 修订、修改或补充本答复及异议；\n\nb) 在本案或任何其他程序、诉讼或事项中，就全部或部分为回应传票而出示的文件或信息用于任何目的提出任何理由的异议；\n\nc) 在任何时候就其他证据开示程序或传票提出任何理由的异议；\n\nd) 以为回应传票而出示的任何文件或信息的可采性为由提出异议；以及\n\ne) 向法院提出任何适当动议。\n\n11. 此外，如通过会谈协商解决异议，G Club 在当事人达成保护令并经法院作出命令前，不会出示任何文件。\n\n对定义的异议\n\nG Club 对任何试图扩大或改变其根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》回应证据开示义务的“定义”提出异议。\n\n就“You”“Your”或“Yourself”的定义寻求超出 G Club 范围的信息而言，G Club 提出异议。\n\nG Club 对“Debtor”的定义提出异议，理由是该定义含糊、过于宽泛、造成不当负担，且无法知晓受托人声称纳入该定义的所有个人和实体，因为该定义尤其包括模糊且无所不包的限定语。\n\nG Club（G Club）对“债务人之子”的定义提出异议，理由是该定义含糊、范围过宽、造成不当负担，且除其他原因外，该定义包含含糊且广泛适用的限定语，因而无法知悉受托人（Trustee）意图纳入该定义的所有个人和实体。\n\nG Club对“债务人之女”的定义提出异议，理由是该定义含糊、范围过宽、造成不当负担，且除其他原因外，该定义包含含糊且广泛适用的限定语，因而无法知悉受托人意图纳入该定义的所有个人和实体。\n\nG Club对“债务人据称的妻子”的定义提出异议，理由是该定义含糊、范围过宽、造成不当负担，且除其他原因外，该定义包含含糊且广泛适用的限定语，因而无法知悉受托人意图纳入该定义的所有个人和实体。\n\nG Club对“债务人家属”的定义提出异议，理由是该定义含糊、范围过宽、造成不当负担，且除其他原因外，该定义包含含糊且广泛适用的限定语，因而无法知悉受托人意图纳入该定义的所有个人和实体。\n\nG Club对“关联个人”的定义提出异议，理由是该定义含糊、范围过宽、造成不当负担，且除其他原因外，该定义包含含糊且广泛适用的限定语，因而无法知悉受托人意图纳入该定义的所有个人和实体。\n\nG Club对“关联实体”的定义提出异议，理由是该定义含糊、范围过宽、造成不当负担，且除其他原因外，该定义包含含糊且广泛适用的限定语，因而无法知悉受托人意图纳入该定义的所有个人和实体，包括关联实体的关联方。\n\nG Club对“关于”的定义提出异议，理由是就“支持、有利于、反对、加强、贬损、位于、结合……考虑”等用语而言，该定义含糊、范围过宽且存在歧义。\n\nG Club对“通信”的定义提出异议，理由是就“内部或与第三方之间”这一措辞而言，该定义含糊、范围过宽且存在歧义。\n\nG Club对“资产”的定义提出异议，理由是就“任何可用于产生正面经济价值的项目”这一措辞而言，该定义含糊、范围过宽且存在歧义。\n\n对指示的异议\n\nG Club对任何试图扩大或变更其根据《联邦破产程序规则》和《联邦民事诉讼规则》就发现程序作出回应之义务的“指示”提出异议。\n\nG Club对第2号指示提出异议，理由是该指示范围过宽、不成比例且造成负担，因其要求提供其“占有、保管或控制”的所有文件，或“由任何代表[G Club]行事之人占有、保管或控制的所有文件，包括[G Club]的律师或其他代表和顾问”，并且“[每一份文件均应完整提供]”。G Club仅将在异议通过协议或最终法院命令获得解决后，提供其占有、保管或控制的、经善意及合理检索并尽到合理勤勉后能够找到的非特权文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1805-30 提交日期 05/18/23 录入日期 05/18/23 23:05:44 第 10 页，共 22 页\n\nG Club对第6号指示提出异议，理由是该指示范围过宽、不成比例且造成负担，因其寻求超出《联邦民事诉讼规则》、《联邦破产程序规则》和地方法院规则所要求的信息，并且其并非合理地旨在促成发现有关已不再由G Club保管和控制的文件的可采纳证据。\n\nG Club对第8号指示提出异议，理由是该指示范围过宽、不成比例且造成负担，因其试图使G Club承担识别“收到或看过原件或任何草稿、副本或复制件的[受特权保护的信息]的每一名人士”的义务，并识别“[受特权保护的信息]本身，或其中所载或提及的任何信息，是否由任何其他人士占有、保管或控制；如是，则该等人士的身份，以及说明该等人士如何获得该信息的陈述”。\n\nG Club对第10号指示提出异议，理由是该指示不完整、不成比例且范围过宽，因其寻求超出规则26(e)和地方法院规则所要求的补充信息。\n\nG Club对第12号指示提出异议，理由是该指示范围过宽、不成比例且造成负担，因其规定“对实体的所有提述均包括其所有关联方”，而无法知悉受托人意图纳入“实体”一词的所有实体和关联方。\n\nG Club对第14号指示提出异议，理由是该指示范围过宽、不成比例且造成负担，因其寻求自February 5, 2012至今的信息，超过十年，且未作任何努力使该等请求在性质上保持相称。\n\n对文件出示请求的异议及答复\n第1号请求：\n\n所有关于债务人、债务人遗产或关联实体的任何收入或资产的文件。\n\n对第1号请求的答复：\n\nG Club基于其一般异议、对定义的异议及对指示的异议中所述的各项理由（统称“总体异议”），对第1号请求提出异议；该等异议通过引用并入本文。\n\nG Club进一步对第1号请求提出异议，理由是该请求范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\n第2号请求：\n\n所有与债务人的财务状况及其对债权人的义务有关的文件，包括但不限于与任何试图避免支付该等义务的努力有关的所有文件，以及与本案或任何其他实际或可能的破产或类似无力偿债程序有关的所有文件。\n\n对第2号请求的答复：\n\nG Club基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第2号请求提出异议；该等异议通过引用并入本文。\n\nG Club还对第2号请求提出异议，理由是就“所有与债务人……对其债权人的义务有关的文件”；“任何试图避免支付该等义务的努力”；“债务人的财务状况”；以及“任何其他实际或可能的破产或类似无力偿债程序”等措辞而言，该请求含糊且存在歧义。\n\n第3号请求：\n\n所有关于与债务人、债务人遗产、债务人家属、关联实体或关联个人有关的任何资产负债表、银行对账单、账户对账单、财务报表、账户结单、电汇指示和／或确认、资金证明、存款证明、持有证明、投资组合摘要或类似文件的文件，包括但不限于足以显示向前述任何一方作出的所有转让的所有文件。\n\n对第3号请求的答复：\n\nG Club基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第3号请求提出异议；该等异议通过引用并入本文。\n\nG Club进一步对第3号请求提出异议，理由是该请求范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club进一步对第3号请求提出异议，理由是就该请求寻求“足以显示向前述任何一方作出的所有转让的所有文件”的范围而言，该请求含糊且存在歧义。\n\nG Club进一步对第3号请求提出异议，理由是该请求寻求公开可得的信息。\n\n第4号请求：\n\n所有关于债务人作出、与债务人进行或代表债务人作出的任何投资、商业往来或交易的文件。\n\n对第4号请求的答复：\n\nG Club基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第4号请求提出异议；该等异议通过引用并入本文。\n\nG Club进一步对第4号请求提出异议，理由是就该请求寻求“所有关于债务人作出、与债务人进行或代表债务人作出的任何投资、商业往来或交易的文件”的范围而言，该请求含糊、范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club进一步对第4号请求提出异议，理由是该请求寻求公开可得的信息。\n\n第5号请求：\n\n与债务人的所有通信，以及与同债务人通信有关的文件，该等通信与任何实体的运营、管理或决策有关，包括但不限于关联实体。\n\n对第5号请求的答复：\n\nG Club基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第5号请求提出异议；该等异议通过引用并入本文。\n\nG Club进一步对第5号请求提出异议，理由是就该请求寻求与债务人的、与“任何实体的运营、管理或决策有关，包括但不限于关联实体”的所有文件和通信的范围而言，该请求含糊、范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\n第6号请求：\n\n所有关于向债务人、债务人家属或关联实体作出、由其作出或与其进行的任何转让、投资或其他交易或商业往来的文件。\n\n对第6号请求的答复：\n\nG Club基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第6号请求提出异议；该等异议通过引用并入本文。\n\nG Club进一步对第6号请求提出异议，理由是该请求范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club进一步对第6号请求提出异议，理由是就其寻求与G Club及债务人的商业往来，以及向债务人作出、由债务人作出或与债务人进行的交易有关的文件的范围而言，该请求与第4号请求重复。\n\nG Club进一步对第6号请求提出异议，理由是“其他交易”一语的含义含糊且存在歧义。\n\n第7号请求：\n\n所有关于债务人曾占用或使用的任何财产的文件，包括但不限于Lady May；Sherry Netherland Hotel / Condominium；位于Connecticut州Greenwich市373 Taconic Rd.的住宅房产；位于Connecticut州Greenwich市33 Ferncliff Rd.的住宅房产；以及位于Connecticut州Wilton市354 Nod Hill Rd.的住宅房产。\n\n对第7号请求的答复：\n\nG Club基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第7号请求提出异议；该等异议通过引用并入本文。\n\nG Club进一步对第7号请求提出异议，理由是该请求范围过宽且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club进一步对第7号请求提出异议，理由是“所有关于债务人曾占用或使用的任何财产的文件……”这一措辞含糊且存在歧义。\n\n第8号请求：\n\n所有与债务人、债务人家属或关联实体于或约于July 2020，或于任何其他时间，就原油期货或任何类似商品所作的任何投资或交易有关的文件，包括但不限于与Jiang Yunfu Be（Jiang Yunfu Be）就任何该等投资或交易进行的通信。\n\n对第8号请求的答复：\n\nG Club基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第8号请求提出异议；该等异议通过引用并入本文。\n\nG Club对第8号请求提出异议，理由是该请求范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club还对第8号请求提出异议，理由是就“所有与……于或约于July 2020或于任何其他时间，就原油期货或任何类似商品所作的任何投资或交易有关的文件……”这一措辞而言，该请求含糊且存在歧义。\n\n第9号请求：\n\n所有与债务人拥有、控制或使用的任何航空器有关的文件，包括但不限于尾号为T7-GQM的航空器及在San Marino（圣马力诺）注册的任何其他航空器，包括但不限于所有登记文件以及显示该等航空器所执行航班及该等航班上人员的飞行舱单副本。\n\n对第9号请求的答复：\n\nG Club基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第9号请求提出异议；该等异议通过引用并入本文。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1805-30 提交日期 05/18/23 录入日期 05/18/23 23:05:44 第 15 页，共 22 页\n\nG Club（G Club）进一步对第9号请求提出异议，认为其范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\n在不放弃任何异议的前提下，G Club 表示，其并不从事采购航空器或以其他方式管理航空器的业务。\n\n第10号请求：\n\n所有关于向、从或代表债务人、债务人财产、债务人家庭成员或关联实体提供的任何馈赠、利益或贷款的文件，包括但不限于足以证明该等馈赠、利益或贷款金额的文件；该等馈赠、利益或贷款的使用目的；提供该等馈赠、利益或贷款的时间；以及任何贷款的条款、就任何贷款作出的所有陈述与保证、任何贷款的利率以及任何贷款付款的所有证据。\n\n对第10号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第10号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 进一步对第10号请求提出异议，因为该请求在寻求“所有关于向、从或代表债务人、债务人财产、债务人家庭成员或关联实体提供的任何馈赠、利益或贷款的文件……”的范围内，内容含糊、不成比例、范围过宽且造成不当负担。遵从该请求将要求 G Club 搜索、收集并提交与请求中列明的任何事项有关的“所有”文件，涉及债务人家庭成员；但无法知晓受托人声称纳入该定义的所有人员和实体；还涉及关联实体，而关联实体的定义包括六十（60）多个实体及其关联方（根据第12号指示）。\n\n第11号请求：\n\n所有关于由债务人、债务人财产、债务人家庭成员或关联实体设立、代表其设立或为其利益设立的任何信托或类似文书的文件，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1805-30 提交于 05/18/23 录入于 05/18/23 23:05:44 第 16 页，共 22 页\n\n包括但不限于足以证明该等信托的设立时间、设立人、为谁的利益设立以及信托本金的文件。\n\n对第11号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第11号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 进一步对第11号请求提出异议，因为该请求在寻求“所有关于由债务人、债务人财产、债务人家庭成员或关联实体设立、代表其设立或为其利益设立的任何信托或类似文书的文件……”的范围内，内容含糊、范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。遵从该请求将要求 G Club 搜索、收集并提交与请求中列明的任何事项有关的“所有”文件，涉及债务人家庭成员；但无法知晓受托人声称纳入该定义的所有人员和实体；还涉及关联实体，而关联实体的定义包括六十（60）多个实体及其关联方（根据第12号指示）。\n\n第12号请求：\n\n所有与涉及债务人的任何法律争议有关的任何义务、请求权、责任或债务有关的文件，包括但不限于与任何地方、州、联邦或国际机构前的任何诉讼有关的文件，无论该机构为行政机关、法院、审裁小组或替代性争议解决机构。\n\n对第12号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其一般异议中所述的各项理由，对第12号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 进一步对第12号请求提出异议，因为该请求在寻求“所有与涉及债务人的任何法律争议有关的任何义务、请求权、责任或债务有关的文件……[包括]任何地方、州、联邦或国际机构前的任何诉讼，无论该机构为行政机关、法院、审裁小组或替代性争议解决机构”的范围内，内容含糊、范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。遵从该请求将要求\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1805-30 提交于 05/18/23 录入于 05/18/23 23:05:44 第 17 页，共 22 页\n\nG Club 搜索、收集并提交与债务人就请求中列明的任何事项有关的“所有”文件；但无法知晓受托人声称纳入该定义的所有人员和实体。\n\nG Club 进一步对第12号请求提出异议，范围涉及公开可获得的信息。\n\n第13号请求：\n\n贵方任何外聘律师或其他顾问与债务人之间的所有文件及通信。\n\n对第13号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第13号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 还对第13号请求提出异议，认为其内容含糊、范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club 进一步对第13号请求提出异议，因为其超出规则2004的范围。\n\n第14号请求：\n\n足以证明贵方所有资产及收入或资金来源的文件。\n\n对第14号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第14号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 还对第14号请求提出异议，因为其范围过宽、内容含糊、不成比例且含义不明确。\n\nG Club 还对第14号请求提出异议，因为要求提供所有“足以证明贵方［非当事人 G Club］所有资产及收入和资金来源的文件”超出了规则2004请求的范围。\n\nG Club 进一步对第14号请求提出异议，因为其超出规则2004的范围。\n\n第15号请求：\n\n对于在对第14号请求的答复中确定的、价值超过 \\$50,000 的所有资产，所有（i）与贵方取得该等资产有关的文件，以及（ii）贵方与债务人或债务人家庭成员就该等资产进行的通信。\n\n对第15号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第15号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 还对第15号请求提出异议，因为其范围过宽、不成比例、内容含糊、含义不明确且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club 进一步对第15号请求提出异议，范围涉及“资产”的提交包括“可用于产生正向经济价值的任何项目”这一表述，以及“贵方与债务人或债务人家庭成员就该等资产进行的通信”；但无法知晓受托人声称纳入“债务人”或“债务人家庭成员”定义的所有人员和实体。\n\nG Club 进一步对第15号请求提出异议，因为其超出规则2004的范围。\n\n第16号请求：\n\n贵方纳税申报表的副本。\n\n对第16号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第16号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 进一步对第16号请求提出异议，因为其超出规则2004的范围，因而在债务人的第11章案件中不可发现。\n\nG Club 进一步对第16号请求提出异议，因为其范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club 进一步对第16号请求提出异议，因为其超出规则2004的范围。\n\n第17号请求：\n\n足以证明贵方占有或控制的所有银行账户及投资账户的文件，包括每一该等账户的余额以及向其转入和自其转出的款项。\n\n对第17号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第17号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 进一步对第17号请求提出异议，认为其范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club 进一步对第17号请求提出异议，因为其超出规则2004的范围，因而在债务人的第11章案件中不可发现。\n\n第18号请求：\n\n所有关于贵方使用的任何信用卡的文件，包括但不限于月度对账单或其他足以证明为债务人或关联实体利益而进行的所有相关购买的文件。\n\n对第18号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第18号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 进一步对第18号请求提出异议，认为其范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club 进一步对第18号请求提出异议，因为其就将其资产“任何质押”给任何其他实体一语的含义而言，内容含糊且含义不明确。\n\nG Club 进一步对第18号请求提出异议，因为其就“所有文件……或月度对账单或其他‘足以证明’为债务人或关联实体利益而进行的所有相关购买的文件”一语而言，内容含糊且含义不明确。基于\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1805-30 提交于 05/18/23 录入于 05/18/23 23:05:44 第 20 页，共 22 页\n\n“债务人”和“关联实体”的定义，无法知晓受托人声称纳入每一定义的所有人员和实体。\n\nG Club 进一步对第18号请求提出异议，因为其超出规则2004的范围。\n\n第19号请求：\n\n所有公司治理及组织文件，包括但不限于公司章程细则、公司注册证书以及其他足以证明贵方公司结构、高级管理人员和董事姓名、经营宗旨以及与债务人或债务人任何家庭成员关系的文件。\n\n对第19号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第19号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 进一步对第19号请求提出异议，认为其范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\nG Club 进一步对第19号请求提出异议，理由是其就“其他文件……足以证明［其］……与债务人或债务人任何家庭成员的关系”一语而言，内容含糊且含义不明确。\n\nG Club 进一步对第19号请求提出异议，范围与第4号请求重复。\n\n第20号请求：\n\n所有与贵方向任何其他实体质押贵方资产有关的文件。\n\n对第20号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第20号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\nG Club 进一步对第20号请求提出异议，认为其既与债务人的第11章案件无关，也不可在该案件中发现。\n\nG Club 进一步对第20号请求提出异议，认为其范围过宽、不成比例且造成不当负担。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1805-30 提交于 05/18/23 录入于 05/18/23 23:05:44 第 21 页，共 22 页\n\nG Club 进一步对第20号请求提出异议，因为其就将其资产“任何质押”给任何其他实体一语的含义而言，内容含糊且含义不明确。\n\nG Club 进一步对第20号请求提出异议，因为其超出规则2004的范围。\n\n第21号请求：\n\n所有与贵方于 January 2015 向 Bravo Luck Limited（Bravo Luck Limited）作出的、金额约为 \\$520 million 的转让有关的文件。\n\n对第21号请求的答复：\n\nG Club 基于其总体异议中所述的各项理由，对第21号请求提出异议；该等异议通过援引并入本文。\n\n日期：January 9, 2023，New York, New York\n\n签署人：/s/ Carolina A. Fornos  PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Carolina A. Fornos 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 电话：212-858-1558 carolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\nG Club Operations LLC（G Club Operations LLC）的律师\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 January 9, 2023，本人已安排通过\n\n一级邮件向下列地址送达前述文件的副本。此外，亦已通过电子邮件向\n\n下列电子邮件地址发送礼节性副本。\n\nPatrick R. Linsey 先生 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nAvram E. Luft 先生 Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n乔纳森·科希耶维奇（Jonathon Kosciewicz）先生\n保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（Paul Hastings LLP）\n71 South Wacker Drive\nSuite 4500\nChicago, IL 60606\njonathonkosciewicz@paulhastings.com\n\n/s/卡罗琳娜·A·福尔诺斯（Carolina A. Fornos） 卡罗琳娜·A·福尔诺斯","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Paul Hastings","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Luc Despins","G Clubs"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5825,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-05-18 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-05-18","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:05:50"}