{"id":"court_ctb_1814_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1814,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.\n\n# **DEBTOR'S LIMITED OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS RULE 2004 MOTION**\n\nHo Wan Kwok, the Debtor in the above-captioned bankruptcy case, hereby submits his limited objection to the Trustee's Fifth Supplemental Omnibus Motion for Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 (Doc. No. 1789) (the \"Fifth Rule 2004 Motion\"), filed on May 15, 2023. In support of his objection, the Debtor respectfully represents as follows:\n\n#### **I. Preliminary Statement**\n\n1. The Debtor agrees that the Trustee may take Rule<sup>1</sup> 2004 examinations of third parties upon a showing that the scope of the proposed examination is reasonably related to the Debtor's estate. However, the mere existence of any relationship between the Debtor and a thirdparty does not give the Trustee carte blanche to seek unfettered access to that third party's financial records. The relief sought by the Trustee in the Fifth Rule 2004 Motion impermissibly requests broad, invasive and burdensome financial information from Nodal Partners, LLC (\"Nodal\"), including documents unrelated to the Debtor or the administration of the Debtor's estate, solely because the Trustee has identified *some* relationship between Nodal and the Debtor. These requests serve no purpose other than to harass and intimidate Nodal and, by association, other third parties who support the Debtor by instilling fear that they will be targeted too. 2\n\n2. In addition, the Debtor has recently learned that the Trustee contends that the proposed order attached to the Fifth Rule 2004 Motion as Exhibit A (the \"Proposed Order\") does not require the Trustee to give the Debtor or other parties in interest notice of the date and time on which the Trustee intends to conduct Rule 2004 Examinations. The Debtor objects to the Rule 2004 Motion and the Proposed Order to the extent of this construction.\n\n<sup>1</sup> \"Rule\" or \"Rules\" shall refer to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Debtor's lack of good cause is further evidence by his seeking Rule 2004 examinations of other individuals on similarly specious grounds, including three individuals, Defeng Cao, Yongbing Zhang, and Yue Zhou, merely because they volunteered to guaranty a bond in favor of Yan Pin Wang (a/k/a Yvette Wang).\n\n#### **II. The Nodal Subpoena**\n\n3. Through the Fifth Rule 2004 Motion, the Trustee seeks, *inter alia*, an order authorizing him to serve a subpoena on Nodal (the \"Nodal Subpoena\"). (Fifth Rule 2004 Motion, pp. 6-8). The sole basis asserted by the Trustee to examine Nodal is that Nodal assisted the Debtor with payment of legal fees and is friends with the Debtor's daughter. The Nodal Subpoena makes no effort, whatsoever, to limit many of its requests to information that relates, even tangentially, to the Debtor's estate or even his family. Indeed, the Nodal Subpoena makes blanket requests for, among other things: \"Documents sufficient to show all of [Nodal's] Assets and sources of income or funding;\" all \"[d]ocumentation related to [Nodal's] acquisition of [each] Asset\" with a value of more than \\$50,000; and \"[a]ll Documents regarding any credit cards used by [Nodal]….\" (*Id.*, Exhibit C-7, pp. 14-15). Publicly available information establishes that Nodal is an operating company located in Austin, Texas that is managed by established and well-educated professionals and has no apparent connection to the Debtor.\n\n## **III. The Trustee Improperly Seeks Unfettered Access to a Third Party's Financial Records**\n\n4. The scope of Rule 2004 examinations is limited \"only to the acts, conduct, or property or the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate, or the debtor's right to a discharge.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004; *see also In re GHR Energy Corp.*, 35 B.R. 534, 537 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1983) (\"[B]y looking to the language of Rule 2004, it is evident that an examination may be had only of those persons possessing knowledge of the debtor's act, conduct or financial affairs *so far as this relates to a debtor's proceeding in bankruptcy*.\" (emphasis added)). \"[I]n granting a Rule 2004 request, the bankruptcy court is required to make a finding of good cause for the examination.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Grp.*, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2473, \\*11 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). \"The party seeking discovery under Rule 2004 bears the burden of showing good cause for the examination it seeks\" and \"must demonstrate either that the proposed examination is necessary to establish the claim of the party, or that the denial of discovery would cause the party undue hardship or injustice.\" *Id.*, at \\*11-12 (citations omitted).\n\n5. Furthermore, while \"[t]he scope of examination authorized by Rule 2004 is exceptionally broad… [t]here are… limits to the scope of Rule 2004 examinations. Significantly, courts may limit, condition or even forbid the use of Rule 2004 where it is used to abuse or harass….\" *Martin v. Schaap Moving Sys.*, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 15255, \\*6-8 (2d Cir. Apr. 21, 1998) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); *see also In re Duratech Indus.*, 241 B.R. 283, 289 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (Examinations under Rule 2004… have been compared to a \"fishing expedition,\" but \"[t]here are… limits to the scope of Rule 2004 examinations\" including that they \"may not be used for the purposes of abuse or harassment.\"). \"To that end, the '[e]xamination of a witness as to matters having no relationship to the bankrupt's affairs or the administration of the estate… is improper.'\" *In re Transmar Commodity Grp.*, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2473, at \\*27 (quoting *Keene Corp. v. Johns-Manville Corp (In re Johns-Manville Corp.)*, 42 B.R. 362, 364 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1383)). In particular, Rule 2004 \"is not intended to be a fishing expedition of a third party's assets.\" *In re Downs*, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2839, \\*31 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n\n6. Here, the Trustee requests documentation related to all of Nodal's assets, income, funding and credit use irrespective of any connection to the Debtor. 3 In those respects, the Nodal Subpoena seeks permission to put the cart before the horse in an effort to reach a barn that does\n\n<sup>3</sup> While Request 13 of the Nodal Subpoena requests credit card documentation \"*including*… monthly statements or other Documents sufficient to show all purchases related thereto for the benefit of the Debtor, the Debtor's Daughter, or an Associated Entity,\" this reference to the Debtor (and others) is not a limiting qualifier.\n\nnot exist—solely to intimidate the Debtor's supporters. Indeed, the only basis upon which the Trustee seeks this unfettered access to Nodal's finances is the conclusory statement that because Nodal \"was disclosed… as a source of payment of the Debtor's counsel's fees\" and \"Nodal's president was said—upon information and belief of the Debtor's counsel—to be a friend of Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter,\" that \"Nodal is therefore likely in possession of documents relevant to the Trustee's investigation.\"\n\n7. Putting aside the bare conclusory nature of that statement, the Trustee has not established (because he cannot establish) good cause for requesting all of Nodal's financial records absent any connection between the records requested and the Debtor or his estate. The requests are simply meant to harass Nodal based solely on its relationship with the Debtor. Therefore, the Court should deny the Rule 2004 Motion with respect to Nodal.\n\n#### **IV. The Trustee Contends That the Proposed Order Does Not Require Notice of Third Party Examinations to the Debtor or Other Parties in Interest**\n\nLocal Rule 2004-1(b) requires that if the examining party and the party to be examined agree \"on an examination taking place, [notice of] the date, time, and place of such examination\" must be provided to the Debtor and other parties in interest. Local Rule 2004-1(c) requires that in the absence of such an agreement, a party that seeks an examination must file a Rule 2004 motion and serve upon the Debtor, and other parties in interest, the motion accompanied by a proposed order, a notice of the seven-day period to object to the motion, and a copy of any subpoena for the production of documents. These two rules, read together, clearly establish that the Debtor and other parties in interest are entitled to notice of the date, time and place of a Rule 2004 examination at least a reasonable time prior to the examination taking place.\n\nThe Trustee has stated that he does not believe that prior Rule 2004 Orders entered by this Court, which are substantively identical to the Proposed Order, require him to provide the Debtor and other parties in interest with notice of the date and time of the Rule 2004 examinations taken pursuant thereto. <sup>4</sup> Consistent with that position, the Trustee has already failed to provide reasonable, and, in at least one instance, any, notice of examinations, including where the examinees were the Debtor's former counsel. The Debtor is entitled to protect his interests at these examinations, particularly where the attorney-client privilege is at issue. Therefore, the Debtor objects to the Fifth Rule 2004 Motion and Proposed Order to the extent that they could be construed to allow the Trustee to examine third parties without providing reasonable notice of at least fifteen days of the date, time and location of the proposed examination.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Debtor requests that the Court: (i) deny the Fifth Rule 2004 Motion as it relates to Nodal, (ii) require the Trustee to provide the Debtor and other parties in interest with notice of the date and time of any proposed examination at least fifteen (15) days before the Trustee schedules it to take place, and (iii) grant the Debtor such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n<sup>4</sup> The Proposed Order purports to authorize the examination of Nodal under Rule 2004 \"at the office of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith,… Paul Hastings LLP,… or at any other place that is mutually acceptable to the parties, on a date acceptable to the Trustee which, at the election of the Trustee, shall be not less than 14 calendar days after the production of documents by the proposed examinee in compliance with the Subpoena and this Order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, and such examination shall continue from day to day until completed.\" (*Id.*, Exhibit A, p. 2).\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 22 nd day of May, 2023.\n\n## **THE INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney, Esq.* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) Daniel Byrd (ct31151) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [dbyrd@zeislaw.com](mailto:dbyrd@zeislaw.com)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 22 nd day of May, 2023, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/Aaron A. Romney, Esq.* Aaron A. Romney","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\nIn re:（关于：）\n\nChapter 11（第 11 章）\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al.（Ho Wan Kwok［郭文贵］等）\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)（案号：22-50073 (JAM)）\n\nDebtors.（债务人。）\nDEBTOR'S LIMITED OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS RULE 2004 MOTION（债务人对第 11 章受托人根据破产规则第 2004 条提出的第五次补充综合动议的有限异议）\n\n上述破产案的债务人郭文贵谨此对受托人于 2023 年 5 月 15 日提交的《根据破产规则第 2004 条及本地规则第 2004-1 条申请裁定的第五次补充综合动议》（文件号 1789）（以下简称“《第五次 2004 条款动议》”）提出有限异议。为支持其异议，债务人谨陈述如下：\nI. Preliminary Statement（一、初步声明）\n\n1. 债务人同意，在受托人证明拟进行的审查范围与债务人财产存在合理关联的情况下，受托人可根据规则1 2004 对第三方进行审查。然而，债务人与第三方之间仅仅存在任何关系，并不代表受托人拥有全权委托去寻求对该第三方的财务记录进行不受限制的调取。受托人在《第五次 2004 条款动议》中所寻求的救济，仅仅因为受托人发现 Nodal Partners, LLC（Nodal 伙伴有限责任公司，以下简称“Nodal”）与债务人之间存在某种关系，便不合规地要求 Nodal 提供广泛、侵入性且繁重的财务信息，包括与债务人或债务人财产管理无关的文件。这些请求除了骚扰和恐吓 Nodal，并通过在支持债务人的其他第三方中制造他们也会成为目标的恐惧来对其进行株连恐吓之外，毫无其他目的。2\n\n2. 此外，债务人近日获悉，受托人主张作为附件 A 附于《第五次 2004 条款动议》之后的拟定裁定书（以下简称“《拟定裁定书》”）并不要求受托人就其拟进行 2004 条款审查的日期和时间向债务人或其他利害关系方发出通知。在涉及该解释的范围内，债务人对《2004 条款动议》及《拟定裁定书》提出异议。\n\n1 “规则”应指《联邦破产诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure）。\n\n2 受托人缺乏正当理由的进一步证据在于，其基于类似似是而非的理由寻求对其他个人进行 2004 条款审查，其中包括 Defeng Cao（曹德丰）、Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）和 Yue Zhou（周悦）三名个人，其仅仅是因为他们自愿为 Yan Pin Wang（王雁平，又名 Yvette Wang）提供保释担保。\nII. The Nodal Subpoena（二、针对 Nodal 的传票）\n\n3. 通过《第五次 2004 条款动议》，受托人寻求（除其他事项外）一份授权其向 Nodal 送达传票的裁定（以下简称“《Nodal 传票》”）。（《第五次 2004 条款动议》，第 6-8 页）。受托人主张审查 Nodal 的唯一依据是：Nodal 曾协助债务人支付律师费，并且是债务人女儿的朋友。《Nodal 传票》完全没有做出任何努力将其诸多请求限制在与债务人财产甚至其家庭存在哪怕些微关联的信息范围内。事实上，《Nodal 传票》作出了笼统而宽泛的请求，除其他事项外包括：“足以显示［Nodal 的］全部资产及收入或资金来源的文件”；价值超过 $50,000 的所有“与［Nodal］收购［每项］资产相关的文件”；以及“关于［Nodal］所使用的任何信用卡的所有文件……”。（同上，附件 C-7，第 14-15 页）。公开可查的信息表明，Nodal 是一家位于德克萨斯州奥斯汀（Austin, Texas）的运营中公司，由具有良好声誉且受过良好教育的专业人士管理，与债务人并无明显关联。\nIII. The Trustee Improperly Seeks Unfettered Access to a Third Party's Financial Records（三、受托人不正当地寻求对第三方财务记录的不受限调取权）\n\n4. 规则 2004 审查的范围仅限于“债务人的行为、作为或财产，或债务人的负债和财务状况，或可能影响债务人财产管理或债务人免责权利的任何事项。”Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004；亦见 In re GHR Energy Corp., 35 B.R. 534, 537 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1983)（“从规则 2004 的措辞来看，显而易见的是，只有在与债务人的破产程序相关联的范围内，方可对知晓债务人行为、作为或财务状况的人员进行审查。”（强调为原文所加））。“在批准规则 2004 请求时，破产法院必须认定该审查具有正当理由。”In re Transmar Commodity Grp., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2473, *11 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（内部引用及标点省略）。“根据规则 2004 寻求证据开示的一方承担证明其所寻求审查具有正当理由的举证责任”，并且“必须证明拟进行的审查对于确立该当事方的请求权是必要的，或者证明拒绝证据开示将给该当事方造成不当困境或不公。”同上，*11-12（引用省略）。\n\n5. 此外，尽管“规则 2004 所授权的审查范围极为广泛……但规则 2004 审查的范围存在……限制。值得注意的是，如果规则 2004 被用于滥用或骚扰目的，法院可以限制、附加条件甚至禁止使用规则 2004……”Martin v. Schaap Moving Sys., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 15255, *6-8 (2d Cir. Apr. 21, 1998)（内部引用及标点省略）；亦见 In re Duratech Indus., 241 B.R. 283, 289 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)（规则 2004 下的审查……被比作‘摸底调查（fishing expedition）’，但‘规则 2004 审查的范围存在……限制’，包括‘不得用于滥用或骚扰目的’）。“为此，‘就与破产人事务或财产管理无关的事项对证人进行审查……是不正当的。’”In re Transmar Commodity Grp., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2473, *27（援引 Keene Corp. v. Johns-Manville Corp (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 42 B.R. 362, 364 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1383)）。特别是，规则 2004 “并非旨在对第三方的资产进行摸底调查。”In re Downs, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2839, *31 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2021)（内部引用及标点省略）。\n\n6. 在本案中，受托人请求获取与 Nodal 的全部资产、收入、资金来源及信贷使用相关的全套文件，而完全不论其是否与债务人存在任何关联。3 在这些方面，《Nodal 传票》是在试图为一个根本不存在的谷仓而本末倒置——其纯粹是为了恐吓债务人的支持者。实际上，受托人寻求这种对 Nodal 财务状况的不受限调取的唯一依据，就是这样一句结论性陈述：由于 Nodal “被披露为……支付债务人律师费用的资金来源”，且“据债务人律师所知并确信，Nodal 的总裁据称是郭美（债务人的女儿）的朋友”，因此“Nodal 很可能持有与受托人调查相关的文件”。\n\n3 尽管《Nodal 传票》第 13 项请求要求提供信用卡文件，“包括……月结单或其他足以显示所有为债务人、债务人之女或关联实体之利益而进行的相关消费的文件”，但此处提及债务人（及其他人）并非限制性的限定条件。\n\n7. 暂且不论该陈述纯属结论性的性质，在所请求的文件与债务人或其财产之间不存在任何关联的情况下，受托人并未证明（因为其无法证明）请求获取 Nodal 的全部财务记录具有正当理由。这些请求纯粹是基于 Nodal 与债务人的关系而对其进行骚扰。因此，法院应驳回《2004 条款动议》中涉及 Nodal 的部分。\nIV. The Trustee Contends That the Proposed Order Does Not Require Notice of Third Party Examinations to the Debtor or Other Parties in Interest（四、受托人主张拟定裁定书并不要求向债务人或其他利害关系方发出第三方审查通知）\n\n本地规则 2004-1(b) 规定，如果审查方与被审查方同意“进行审查，必须向债务人及其他利害关系方提供该等审查的［通知，包括］日期、时间及地点”。本地规则 2004-1(c) 规定，在没有达成此类协议的情况下，寻求审查的一方必须提交一份 2004 条款动议，并向债务人及其他利害关系方送达该动议连同拟定裁定书、关于对该动议提出异议的七天期限的通知，以及任何调取文件传票的副本。这两项规则综合来看，明确确立了债务人及其他利害关系方有权在审查进行前的至少一段合理时间内，获得关于规则 2004 审查的日期、时间及地点的通知。\n\n受托人已表示，其认为本法院此前作出的、在实质上与《拟定裁定书》相同的规则 2004 裁定，并未要求其向债务人及其他利害关系方提供依据该等裁定进行的规则 2004 审查的日期和时间通知。4 与该立场一致的是，受托人已经未能提供合理的、并且在至少一起事件中未能提供任何审查通知，包括在受审查人为债务人前任律师的情况下。债务人有权在此类审查中保护其利益，尤其是在涉及律师与委托人保密特权的情况下。因此，在《第五次 2004 条款动议》和《拟定裁定书》可能被解释为允许受托人对第三方进行审查而无需在拟定审查日期、时间及地点前至少十五天发出合理通知的范围内，债务人对此提出异议。\n\nWHEREFORE（综上所述），债务人请求法院：(i) 驳回《第五次 2004 条款动议》中与 Nodal 相关的部分；(ii) 要求受托人至少在排定审查进行之日的十五（15）天前，就任何拟定审查的日期和时间向债务人及其他利害关系方提供通知；以及 (iii) 授予债务人法院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n4 《拟定裁定书》意图授权依据规则 2004 对 Nodal 进行审查，“地点位于 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 律师事务所……Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）……或双方均可接受的任何其他地点，日期为受托人可接受的日期，该日期由受托人选择，但不得少于拟受审查人遵照传票及本裁定依据破产规则第 2004 条提供文件后的 14 个日历日，且该等审查应逐日持续进行直至完成。”（同上，附件 A，第 2 页）。\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 22 nd day of May, 2023.（2023 年 5 月 22 日订于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。）\nTHE INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK（个人债务人，郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney, Esq.\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nDaniel Byrd (ct31151)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\nTelephone: (203) 368-4234\nFacsimile: (203) 368-5487\nEmail: [aromney@zeislaw.com] [dbyrd@zeislaw.com]\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE（送达证明）\n\n本人谨此证明，于 2023 年 5 月 22 日，上述文件的副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交文件的通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事方，或按照《电子提交通知》上的指示通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人。各当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本提交文件。\n\n/s/Aaron A. Romney, Esq.\nAaron A. Romney","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1849,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:00:23"}