{"id":"court_ctb_2098_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2098,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION x : : : : : : :","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nx : : : : : : :\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.\n\n# **GREENWICH LAND, LLC'S AND HING CHI NGOK'S OBJECTION TO THE CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR RULE 2004 DISCOVERY**\n\nParties-in-Interest and Defendants in Adversary Proceeding No. 23-05005 (the \"Adversary Proceeding\") Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\") and Hing Chi Ngok (\"Ms. Guo\" and together with Greenwich Land, \"Defendants\") respectfully submit this objection to Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins' (the \"Trustee\") Sixth Supplemental Omnibus Motion for Entry of an Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Authorizing Discovery (the \"Rule 2004 Motion\") (ECF 2079).\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. The Trustee filed the Adversary Proceeding against Defendants alleging Ms. Guo is not the real owner of Greenwich Land, but rather that her husband the Debtor Ho Wan Kwok (\"Debtor\") is the true equitable owner. The Trustee obtained an *ex parte* attachment and *ex parte* temporary restraining order against Defendants in the Adversary Proceeding based on his sworn certification that he possessed sufficient evidence for the extraordinary relief.\n\n2. Despite this prior representation, the Trustee now seeks permission to serve twenty (20) Rule 2004 subpoenas for discovery directly related to the Adversary Proceeding, namely documents and communications with or concerning Ms. Guo or Greenwich Land, and discovery related to assets of Ms. Guo or Greenwich Land that the Trustee alleges in the Adversary Proceeding are property of the Debtor's estate, including real property located at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut (the \"Taconic Property\"), and 33 Ferncliff Road, Cos Cob, Connecticut (the \"Ferncliff Property\"). These are the precise properties and issues the Trustee used as the basis for the Adversary Proceeding. *See* Adversary Proceeding (ECF 1), at ¶¶2-4, 10- 11, 27-53, 55.\n\n3. Having commenced the Adversary Proceeding against Defendants, all discovery related to the Trustee's allegations against Defendants, including without limitation financial discovery related to Greenwich Land and Ms. Guo, and requests for discovery related to the Taconic Property, the Ferncliff Property, or any other of Defendants' assets the Trustee contends are Estate property must be conducted in the Adversary Proceeding pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\").\n\n4. Similarly, all discovery related to claims that fall within the scope of the Adversary Proceeding, including the Trustee's claim under Delaware law that Greenwich Land is the Debtor's alter ego, must be conducted within the confines of the Adversary Proceeding and subject to the safeguards provided by the Federal Rules, including Defendants' participatory rights. The purpose of Rule 2004 is to allow the Trustee to determine whether to initiate an adversary proceeding, not a means for the Trustee to conduct a secret fishing expedition in search of evidence he hopes to use against Defendants in the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee cannot circumvent the Federal Rules and cannot continue to conceal evidence from Defendants.\n\n5. During the parties' meet-and-confers the Trustee confirmed that he will not produce responsive non-privileged documents to Defendants if those documents were produced to the Trustee in response to a Rule 2004 subpoena. The Trustee contends that he is entitled to assert work-product privilege over a third party's documents related to or concerning Defendants and\n\nDefendants' assets. The Trustee further contends that he is vested with the right to selectively \"waive\" privilege over a self-selected set of documents produced by third parties. The Trustee is wrong as a matter of law. The work-product privilege is limited to materials prepared by counsel, which contain counsel's legal analysis, conclusions, theory or strategy. The work-product privilege does not extend to non-privileged documents produced by third parties pursuant to publicly filed subpoenas, including the proposed subpoenas the Trustee publicly filed as exhibits to his Rule 2004 Motion. *See* Rule 2004 Motion, Exs. B and C-1 to C-20. A publicly filed subpoena is not protected work-product, nor are documents produced by a third party in response to such a subpoena. The Trustee is conducting traditional discovery in the guise of a Rule 2004 \"investigation\" to justify his untenable position that he is entitled to conceal relevant and responsive discovery from Defendants.\n\n6. Further, the Trustee is using the Rule 2004 Motion to conduct discovery beyond the expedited discovery timetable set forth in the Court's scheduling order in the Adversary Proceeding (the \"Scheduling Order\"). *See* Adversary Proceeding (ECF 56). The Scheduling Order provides that all \"Written Discovery Requests…shall be served by the Parties on or before June 13, 2023,\" and that \"supplemental Written Discovery Requests\" may be served \"based on newly discovered information or developments in the litigation.\" *Id*., ¶2. Further, the \"deadline for the completion of all fact discovery, including deposition discovery and Written Discovery Requests…shall be September 5, 2023.\" *Id*., ¶3. The Rule 2004 Motion flouts the Scheduling Order. The Trustee asks the Court to ignore the Scheduling Order and grant the Trustee an indefinite extension to conduct unilateral discovery into Defendants' assets and finances well beyond the discovery cut-off date, in secret, and outside of Defendants' purview. The Trustee is bound by the same rules and orders as Defendants. Having imposed a compressed discovery schedule on the parties in the Adversary Proceeding just months ago (the deadline for which is September 5, 2023), the Court should not now endorse the Trustee's unilateral demand to engage in an open-ended Rule 2004 fishing expedition for evidence against Defendants for use in the Adversary Proceeding.\n\n7. Contrary to the Trustee's belief, Rule 2004 does not give the Trustee the unfettered right to conduct shadow discovery related to the exact same assets and issues that are the subject of the Adversary Proceeding. Virtually every single discovery request contained in the Trustee's twenty (20) proposed Rule 2004 subpoenas seeks documents and information related to Greenwich Land, Ms. Guo, the Taconic Property and the Ferncliff Property. The Trustee offers no explanation for why discovery related to parties, assets and issues the Trustee alleges are relevant to the Adversary Proceeding are the proper subject of a Rule 2004 subpoena.\n\n8. The Court should deny the Rule 2004 Motion in its entirety and order the Trustee to proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules. In the alternative, the Trustee should be ordered to disclose to Defendants all documents related to Greenwich Land, Ms. Guo, and any issue the Trustee raised in the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee is misguided in his belief that he is above the Federal Rules, or that he is entitled to create new rules to conceal material and responsive discovery from parties the Trustee has sued in the Adversary Proceeding. The Court should not endorse the Trustee's continued abuse of Rule 2004 and the Federal Rules. The Trustee is a civil litigant and should be held to the same rules and standards as every other civil litigant in every civil litigation.\n\n#### **RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n9. The Trustee commenced this Adversary Proceeding on March 27, 2023 (*see*  Adversary Proceeding, ECF 1). The same day, the Trustee made his *ex parte* PJR Application\n\npursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-278e(a) (\"PJR Application\") (*id*., ECF 11), and *ex parte* PI Motion (including for a TRO) (*id*., ECF 12). The PJR Application and PI Motion both seek similar relief to attach the Taconic Property and to enjoin Defendants from taking any action to encumber or transfer the Taconic Property. (*id*., ECF 4, ¶2 (PJR Application); ECF 12, ¶¶1-2 (Motion)). On March 28, 2023, the Court entered the Trustee's proposed order and granted the PJR Application (the \"PJR Order\" (*id*., ECF 15)). The same day, the Court granted the Trustee's Motion for an *ex parte* temporary restraining order (\"TRO\") and set a hearing on the Trustee's PI Motion (*id*., ECF 14), which hearing is now scheduled to commence on May 30, 2023.\n\n10. On August 11, 2023, the Trustee filed his Rule 2004 Motion, attaching twenty (20) proposed Rule 2004 subpoenas (the \"Proposed Subpoenas\"). *See* Rule 2004 Motion, Exs. B and C-1 to C-20. The Proposed Subpoenas confirm that the Trustee is seeking discovery related to Defendants and the subject matter of the Adversary Proceeding.\n\n11. The Proposed Subpoenas include the following defined terms related to Defendants and assets the Trustee alleges in the Adversary Proceeding are Estate assets:\n\n- a. \"Debtor's Purported Wife means Hing Chi Ngok (a/k/a Hing Chi Ng, Yu Qingzhi, 岳庆芝, or any other alias), together with her employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on her behalf.\" *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, Ex. C-1, p.8.\n- b. \"Debtor's Family means, collectively, the Debtor, the Debtor's Son, the Debtor's Daughter, and the Debtor's Purported Wife, and any other familial relation to the Debtor.\" *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, Ex. C-1, p.8.\n- c. The term \"Associated Individuals\" is defined to include \"all individuals\" that: (1) \"hold, control, have custody over, or discretion over assets owned,\n\ncontrolled, or enjoyed\" by Ms. Guo; or (2) \"have been employees, directors, other otherwise are affiliated with\" Greenwich Land \"together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing.\" *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, Ex. C-1, pp.8-9.\n\nd. The term \"Associated Entities\" is defined to include \"individually and collectively, all organizations or Entities of any type that (1) have been owned controlled, or invested in by\" Ms. Guo; or (2) \"have an interest, whether directly or indirectly, in any assets owned, controlled or enjoyed by\" Ms. Guo, \"together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing.\" *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, Ex. C-1, p.9.\n\n12. All discovery related to Ms. Guo and Greenwich Land must be conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules and in the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee cannot use the guise of Rule 2004 discovery to conceal evidence related to Ms. Guo and Greenwich Land from Ms. Guo and Greenwich Land.\n\n13. In addition, the Proposed Subpoenas include dozens of requests targeted at Defendants and Defendants' assets that are the subject of the Adversary Proceeding, including the Taconic Property and Ferncliff Property. Below are a handful of such examples.\n\n> a. Each Proposed Subpoena includes requests targeted at Ms. Guo, who the Trustee disingenuously defines as the \"Debtor's Purported Wife,\" although the Trustee has been aware for months that Ms. Guo has been legally married to the Debtor for decades. *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, pp. 34, 53, 72, 89, 106, 123, 140, 157, 174, 193, 210, 230, 249, 268, 285, 305, 324, 344, 364, 384. The Trustee's continued attacks against Ms. Guo's marriage, which appear to stem\n\nfrom a misapprehension of fact or lack of respect for marriages conducted under foreign law, have no purpose other than to demean and humiliate Ms. Guo.\n\n- b. The Proposed Subpoenas to (1) 17 Miles, LLC and (2) GS Security Solutions Inc. seek the following documents and information: \"All documents regarding any property ever occupied or used by the Debtor, including without limitation…the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 373 Taconic Rd. [and] the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 33 Ferncliff Rd….\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp.40 (Request No. 6), 180 (Request No. 6).\n- c. The Proposed Subpoenas to (1) Ana C. Izquiedo-Henn; (2) Limarie Reyes; (3) Linwan \"Irene\" Feng; (4) Ross Heinemeyer; (5) Zhuoer \"Joe\" Wang seek the following documents and information: \"All Documents regarding any property ever occupied or used by the Debtor, including without limitation the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 373 Taconic Rd. [and] the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 33 Ferncliff Rd….\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp.59 (Request No. 7), 236 (Request No. 7), 255 (Request No. 7), 311 (Request No. 7); 390 (Request No. 7).\n- d. The Proposed Subpoenas to (1) Axos Bank and/or Axos Financial, Inc.; (2) Bank of Montreal; (3) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and/or CIBC Ind. (d/b/a/ CIBC); (4) Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (d/b/a/ Charles Schwab); (5) Comerica Incorporated (d/b/a Comerica Bank); (6) East West Bank and/or East West Bancorp, Inc.; (7) Investors Bank and/or Citizens Financial Group, Inc.; (8) Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (d/b/a Morgan Stanley) (collectively\n\nthe \"Bank Subpoenas\") define the \"2004 Discovery Targets\" to include \"Greenwich Land LLC,\" of which Ms. Guo is the sole member. *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 72, 89, 106, 123, 140, 157, 193, 268.\n\n- e. Each of the Bank Subpoenas then includes the following requests for documents and information:\n\t- i. \"All Documents related to any account held by, controlled by, on behalf of, or otherwise related to…[Greenwich Land], including any and all account statements, authorizations, power of attorney, trusts, instructions or forms, copies of cancelled checks, correspondence, and wire transfers and related correspondence and instructions.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 76, 89, 93, 110, 127, 144, 161, 197, 272.\n\t- ii. \"All documents related to any funds, securities, property, or assets belonging to, held by, controlled by, on behalf of, or otherwise related to…[Greenwich Land], including any and all account statements, authorizations, powers of attorney, trusts, instructions or forms, copies of cancelled checks, correspondence, and wire transfers and related correspondence and instructions.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 76, 89, 93, 110, 127, 144, 161, 197, 272.\n\t- iii. \"All Documents related to any business, commerce or financial transactions, including but not limited to any loan, line of credit, bailment, deposit, swap, securities transactions, mortgage, or ISDA, with…[Greenwich Land] including any and all account statements, authorizations, powers of attorney, trusts, instructions or forms, copies\n\nof cancelled checks, correspondence, and wire transfers and related correspondence and instructions.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 76, 89, 93, 110, 127, 144, 161, 197, 272.\n\n- iv. \"All Documents relating to any wire transfer activity relating to [Greenwich Land] regardless of the existence of any accounts, including but not limited to all wire transfer receipts, account numbers, balances, authorizations, identification information related to the parties to the transfer, correspondence, instructions, or other records.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 76-77, 93-94, 110-111, 127-128, 144-145, 161-162, 197- 198, 272-273.\n- v. \"All Documents related to any correspondence and communications between you and [Greenwich Land].\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 77, 94, 111, 128, 145, 162, 198, 273.\n- vi. \"All Documents related to any account with [Greenwich Land] relating to opening of the account, authorized users of the account and maintenance of the account.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 77, 94, 111, 128, 145, 162, 198, 273.\n- vii. \"All Documents related to any anti-money laundering, know-yourcustomer, or other compliance activity relating to [Greenwich Land], including but not limited to any information provided by any of [Greenwich Land], or learned by You.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 77, 94, 111, 128, 145, 162, 198, 273.\n- viii. \"All Documents relating to any communications with any regulator from any country, including but not limited to the Bank of England, the United States Federal Reserve, the S.E.C., the CFTC, FINRA, China Securities Regulatory Commission, People's Bank of China, Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority relating to…[Greenwich Land].\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 72, 89, 106, 123, 140, 157, 193, 268.\n- f. The Proposed Subpoenas to (1) Joshua I. Sherman; (2) Nicholas F. Savio; (3) Savio Law LLC; (4) V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A.; (5) Victor Cerda each request: \"All Documents regarding…the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut, at 373 Taconic Rd.; the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut, at 33 Ferncliff Rd.;…and any financial interest that the Debtor or the Debtor's estate possesses in [Greenwich Land].\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp.216 (Request No. 10), 291 (Request No. 10), 330 (Request No. 10), 350 (Request No. 10), 370 (Request No. 10).\n\n14. In addition, the Trustee acknowledges that his Rule 2004 Motion targets individuals and entities specifically for their purported knowledge related to Greenwich Land. *See* Rule 2004 Motion, p. 5. For example, the Trustee argues that Mr. Nicholas F. Savio and his law firm Savio Law LLC purportedly \"transferred millions of dollars to, among others, bank accounts controlled by Greenwich Land LLC….[and] [a]s such, Savio may have information, documents and records relating to Debtor and his business and financial affairs and transactions, which will aid the Trustee in his investigations.\" *Id*. There is no basis for the Trustee to seek information related to Greenwich Land outside the Adversary Proceeding. The speculative possibility that the requested discovery—if it exists—may have a collateral use is not good cause to justify broad Rule 2004 discovery.\n\n15. All documents and information produced in response to the above referenced Proposed Subpoenas are plainly directed at the core issues raised in the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee's proposed discovery is obviously intended to be used against Defendants in the Adversary Proceeding. The scope of the Proposed Subpoenas necessarily involve issues that form the crux of the Trustee's Adversary Proceeding, namely Ms. Guo, Greenwich Land, the Taconic Property and Ferncliff Property. All discovery related to Defendants and assets the Trustee alleges are Estate assets must be conducted within the confines of the Adversary Proceeding and pursuant to the Federal Rules. The Trustee has no cognizable basis to evade the Federal Rules. The Trustee should not be authorized to continue to violate Defendants' rights under the Federal Rules and Constitutional right to due process.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n16. \"Relevance alone is not sufficient to justify a Rule 2004 request. A party seeking to conduct a Rule 2004 examination must also show good cause, such as the proposed examination is necessary to establish the claim of the party seeking the examination, or denial of such request would cause the examiner undue hardship or injustice.\" *In re Sunedison, Inc*., 572 B.R. 482, 489 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017).\n\n17. The Court's prior order granting the Trustee's Fifth Supplemental Omnibus Motion for 2004 Examination (ECF 1891) focused on whether the target of a Rule 2004 subpoena is a party to a pending proceeding, but this narrow reading of the caselaw overlooks the key issue of scope and misapprehends the purpose of Rule 2004 discovery. *See* ECF 1891, p. 3.\n\n18. First, Rule 2004 is a *pre*-litigation device used to determine whether there are grounds to bring an adversary proceeding, not to conduct shadow discovery to obtain evidence for use in a pending adversary proceeding. *See In re Enron Corp*., 281 B.R. 836, 840-841 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (\"Based on Rule 2004's substantive differences, courts have expressed concern that Rule 2004 examinations not be used as a tactic to circumvent the safeguards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\"). \"[O]nce an adversary proceeding or contested matter is commenced, discovery should be pursued under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not by Rule 2004.\" *Id*.; *see also In re Cambridge Analytica LLC*, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) (\"There is a well-recognized rule that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter is commenced, discovery should be pursued under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not Rule 2004\").\n\n19. \"The pending proceeding rule is based on the different safeguards that attend Rule 2004 and civil litigation discovery, and reflects a concern that a party to litigation could circumvent his adversary's rights by using Rule 2004 rather than civil discovery to obtain documents or information relevant to the lawsuit.\" *In re Sunedison, Inc*., 572 B.R. at 489. The Trustee's continued pursuit of Rule 2004 discovery regarding the Taconic Property, the Ferncliff Property, Greenwich Land, and Ms. Guo—*months* after the Trustee commenced the Adversary Proceeding in March 2023—exemplifies improper, prohibited use of Rule 2004 discovery.\n\n20. Second, although the identity of the target of a Rule 2004 subpoena may be a relevant consideration, equally relevant is the scope and purpose of the Rule 2004 subpoena, including whether the movant seeks discovery on issues related to a pending adversary proceeding—which is precisely the Trustee's scope and purpose here. *See In re Baroni*, 2017 WL 4404141, \\*14 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) (\"Once an adversary proceeding is pending, the\n\nuse of Rule 2004 as a discovery mechanism related to the issues in the adversary proceeding is improper\"); *In re Alem*, 2013 WL 4840486, \\*1 (Bankr. D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2013) (\"Rule 2004 relief is generally unavailable to parties seeking to obtain discovery relating to pending litigation\").\n\n21. Indeed, \"[d]iscovery of evidence *related* to the pending proceeding must be accomplished in accord with the more restrictive provisions of [the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure]….Thus a trustee, like a creditor, must look to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 *et seq*. after an adversary proceeding is commenced for discovery as to both entities affected by the proceeding and issues addressed in the proceeding.\" *In re Bennett Funding Group Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 29 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996) (emphasis in original) (denying Rule 2004 motion where the \"subpoena as drafted by the Trustee would necessarily involve issues and parties within the scope of the adversary proceeding already initiated by the Trustee, and therefore the Trustee is limited to discovery…in accordance with…Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 *et seq*.\").\n\n22. Thus, it is \"more appropriate to focus on the relationship between the requesting party and the information and parties the examination has targeted\" rather than looking solely at whether the target of a Rule 2004 subpoena is a party to a pending proceeding. *In re Bennett Funding*, 203 B.R. at 30; *see also In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.*, 2010 WL 5128608, \\*3 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 2010) (\"In addition to parties 'involved in or affected by' a pending adversary proceeding,\" the rule against Rule 2004 discovery \"also applies to issues involved in ongoing litigation\").\n\n23. Where, as here, the discovery the Trustee seeks concerns \"issues addressed in the [adversary] proceeding,\" the proper course is to conduct discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules. *In re Bennett Funding*, 203 B.R. at 29. For example, \"where a party seeks to depose another party or a witness on an issue which is the subject of a pending adversary proceeding, the\n\nexamination cannot be conducted pursuant to Rule 2004, but must be conducted pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\" *In re 2435 Plainfield Ave., Inc.*, 223 B.R. 440, 456 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1998) (quashing Rule 2004 subpoenas served on non-debtors who were not a party to an adversary proceeding). A cramped reading that only limits Rule 2004 discovery against direct parties to an adversary proceeding, but permits broad discovery related to the subject matter and issues raised in an adversary proceeding violates the purpose and spirit of Rule 2004. *Id*. (\"Because the debtor seeks to depose Township officials on issues which are the subject of a pending adversary proceeding, the deposition cannot be conducted pursuant to Rule 2004, but must be conducted pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\").\n\n24. Furthermore, no evidence obtained pursuant to Rule 2004 subpoenas served after the Trustee filed the Adversary Proceeding should be admissible in the Adversary Proceeding. *See In re Anderson*, 17-adv-03008 (AMN) 2022 WL 1165002, \\*4-5 (Bankr. D. Conn. April 19, 2022) (holding that Rule 2004 examination transcripts of unavailable witnesses were inadmissible hearsay in an adversary proceeding commenced after the Rule 2004 examinations); *see also Geico Indemnity Co. v. Dionisio*, 12-cv-01137, 2016 WL 74390, \\*6 (D. Conn. Jan. 6, 2016) (testimony from separate lawsuit inadmissible where party in the present action did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness during the prior testimony).\n\n25. In the Adversary Proceeding, the Trustee seeks to dispossess Ms. Guo of her only residence, the Taconic Property. As detailed above, several of the Trustee's proposed discovery requests seek information directly related to the Taconic Property as well as Defendants' finances and other purported assets the Trustee contends are Estate property. *See supra* at ¶¶11-14. If the Trustee seeks information related to the Taconic Property, or any other discovery related to Defendants, the Trustee should pursue discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules.\n\n26. The Rule 2004 Motion should be denied on equitable grounds as well. The Trustee initially sought an expedited discovery schedule that set June 30, 2023, as the deadline to complete fact discovery. *See* **Exhibit 1** (June 1, 2023 Email to Clerk.). During the parties' meet and confer the Trustee rejected Defendants' request to set a reasonable scheduling order and repeatedly stated that he saw no need for much, if any, fact discovery. In fact, under the Trustee's proposed schedule, motions for summary judgment would have already been fully briefed and submitted, and trial in the Adversary Proceeding would have commenced less than one month from now, the week of September 11, 2023. *Id*.\n\n27. The Trustee now requests indefinite extension of time to conduct unilateral discovery related to Defendants and the Adversary Proceeding, months beyond the Trustee's proposed discovery deadline, and weeks and possibly months beyond the Court-ordered September 5, 2023 discovery cut-off date. The Court should see through the Trustee's transparent abuse of the discovery process and avoid a fundamentally unfair situation where the Trustee is conducting unilateral discovery concerning the Adversary Proceeding in the weeks before—and potentially *during*—trial in the Adversary Proceeding.\n\n28. The filing of the Adversary Proceeding itself eliminated the Trustee's ability to take Rule 2004 discovery concerning the subject matter of the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee already obtained an attachment and injunction over the Taconic Property on an *ex parte* basis, relying on his sworn certification that he had sufficient evidence to warrant such drastic relief. Given how advanced the Trustee represents he is in his investigation concerning the subject matter of the Adversary Proceeding, it is even more egregious that he seeks to take additional secret discovery without Defendants' involvement and without being subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\n29. Defendants are entitled to participate in any discovery concerning the Adversary Proceeding, and that discovery must be governed by the Federal Rules. Moreover, to the extent the Trustee proceeds with discovery under Rule 2004 without Defendants' involvement, none of it should be admissible in the Adversary Proceeding. *In re Anderson*, 2022 WL 1165002, \\*5 (transcripts of 2004 examination were inadmissible hearsay where the examinations were not taken within the adversary proceeding and the parties to the adversary proceeding did not have a full and fair opportunity to participate and cross examine).\n\n#### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\n30. Defendants' objection to the Rule 2004 Motion is without prejudice to their pending Motion to Withdraw the Reference of the Adversary Proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court, and their position that the Bankruptcy Court lacks jurisdiction over the Adversary Proceeding. Defendants reserve all of their rights and remedies.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n31. The Court should deny the Trustee's Rule 2004 Motion. Defendants are entitled to participate in discovery for the Adversary Proceeding, which lawsuit carries enormous consequences for Ms. Guo and Greenwich Land. The Court should not permit the Trustee to carry on a fishing expedition outside of the Adversary Proceeding and without the guardrails provided under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants' declaration of their meet and confer efforts is **Exhibit 2**.\n\nDated: August 18, 2023 Stamford, Connecticut\n\n# **MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN PLLC**\n\n By: */s/ Christopher J. Major* Christopher J. Major, Esq. Austin D. Kim, Esq. 125 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 655-3500 Email: cjm@msf-law.com adk@msf-law.com\n\n *Attorneys for Greenwich Land, LLC and Hing Chi Ngok*\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on the 18th day of August, 2023, I caused the foregoing to be filed and\n\nserved on all appearing parties in this case via the Court's Electronic Case Filing System.\n\n By: */s/ Christopher J. Major* Christopher J. Major, Esq.","body_zh":"美国破产法院康涅狄格州地区布里奇波特分院\n\nx : : : : : : :\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n第11章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nGREENWICH LAND, LLC（格林尼治地产有限责任公司）和 HING CHI NGOK（郭英智）对第11章受托人依据规则2004进行取证的第六次补充综合动议的异议\n\n对抗诉讼案 No. 23-05005（下称“对抗诉讼”）中的利害关系方及被告 Greenwich Land, LLC（“Greenwich Land”）和 Hing Chi Ngok（“郭女士”，并与 Greenwich Land 合称“被告”）谨对第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（下称“受托人”）提出的、请求根据《破产规则》2004授权取证的命令的第六次补充综合动议（下称“规则2004动议”）（ECF 2079）提出本异议。\n\n引言\n\n1. 受托人对被告提起本对抗诉讼，主张郭女士并非 Greenwich Land 的真正所有人，而其丈夫、债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）才是真正的衡平法上的所有人。受托人基于其经宣誓的证明，即其已掌握足以支持该项非常救济的充分证据，在本对抗诉讼中获得了针对被告的单方扣押令及单方临时限制令。\n\n2. 尽管先前作出上述陈述，受托人现寻求许可送达二十（20）份规则2004传票，以取得与本对抗诉讼直接相关的证据，即与郭女士或 Greenwich Land 有关或涉及二者的文件和通信，以及与郭女士或 Greenwich Land 的资产有关的取证；受托人在本对抗诉讼中主张该等资产属于债务人破产财产，包括位于 Connecticut 州 Greenwich 市 373 Taconic Road 的不动产（下称“Taconic 房产”），以及位于 Connecticut 州 Cos Cob 市 33 Ferncliff Road 的不动产（下称“Ferncliff 房产”）。这些正是受托人作为本对抗诉讼依据的房产和争议事项。参见对抗诉讼（ECF 1），第 ¶¶2-4、10-11、27-53、55 段。\n\n3. 既然已对被告提起本对抗诉讼，所有与受托人针对被告的主张有关的取证，包括但不限于与 Greenwich Land 和郭女士有关的财务取证，以及与 Taconic 房产、Ferncliff 房产或受托人主张属于破产财产的任何其他被告资产有关的取证请求，均必须依照《联邦民事诉讼规则》（下称“联邦规则”）在本对抗诉讼中进行。\n\n4. 同样地，所有与属于本对抗诉讼范围内的请求有关的取证，包括受托人依据 Delaware 州法律提出的 Greenwich Land 是债务人另我的主张，均必须在本对抗诉讼的范围内进行，并受联邦规则所规定的保障措施约束，包括被告的参与权。规则2004的目的，是使受托人能够确定是否提起对抗诉讼，而不是让受托人进行秘密的钓鱼式取证，以寻找其希望在本对抗诉讼中用于对付被告的证据。受托人不得规避联邦规则，也不得继续向被告隐瞒证据。\n\n5. 在当事人之间的会商中，受托人确认，如该等文件是为回应规则2004传票而向受托人提交的，其不会向被告出示相关且不享有特权的文件。受托人主张，其有权就与被告或被告资产有关或涉及被告或被告资产的第三方文件主张工作成果特权。受托人进一步主张，其享有对由其自行选择的一组第三方提交文件选择性“放弃”特权的权利。受托人的法律主张错误。工作成果特权仅限于由律师准备且载有律师法律分析、结论、理论或策略的材料。工作成果特权并不延及第三方根据公开提交的传票所提交的不享有特权的文件，包括受托人作为其规则2004动议附件公开提交的拟议传票。参见规则2004动议，附件 B 及 C-1 至 C-20。公开提交的传票并非受保护的工作成果，对该等传票作出回应的第三方所提交的文件亦非如此。受托人以规则2004“调查”为名进行传统取证，以图证明其站不住脚的立场，即其有权向被告隐瞒相关且符合请求的取证材料。\n\n6. 此外，受托人正利用规则2004动议，在本对抗诉讼中超出法院排期命令（下称“排期命令”）规定的加速取证时间表进行取证。参见对抗诉讼（ECF 56）。排期命令规定，所有“书面取证请求……应由各方于 2023年6月13日或之前送达”，而“补充书面取证请求”可“基于新发现的信息或诉讼进展”送达。同上，第 ¶2 段。此外，“包括证人证言取证和书面取证请求在内的所有事实取证……应于 2023年9月5日完成。”同上，第 ¶3 段。规则2004动议无视排期命令。受托人请求法院不理会排期命令，并准许受托人无限期延长时间，以在取证截止日期之后很长时间内、秘密地且在被告知情范围之外，对被告的资产和财务进行单方取证。受托人与被告同样受相同规则和命令的约束。法院仅在数月前即已在本对抗诉讼中向当事人施加了压缩的取证时间表（其截止日期为 2023年9月5日），现不应认可受托人单方面要求进行无期限规则2004钓鱼式取证，以获取在本对抗诉讼中用于对付被告的证据。\n\n7. 与受托人的看法相反，规则2004并未赋予受托人不受限制地对作为本对抗诉讼标的的完全相同资产和争议事项进行暗中取证的权利。受托人拟议的二十（20）份规则2004传票中几乎每一项取证请求，均寻求与 Greenwich Land、郭女士、Taconic 房产及 Ferncliff 房产有关的文件和信息。受托人并未说明，为何与受托人主张与本对抗诉讼相关的当事人、资产及争议事项有关的取证，构成规则2004传票的适当标的。\n\n8. 法院应完全驳回规则2004动议，并命令受托人依照联邦规则进行诉讼。或者，应命令受托人向被告披露所有与 Greenwich Land、郭女士以及受托人在本对抗诉讼中提出的任何争议事项有关的文件。受托人错误地认为其凌驾于联邦规则之上，或者认为其有权创设新规则，以向受托人在本对抗诉讼中起诉的当事人隐瞒重要且符合请求的取证材料。法院不应认可受托人持续滥用规则2004和联邦规则的行为。受托人是民事诉讼当事人，应与每一宗民事诉讼中的其他所有民事诉讼当事人一样，遵守相同的规则和标准。\n\n相关事实背景\n\n9. 受托人于 2023年3月27日提起本对抗诉讼（参见对抗诉讼，ECF 1）。同日，受托人根据 Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-278e(a) 提出单方判决前救济申请（下称“PJR申请”）（同上，ECF 11），并提出单方初步禁令动议（包括临时限制令）（同上，ECF 12）。PJR申请和初步禁令动议均寻求类似救济，即扣押 Taconic 房产，并禁止被告采取任何行动对 Taconic 房产设定负担或予以转让。（同上，ECF 4，第 ¶2 段（PJR申请）；ECF 12，第 ¶¶1-2 段（动议）。）2023年3月28日，法院签发了受托人拟议的命令，并准许PJR申请（下称“PJR命令”（同上，ECF 15））。同日，法院准许受托人提出的单方临时限制令（“TRO”）动议，并就受托人的初步禁令动议设定听证（同上，ECF 14）；该听证现定于 2023年5月30日开始。\n\n10. 2023年8月11日，受托人提交其规则2004动议，并附上二十（20）份拟议规则2004传票（下称“拟议传票”）。参见规则2004动议，附件 B 及 C-1 至 C-20。拟议传票确认，受托人正寻求与被告及本对抗诉讼标的有关的取证。\n\n11. 拟议传票包括以下与被告以及受托人在本对抗诉讼中主张属于破产财产的资产有关的定义术语：\n\na. “债务人所谓的妻子”系指 Hing Chi Ngok（又名 Hing Chi Ng、Yu Qingzhi、岳庆芝，或任何其他化名），以及其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事的人。参见，例如，规则2004动议，附件 C-1，第8页。\n\nb. “债务人的家庭成员”统称债务人、债务人的儿子、债务人的女儿、债务人所谓的妻子，以及与债务人有任何其他亲属关系的人。参见，例如，规则2004动议，附件 C-1，第8页。\n\nc. “关联个人”一词的定义包括以下“所有个人”：(1)“持有、控制、保管或有权酌情处置”郭女士所有、控制或享有的资产；或 (2)“曾为 Greenwich Land 的雇员、董事，或以其他方式与其有关联”，以及前述任何人员各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事的人。参见，例如，规则2004动议，附件 C-1，第8-9页。\n\nd. “关联实体”一词的定义包括“单独及共同地，所有符合下列情形的任何类型组织或实体：(1) 曾由”郭女士所有、控制或投资；或 (2)“直接或间接享有郭女士所有、控制或享有的任何资产中的权益”，以及前述任何人员各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事的人。参见，例如，规则2004动议，附件 C-1，第9页。\n\n12. 所有与郭女士和 Greenwich Land 有关的取证均必须依照联邦规则并在本对抗诉讼中进行。受托人不得借规则2004取证之名，向郭女士和 Greenwich Land 隐瞒与郭女士和 Greenwich Land 有关的证据。\n\n13. 此外，拟议传票包括数十项针对被告以及作为本对抗诉讼标的的被告资产的请求，包括 Taconic 房产和 Ferncliff 房产。以下仅为其中若干示例。\n\na. 每一份拟议传票均包含针对郭女士的请求；受托人不诚实地将其定义为“债务人所谓的妻子”，尽管受托人数月以来一直知晓郭女士与债务人已合法结婚数十年。参见，例如，规则2004动议，第 34、53、72、89、106、123、140、157、174、193、210、230、249、268、285、305、324、344、364、384 页。受托人持续攻击郭女士的婚姻，其行为似乎源于对事实的误解或对依外国法律缔结的婚姻缺乏尊重，除了贬损和羞辱郭女士外别无目的。\n\n- b. 向（1）17 Miles, LLC（17 Miles有限责任公司）及（2）GS Security Solutions Inc.（GS安全解决方案公司）拟发出的传票要求提供下列文件和信息：“与债务人曾占用或使用的任何财产有关的所有文件，包括但不限于……位于康涅狄格州格林尼治373 Taconic Rd.的住宅房产［以及］位于康涅狄格州格林尼治33 Ferncliff Rd.的住宅房产……。”见规则2004动议第40页（请求第6项）、第180页（请求第6项）。\n\n- c. 向（1）Ana C. Izquiedo-Henn（安娜·C·伊斯基耶多-亨）；（2）Limarie Reyes（利马里·雷耶斯）；（3）Linwan “Irene” Feng（林婉［“艾琳”］·冯）；（4）Ross Heinemeyer（罗斯·海内迈耶）；（5）Zhuoer “Joe” Wang（卓尔［“乔”］·王）拟发出的传票要求提供下列文件和信息：“与债务人曾占用或使用的任何财产有关的所有文件，包括但不限于位于康涅狄格州格林尼治373 Taconic Rd.的住宅房产［以及］位于康涅狄格州格林尼治33 Ferncliff Rd.的住宅房产……。”见规则2004动议第59页（请求第7项）、第236页（请求第7项）、第255页（请求第7项）、第311页（请求第7项）；第390页（请求第7项）。\n\n- d. 向（1）Axos Bank（Axos银行）和/或Axos Financial, Inc.（Axos金融公司）；（2）Bank of Montreal（蒙特利尔银行）；（3）Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce（加拿大帝国商业银行）和/或CIBC Ind.（以CIBC名义营业）；（4）Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.（嘉信公司）（以Charles Schwab名义营业）；（5）Comerica Incorporated（Comerica公司）（以Comerica Bank名义营业）；（6）East West Bank（华美银行）和/或East West Bancorp, Inc.（华美银行集团公司）；（7）Investors Bank（投资者银行）和/或Citizens Financial Group, Inc.（公民金融集团公司）；（8）Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC（摩根士丹利史密斯巴尼有限责任公司）（以Morgan Stanley名义营业）（合称“银行传票”）拟发出的传票，将Guo女士作为唯一成员的“Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）”界定为“2004调查目标”。见规则2004动议第72、89、106、123、140、157、193、268页。\n\n- e. 各银行传票随后均包括下列文件和信息请求：\n\n\t- i. “与由……［Greenwich Land］持有、控制、代表其持有或以其他方式与之有关的任何账户相关的所有文件，包括任何及全部账户结单、授权书、委托书、信托文件、指示或表格、已注销支票副本、通信往来，以及电汇和相关通信往来及指示。”见规则2004动议第76、89、93、110、127、144、161、197、272页。\n\n\t- ii. “与属于……［Greenwich Land］、由其持有、控制、代表其持有或以其他方式与之有关的任何资金、证券、财产或资产相关的所有文件，包括任何及全部账户结单、授权书、委托书、信托文件、指示或表格、已注销支票副本、通信往来，以及电汇和相关通信往来及指示。”见规则2004动议第76、89、93、110、127、144、161、197、272页。\n\n\t- iii. “与同……［Greenwich Land］进行的任何商业、贸易或金融交易相关的所有文件，包括但不限于任何贷款、信贷额度、寄托、存款、掉期、证券交易、抵押贷款或ISDA，包括任何及全部账户结单、授权书、委托书、信托文件、指示或表格、已注销支票副本、通信往来，以及电汇和相关通信往来及指示。”见规则2004动议第76、89、93、110、127、144、161、197、272页。\n\n- iv. “与［Greenwich Land］有关的任何电汇活动相关的所有文件，不论是否存在任何账户，包括但不限于所有电汇收据、账号、余额、授权、与转账当事人有关的身份信息、通信往来、指示或其他记录。”见规则2004动议第76-77、93-94、110-111、127-128、144-145、161-162、197-198、272-273页。\n\n- v. “与您和［Greenwich Land］之间任何通信和沟通有关的所有文件。”见规则2004动议第77、94、111、128、145、162、198、273页。\n\n- vi. “与［Greenwich Land］的任何账户有关的所有文件，涉及账户开立、账户获授权使用人及账户维护。”见规则2004动议第77、94、111、128、145、162、198、273页。\n\n- vii. “与［Greenwich Land］有关的任何反洗钱、了解你的客户或其他合规活动相关的所有文件，包括但不限于［Greenwich Land］中任何一方提供的任何信息，或您获悉的任何信息。”见规则2004动议第77、94、111、128、145、162、198、273页。\n\n- viii. “与任何国家的任何监管机构进行的任何通信有关的所有文件，包括但不限于英格兰银行、美国联邦储备系统、S.E.C.、CFTC、FINRA、中国证券监督管理委员会、中国人民银行、香港证券及期货事务监察委员会和香港金融管理局，与……［Greenwich Land］有关的通信。”见规则2004动议第72、89、106、123、140、157、193、268页。\n\n- f. 向（1）Joshua I. Sherman（约书亚·I·谢尔曼）；（2）Nicholas F. Savio（尼古拉斯·F·萨维奥）；（3）Savio Law LLC（萨维奥律师事务所有限责任公司）；（4）V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A.（V.X. Cerda及合伙人专业协会）；（5）Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）拟发出的传票均请求：“与……位于康涅狄格州格林尼治373 Taconic Rd.的住宅房产；位于康涅狄格州格林尼治33 Ferncliff Rd.的住宅房产；……以及债务人或债务人破产财产在［Greenwich Land］中拥有的任何财务权益有关的所有文件。”见规则2004动议第216页（请求第10项）、第291页（请求第10项）、第330页（请求第10项）、第350页（请求第10项）、第370页（请求第10项）。\n\n14. 此外，受托人承认，其规则2004动议专门针对据称知悉与Greenwich Land有关事项的个人和实体。见规则2004动议第5页。例如，受托人主张，Nicholas F. Savio先生及其律师事务所Savio Law LLC据称“向包括由Greenwich Land LLC控制的银行账户在内的账户转移了数百万美元……［并且］［因］此，Savio可能掌握与债务人及其商业和财务事务及交易有关的信息、文件和记录，这将有助于受托人进行调查。”同上。受托人没有任何依据在对抗程序之外寻求与Greenwich Land有关的信息。所请求的调查取证——如其存在——可能具有附带用途的推测性可能性，并非足以证明广泛规则2004调查取证正当性的正当理由。\n\n15. 为回应上述拟议传票而提交的所有文件和信息，显然均指向对抗程序中提出的核心争议。受托人拟议的调查取证显然意图在对抗程序中用于对抗被告。拟议传票的范围必然涉及构成受托人对抗程序核心的争议，即Guo女士、Greenwich Land、Taconic房产和Ferncliff房产。与被告以及受托人主张属于破产财产资产的资产有关的一切调查取证，均必须在对抗程序的范围内并依联邦规则进行。受托人没有可予认定的依据规避联邦规则。不得授权受托人继续侵犯被告依据联邦规则享有的权利及其宪法正当程序权利。\n\n论证\n\n16. “仅有关联性不足以证明规则2004请求的正当性。寻求进行规则2004审查的一方还必须证明存在正当理由，例如，拟议审查对于确立寻求审查一方的主张是必要的，或驳回该请求将使审查人遭受不当困难或不公正。”In re Sunedison, Inc.（Sunedison公司案）, 572 B.R. 482, 489 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)。\n\n17. 法院先前准予受托人第五项补充综合规则2004审查动议的命令（ECF 1891），侧重于规则2004传票的对象是否为待决程序的一方当事人，但这种对判例法的狭隘解读忽视了范围这一关键问题，并误解了规则2004调查取证的目的。见ECF 1891，第3页。\n\n18. 首先，规则2004是一项诉前工具，用于确定是否有理由提起对抗程序，而非进行隐蔽调查取证以获取供待决对抗程序使用的证据。见In re Enron Corp.（Enron公司案）, 281 B.R. 836, 840-841 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)（“基于规则2004在实质上的差异，法院已表示担忧，即不应将规则2004审查作为规避《联邦民事诉讼规则》保障措施的策略”）。“［一］旦对抗程序或争议事项启动，调查取证即应依《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行，而非依规则2004进行。”同上；另见In re Cambridge Analytica LLC（Cambridge Analytica有限责任公司案）, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)（“有一项广受认可的规则，即一旦对抗程序或争议事项启动，调查取证应依适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行，而非依规则2004进行”）。\n\n19. “待决程序规则以规则2004与民事诉讼调查取证所附随的不同保障为基础，并反映出一种担忧，即诉讼当事人可能通过使用规则2004而非民事调查取证来获取与诉讼相关的文件或信息，从而规避其对方当事人的权利。”In re Sunedison, Inc., 572 B.R. at 489。受托人在2023年3月启动对抗程序数月后，仍持续就Taconic房产、Ferncliff房产、Greenwich Land和Guo女士寻求规则2004调查取证，正是对规则2004调查取证不当且被禁止使用的例证。\n\n20. 其次，尽管规则2004传票对象的身份可能是相关考量因素，但规则2004传票的范围和目的同样相关，包括动议方是否就与待决对抗程序有关的争议寻求调查取证——而这正是本案中受托人的范围和目的。见In re Baroni（Baroni案）, 2017 WL 4404141, \\*14 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017)（“一旦对抗程序处于待决状态，将规则2004作为与对抗程序争议有关的调查取证机制使用即属不当”）；In re Alem（Alem案）, 2013 WL 4840486, \\*1 (Bankr. D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2013)（“规则2004救济通常不适用于寻求取得与待决诉讼有关调查取证的当事人”）。\n\n21. 事实上，“与待决程序有关证据的调查取证必须依照［《联邦破产程序规则》］较为严格的规定完成……因此，受托人与债权人一样，在对抗程序启动后，必须依据Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 et seq.，就受该程序影响的实体和该程序所处理的争议进行调查取证。”In re Bennett Funding Group Inc.（Bennett Funding Group公司案）, 203 B.R. 24, 29 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)（原文强调）（驳回规则2004动议，理由是“按受托人所起草的传票，必然涉及已由受托人启动的对抗程序范围内的争议和当事人，因此受托人仅限于依照……Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 et seq.进行调查取证”）。\n\n22. 因此，“更适宜的是关注请求方与审查所针对的信息及当事人之间的关系”，而非仅考察规则2004传票的对象是否为待决程序的一方当事人。In re Bennett Funding, 203 B.R. at 30；另见In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.（Southeastern Materials公司案）, 2010 WL 5128608, \\*3 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 2010)（“除参与或受待决对抗程序影响的当事人外”，禁止规则2004调查取证的规则“亦适用于正在进行的诉讼所涉及的争议”）。\n\n23. 如本案，受托人所寻求的调查取证涉及“［对抗］程序所处理的争议”时，适当做法是依联邦规则进行调查取证。In re Bennett Funding, 203 B.R. at 29。例如，“一方当事人寻求就属于待决对抗程序标的的争议，对另一方当事人或证人进行证言录取时，\n\n依照 Rule 2004 不能进行审查，而必须依照《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行。”In re 2435 Plainfield Ave., Inc., 223 B.R. 440, 456 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1998)（撤销向非债务人送达的 Rule 2004 传票，彼等并非对抗程序的当事人）。一种狭隘的解读，即仅限制针对对抗程序直接当事人的 Rule 2004 证据开示、却允许就对抗程序中提出的标的和争议进行广泛证据开示，有违 Rule 2004 的目的和精神。Id.（“由于债务人寻求就正在进行的对抗程序所涉问题询问镇政府官员，故该询问不得依照 Rule 2004 进行，而必须依照《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行。”）。\n\n24. 此外，受托人在提起对抗程序后依据 Rule 2004 传票取得的任何证据，均不应在该对抗程序中具有可采性。见 In re Anderson, 17-adv-03008 (AMN) 2022 WL 1165002, *4-5 (Bankr. D. Conn. April 19, 2022)（裁定，在依据 Rule 2004 进行审查后提起的对抗程序中，无法出庭的证人的 Rule 2004 审查笔录属于不可采的传闻证据）；另见 Geico Indemnity Co. v. Dionisio, 12-cv-01137, 2016 WL 74390, *6 (D. Conn. Jan. 6, 2016)（在本案当事人未有机会于先前证言期间交叉询问证人的情况下，另一诉讼中的证言不可采）。\n\n25. 在该对抗程序中，受托人寻求剥夺 Ms. Guo（郭女士）唯一住所，即 Taconic Property（塔科尼克房产）。如上所详述，受托人提出的若干证据开示请求寻求与塔科尼克房产直接相关的信息，以及与被告的财务状况和受托人主张属于破产财产的其他所谓资产直接相关的信息。见上文 ¶¶11-14。如受托人寻求与塔科尼克房产有关的信息，或任何其他与被告有关的证据开示，受托人应依照《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行证据开示。\n\n26. Rule 2004 动议亦应基于衡平理由予以驳回。受托人最初寻求一项加速的证据开示时间表，将 2023年6月30日定为完成事实证据开示的截止日期。见附件 1（2023年6月1日致书记官的电子邮件）。在各方会面协商期间，受托人拒绝了被告设定合理排期命令的请求，并一再表示，他认为没有必要进行大量、即使有也只是极少的事实证据开示。事实上，按照受托人提出的时间表，简易判决动议本应已完成书面陈述并提交，而对抗程序的审判本应于不到一个月后，即 2023年9月11日当周开始。Id.\n\n27. 受托人现请求无限期延长时间，以就被告和对抗程序进行单方证据开示；该请求已超过受托人提出的证据开示截止日期数月，并超过法院命令确定的 2023年9月5日证据开示截止日期数周，且可能数月。法院应识破受托人明显滥用证据开示程序的行为，并避免出现根本不公平的情形，即受托人在对抗程序审判前数周——并可能在审判期间——就对抗程序进行单方证据开示。\n\n28. 提起对抗程序本身即消除了受托人就该对抗程序标的进行 Rule 2004 证据开示的能力。受托人已在单方基础上取得对塔科尼克房产的扣押和禁令，其所依据的是其经宣誓的证明，即其拥有足以支持此类严厉救济的充分证据。鉴于受托人声称其就对抗程序标的所进行的调查已达到如此进展阶段，其仍寻求在被告未参与且不受《联邦民事诉讼规则》约束的情况下进行额外秘密证据开示，更属严重不当。\n\n29. 被告有权参与任何有关对抗程序的证据开示，且该证据开示必须受《联邦民事诉讼规则》管辖。此外，如受托人在被告未参与的情况下依照 Rule 2004 进行证据开示，其中任何内容均不应在对抗程序中具有可采性。In re Anderson, 2022 WL 1165002, *5（在审查并非于对抗程序中进行，且对抗程序当事人未获得充分、公平的参与及交叉询问机会的情况下，2004 审查笔录属于不可采的传闻证据）。\n\n权利保留\n\n30. 被告对 Rule 2004 动议的异议，不影响其尚待裁决的将对抗程序的管辖权移交至 Bankruptcy Court（破产法院）的动议，亦不影响其关于破产法院对该对抗程序不具有管辖权的立场。被告保留其全部权利和救济。\n\n结论\n\n31. 法院应驳回受托人的 Rule 2004 动议。被告有权参与该对抗程序的证据开示，该诉讼对郭女士及 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治地产有限责任公司）具有重大后果。法院不应允许受托人在对抗程序之外、且不受《联邦民事诉讼规则》所提供保障约束的情况下继续进行钓鱼式调查。被告关于其会面协商努力的声明载于附件 2。\n\n日期：2023年8月18日　康涅狄格州斯坦福德\n\nMEISTER SEELIG & FEIN PLLC（迈斯特·西利格与费因专业有限责任公司）\n\n签署人：/s/ Christopher J. Major\n\nChristopher J. Major, Esq.\n\nAustin D. Kim, Esq.\n\n125 Park Avenue, 7th Floor\n\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n电话：(212) 655-3500\n\n电子邮箱：cjm@msf-law.com\n\nadk@msf-law.com\n\nGreenwich Land, LLC 和 Hing Chi Ngok 的代理律师\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2023年8月18日，本人已促使将上述文件提交，并通过法院电子案件提交系统向本案所有已出庭当事人送达。\n\n签署人：/s/ Christopher J. Major\n\nChristopher J. Major, Esq.","key_entities":["Guo","CIPA","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":11,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":12,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":14,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":15,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":56,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":1891,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2079,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4589,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:35:09"}