{"id":"court_ctb_2432_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2432,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":null,"title":"EXHIBIT A | From: | Patrick Linsey","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n| From: | Patrick Linsey |\n|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| To:
Cc: | James Moriarty
Aaron A. Romney; Wernick, Melissa F.; Vartan, Lee; Peter Fay; Bassett, Nicholas; Luft, Avi E.; Farmer, Will C.; |\n| Subject:
Date: | Dennis Carnelli
RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant\"s RFP search terms
Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:39:13 PM |\n\nExternal E-mail - CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Firm. Do NOT reply, click links or open attachments, unless you recognize the sending email address and know the content is safe..\n\nHi Jim –\n\nWe do not share your understanding regarding the rule. Regardless, without waiver of the Trustee's rights or position but in an effort to avoid motion practice on this issue, we will proceed in the manner you suggest.\n\nBest,\n\nPat\n\n**From:** James Moriarty **Sent:** Thursday, October 12, 2023 12:01 PM **To:** Patrick Linsey **Cc:** Aaron A. Romney ; Wernick, Melissa F. ; Vartan, Lee ; Peter Fay ; Bassett, Nicholas ; Luft, Avi E. ; Farmer, Will C. ; Dennis Carnelli **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n**Caution:** External Email. Verify you know the sender before clicking a Link.\n\nPat:\n\nWe are unaware of any authority that would allow the Trustee to use Rule 502(d) in the way you are suggesting. Rule 502(d) is intended to address quick peek agreements and to provide for the clawback of inadvertently produced privileged materials. In fact, the Protective Order entered by Judge Manning in the Bankruptcy Case already includes a Rule 502(d) provision that sets forth the process for the recovery of inadvertently produced privileged information. Regardless, the Debtor could never even consider a stipulation, provided it would not act as a waiver which we are not convinced is the case, without first reviewing the privileged documents the Trustee intends to produce/affirmatively use in the adversary proceeding. As previously stated, the Debtor is willing to undertake a review of the documents at issue for privilege, as was done in the Greenwich Land adversary proceeding, to i) potentially narrow the volume of documents at issue, and ii) allow the\n\nDebtor to make an informed decision vis-à-vis the Trustee's request. Let me know if you want to proceed in this manner. Otherwise, the Debtor objects to the production or use of any privileged document and will oppose any motion the Trustee files.\n\nJim\n\n**From:** Patrick Linsey [\n\n**Sent:** Wednesday, October 11, 2023 8:36 PM\n\n**To:** James Moriarty [\n\n**Cc:** Aaron A. Romney <[aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)>; Wernick, Melissa F. [; Vartan, Lee [; Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas [; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. [; Dennis Carnelli [ **Subject:** Re: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\nExternal E-mail - CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Firm. Do NOT reply, click links or open attachments, unless you recognize the sending email address and know the content is safe..\n\nHi Jim —\n\nFurther to our call yesterday, please see below relevant provisions in Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (d) and (e). Without waiver of either the Trustee's position regarding the effect of the debtor's and the defendant's shared counsel or the Trustee's right to seek relief pursuant to the privileges order, a stipulated order preserving privilege should resolve the issue without resort to motion practice. Please let us know your thoughts. Thanks.\n\nBest,\n\nPat\n\n**(d) Controlling Effect of a Court Order.** A federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court — in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.\n\n**(e) Controlling Effect of a Party Agreement.** An agreement on the effect of disclosure in a federal proceeding is binding only on the parties to the agreement, unless it is incorporated into a court order.\n\n**Caution:** External Email. Verify you know the sender before clicking a Link.\n\nThanks Pat. Z&Z is counsel to the Debtor in the bankruptcy case and Ms. Guo as the sole defendant in an adversary proceeding. Thus, this situation is exactly like Greenwich Land and should proceed in the same manner. Our view is if the Trustee proceeds as you stated he would, by producing documents to Z&Z as counsel to Ms. Guo in the adversary, or even by producing documents to Z&Z and taking the position that the production to Z&Z complies with the Trustee's obligations to produce documents to Ms. Guo in the adversary, the Trustee will have violated the privileges order. As we discussed, if either side feels that a further discussion would be fruitful we will reach out.\n\nJim\n\n**From:** Patrick Linsey [ **Sent:** Tuesday, October 10, 2023 5:39 PM **To:** James Moriarty [; Aaron A. Romney [; Wernick, Melissa F. [](mailto:mwernick@csglaw.com); Vartan, Lee [ **Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas [; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Dennis Carnelli [ **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n### External E-mail - CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Firm. Do NOT reply, click links or open attachments, unless you recognize the sending email address and know the content is safe..\n\nHi Jim –\n\nThe procedure from Greenwich Land is inapplicable, because, unlike in Greenwich Land, in this adversary proceeding the debtor and the defendant are represented by the same counsel. Having spoken with you, I understand you have a different view. Beyond that, I don't have anything to add to my email below.\n\nBest,\n\nPat\n\n**From:** James Moriarty [ **Sent:** Tuesday, October 10, 2023 4:40 PM\n\n**To:** Patrick Linsey [; Aaron A. Romney [; Wernick, Melissa F. [](mailto:mwernick@csglaw.com); Vartan, Lee [\n\n**Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas\n\n[; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Dennis Carnelli [ **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n**Caution:** External Email. Verify you know the sender before clicking a Link.\n\nIn the Greenwich Land adversary the Trustee provided the debtor's counsel with documents to review prior to production so the debtor could determine whether he would agree to waive privilege as to any of the privileged, or potentially privileged, documents. That is the same process that must be followed in this case. The Trustee cannot produce the documents to Z&Z in the adversary proceeding as counsel to Ms. Guo because that would result in waiver of privilege and the Trustee has not right under the Privileges Order to waive privilege.\n\nJim\n\n**From:** Patrick Linsey [ **Sent:** Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:32 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney <[aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)>; Wernick, Melissa F. [; Vartan, Lee [; James Moriarty [ **Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas [; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Dennis Carnelli [ **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n### External E-mail - CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Firm. Do NOT reply, click links or open attachments, unless you recognize the sending email address and know the content is safe..\n\nTo be clear – we're producing to Z&Z as part of the Trustee's production in response to the defendant's RFP's in this adversary proceeding.\n\nIf you or your colleagues would like to discuss I'm happy to but no need to discuss further from the Trustee's side.\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney [ **Sent:** Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:28 PM **To:** Patrick Linsey [; Wernick, Melissa F. [; Vartan, Lee [; James Moriarty [\n\n**Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas\n\n[; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer,\n\nWill C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Dennis Carnelli [\n\n**Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n**Caution:** External Email. Verify you know the sender before clicking a Link.\n\nI don't really understand the Trustee's position that you're communicating here. Obviously providing documents to the Debtor's counsel and asking us to confirm whether the Debtor will agree to waive privilege does not operate as a waiver of anything and we have no objection to that.\n\nI can discuss this with you tomorrow or later this week.\n\n**From:** Patrick Linsey [ **Sent:** Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:09 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney <[aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)>; Wernick, Melissa F. [; Vartan, Lee [; James Moriarty [ **Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas [; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Dennis Carnelli [ **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n## External E-mail - CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Firm. Do NOT reply, click links or open attachments, unless you recognize the sending email address and know the content is safe..\n\nHi Aaron --\n\nZ&Z (and you and Jim specifically) has reviewed docs potentially subject to debtor's privilege throughout the chapter 11 case. The responsive docs potentially subject to privilege that are responsive to the defendant's RFPs will be produced to Z&Z. Again, this seems like an issue for the debtor and the defendant to discuss, not the Trustee.\n\nIf you'd like to discuss I'm happy to arrange a call (and it doesn't need to be today) – but I don't expect the Trustee's position to change. As I said, the Trustee expects production to begin next week. Thanks.\n\n1. Pat\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney [ **Sent:** Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:58 PM **To:** Patrick Linsey [; Wernick, Melissa F. [; Vartan, Lee [; James Moriarty [ **Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas [; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Dennis Carnelli [ **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n**Caution:** External Email. Verify you know the sender before clicking a Link.\n\nPat, I am not in a position to have this conversation today, but the Debtor has not authorized Z&Z or the Trustee to waive any of his privileges. It is my understanding that providing the debtor's privileged information to any third party could operate as a waiver, which the Trustee does not have the unilateral right to do under the privilege order.\n\n**From:** Patrick Linsey [ **Sent:** Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:49 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney <[aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)>; Wernick, Melissa F. [; Vartan, Lee [; James Moriarty [ **Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas [; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Dennis Carnelli [ **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\nExternal E-mail - CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Firm. Do NOT reply, click links or open attachments, unless you recognize the sending email address and know the content is safe..\n\nHi Aaron – thanks for your response.\n\nBecause the defendant and the debtor share counsel, the defendant's counsel has access to this information (much of which the defendant's counsel has already seen) – and thus we don't see the concern. How the debtor and the defendant are managing issues of privilege/waiver as between them is their issue. The Trustee expects production to begin next week (including the W&C and HR docs discussed below).\n\nThanks.\n\n1. Pat\n\n**Caution:** External Email. Verify you know the sender before clicking a Link. Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Dennis Carnelli [ **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n[; Vartan, Lee [; James Moriarty\n\n[; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer,\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney [\n\n**Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas\n\n**To:** Patrick Linsey [; Wernick, Melissa F.\n\n**Sent:** Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:27 AM\n\n[\n\nPat-thank you for your email. I've quickly read it but not studied it in detail. I'm jammed up on other matters today. The one thing I did want to respond to immediately is that the Debtor cannot consent to the production of privileged documents to anyone if doing so would result in a privilege waiver. I believe we have been very consistent on that issue for quite some time.\n\nAlso, as far as I know, Z&Z has not received privileged documents from Hodgson Russ in connection with our representation of the Debtor. Williams & Connoly did provide Z&Z with privileged documents in connection with a personal harm privilege review (though that was quite some time ago), and I attended the W&C 2004 examination, but Hodgson Russ never produced anything to us in connection with a privilege review (at least not as best as I can recall), we were not provided with notice of the Hodgson Russ 2004 exam, and as best as I can recall we have not received a copy of the transcript from the 2004 exam.\n\n**From:** Patrick Linsey [\n\n**Sent:** Monday, October 9, 2023 9:48 PM\n\n**To:** Wernick, Melissa F. <[mwernick@csglaw.com>](mailto:mwernick@csglaw.com); Vartan, Lee <[lvartan@csglaw.com>](mailto:lvartan@csglaw.com); James Moriarty [; Aaron A. Romney [ **Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas\n\n[; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Dennis Carnelli [ **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\nExternal E-mail - CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Firm. Do NOT reply, click links or open attachments, unless you recognize the sending email address and know the content is safe..\n\nDear Melissa, Lee, Aaron and Jim –\n\nThank you for your email and the proposed search terms. To avoid delaying discovery proceedings, the Trustee had already moved forward with searches based on search terms that counsel drafted in advance of receiving the defendant's terms – and a responsiveness review has been underway. There is substantial overlap between the terms that the Trustee selected and the defendant's list. That said, other terms\n\nincluded in the defendant's list—and particularly those that are not focused on the entities and personal property at issue in this adversary proceeding—are substantially overbroad. (*E.g.*, some proposed searches pertain generally to certain law firms' involvement with the debtor, much of which is not at issue in this adversary proceeding; others pertain generally to the debtor and sales, transfers, etc., completely untethered from the facts at issue here.)\n\nAccordingly, set forth below this email, please find (A) the terms that the Trustee initially searched; (B) the terms on the defendant's list that were addressed by the Trustee's initial terms; (C) additional terms from the defendant's list that the Trustee agrees to search; and (D) additional terms from the defendant's list that the Trustee declines to search, because the requested terms are overly broad and/or it would be unduly burdensome (and not proportionate to the needs of this dispute) for the Trustee to collect, search, and review further documents based on such terms, among other reasons. For terms under category (B), these include several instances where the defendant's narrower terms were subsumed by the Trustee's broader terms (*e.g.*, by including \"Mei\" as a search term, the Trustee addressed the defendant's proposed search term: \"Mei\" AND (\"plane\" or \"airplane\" or \"jet\" or \"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\")).\n\nThe Trustee's searches were run against all documents from select document custodians based on the subject matter of this adversary proceeding, to wit: (i) the debtor; (ii) Williams & Connolly; (iii) Hodgson Russ; (iv) ACASS; (v) Mei Guo; (vi) UBS AG; (vii) Vistra; (viii) Raich Ende Malter; and (ix) Appleby Global. In addition, these searches were run against any document production obtained by the Trustee (irrespective of custodian) that, upon the Trustee's initial Rule 2004 review, was tagged as relating to \"personal property\" (as opposed to other \"issue tags\" used in the Trustee's Rule 2004 review). Together, this resulted in a collection set in excess of 49,000 documents against which the Trustee has run searches which results we are reviewing for responsiveness. As set forth below, the Trustee will be running certain additional searches based on the defendant's proposed terms in category (C) and will likewise review and produce responsive results as to those.\n\nThe foregoing is more than reasonable and proportionate to the dispute in this adversary proceeding—particularly considering that the defendant asserted the Fifth Amendment to refuse to provide *any* documents or information responsive the Trustee's requests. (The Trustee reserves all rights to challenge any invocation of privilege.) Indeed, the Trustee has incurred and continues to incur substantial expense in responding to the defendant's document requests. Nor is discovery in this adversary proceeding an invitation for the defendant and/or the debtor to conduct a fishing\n\nexpedition into the fruits of the Trustee's investigation unrelated to the claims at issue here (which is the plain implication of proposed terms like \"Kwok\" AND \"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\").\n\nAs concerns privilege, please also confirm that the debtor consents to the production of documents that are subject to the debtor's attorney-client privilege (to which the Trustee has succeeded) to the extent that they are responsive. I expect most if not all such documents to be from the Williams & Connolly or Hodgson Russ custodians which Aaron and Jim should already be generally familiar with.\n\nPlease feel free to let us know if you have any questions regarding these matters. Otherwise, we will await the debtor's response regarding the privilege issue. The Trustee continues to reserve all rights, including as set forth in his responses and objections. Thank you.\n\nBest,\n\nPat\n\n#### 1. **TRUSTEE'S INITIAL SEARCHES**\n\n- \"mei\"\n- \"daughter\"\n- \"bombardier\"\n- \"hangar\"\n- \"airfield\"\n- \"jumbo\"\n- \"aircraft\"\n- \"plane\"\n- \"airplane\"\n- \"jet\"\n- \"anton\"\n- \"whitecroft\"\n- \"allied capital\"\n- \"creative apex\"\n- \"crystal breeze\"\n- \"elite well\"\n- \"globalist international\"\n- \"infinite increase\"\n- \"infinitum developments\"\n- \"noble fame\"\n- \"rosy acme\"\n- \"head win\"\n- \"acass\"\n- \"global jet\"\n\n• ((\"beijing pangu\" or \"beijing zenith\") w/15 (\"plane\" or \"jet\" or \"airplane\" or \"bombardier\"))\n\n## 2. **DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED TERMS ADDRESSED BY TRUSTEE'S INITIAL SEARCHES**\n\n- \"Anton\"\n- \"Bombardier\"\n- \"Head Win Group\"\n- \"ACASS\" or \"ACASS Canada\"\n- \"Whitecroft\"\n- \"Allied Capital\" or \"Allied Capital Global\"\n- \"Creative Apex Investments\" or \"Creative Apex\"\n- \"Crystal Breeze\" or \"Crystal Breeze Investments\"\n- \"Elite Well\" or \"Elite Well Global\"\n- \"Globalist International\"\n- \"Infinitum Developments\"\n- \"Infinite Increase\"\n- \"Noble Fame\" or \"Noble Fame Global\"\n- \"Rosy Acme\" or \"Rosy Acme Ventures\"\n- \"Yu Yong\" or \"Yong\" AND (\"plane\" or \"airplane\" or \"jet\")\n- \"Natasha Qu\" or \"Natasha\" or \"Qu\" AND (\"plane\" or \"airplane\" or \"jet\")\n- \"Han Chunguang\" or \"Chunguang\" AND (\"plane\" or \"airplane\" or \"jet\")\n- \"Ho\" AND (\"Bombardier\" or \"plane\" or \"airplane\" or \"jet\")\n- \"Kwok\" AND (\"plane\" or \"airplane\" or \"jet\")\n- \"Guo\" AND (\"plane\" or \"airplane\" or \"jet\")\n- \"Mei\" AND (\"plane\" or \"airplane\" or \"jet\" or \"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\")\n- \"Miles\" AND (\"plane\" or \"airplane\" or \"jet\")\n- \\* @acass.com\n- \"@acass.com\"\n- (\"Williams & Connolly\" or \"W&C\" or \\* @wc.com) AND Mei\n- (\"Hodgson\" or \\* @hodgsonruss.com) AND Mei\n\n## 3. **DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED TERMS TRUSTEE CONSENTS TO SEARCH**\n\n- \"Global XRS\" or \"Global Express XRS\"\n- \"Serial\" AND (\"9189\")\n- \"Registration\" AND (\"T7-17777\")\n- Globalist\n- Infinitum\n\n## 4. **DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED TERMS TRUSTEE DECLINES TO SEARCH**\n\n• (\"Williams & Connolly\" or \"W&C\" or \\* @wc.com) AND (\"Kwok\" or \"Ho\" or \"Guo\" or \"Miles\")\n\n- (\"Hodgson\" or \\* @hodgsonruss.com) AND (\"Kwok\" or \"Ho\" or \"Guo\" or \"Miles\")\n- \"Yu Yong\" or \"Yong\" AND (\"signat!\" or \"bank\" or \"account\" or \"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\")\n- \"Natasha Qu\" or \"Natasha\" or \"Qu\" AND (\"signat!\" or \"bank\" or \"account\" or \"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\")\n- \"Han Chunguang\" or \"Chunguang\" AND (\"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\" or \"title\" or \"signat!\" or \"bank\" or \"account\")\n- \"Ho\" AND (\"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\")\n- \"Kwok\" AND (\"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\")\n- \"Guo\" AND (\"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\")\n- \"Miles\" AND (\"purchase\" or \"transfer\" or \"sale\")\n\n**From:** Wernick, Melissa F. [\n\n**Sent:** Thursday, October 5, 2023 9:50 PM\n\n**To:** James Moriarty [; Patrick Linsey [; Aaron A. Romney [\n\n**Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas\n\n[; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer,\n\nWill C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Kosciewicz, Jonathon P.\n\n[; Vartan, Lee <[lvartan@csglaw.com>](mailto:lvartan@csglaw.com)\n\n**Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n**Caution:** External Email. Verify you know the sender before clicking a Link.\n\nPat,\n\nGood evening. Please see the attached. We believe the search terms should be applied to documents within the Trustee's control as we do not know from whom the Trustee has obtained documents that could potentially be responsive and therefore have no way to identify sources or custodians against whom the search terms should be run.\n\nSeparately, we are maintaining our request for the entirety of the ACASS production, coupled with the Trustee's (and his agents') communications relevant to the adversary proceeding, including communications with Natasha Qu, Yu Yong, Williams & Connolly, Hodgson Russ and ACASS.\n\nThank you, Melissa\n\n[](htt) **MELISSA F. WERNICK** Member Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC\n\n**O** 973.530.2157 **F** 973.530.2357 [mwernick@csglaw.com](mailto:mwernick@csglaw.com) 105 Eisenhower Parkway | Roseland, NJ 07068\n\n[csglaw.com](htt)\n\n**From:** James Moriarty [ **Sent:** Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:58 PM **To:** Patrick Linsey [; Aaron A. Romney [ **Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas [; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Kosciewicz, Jonathon P. [; Vartan, Lee <[lvartan@csglaw.com>](mailto:lvartan@csglaw.com); Wernick, Melissa F. [ **Subject:** RE: Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\n#### \\* External Message \\*\n\nPat:\n\nWe should have proposed search terms to you by tomorrow.\n\nJim\n\n**From:** Patrick Linsey [ **Sent:** Monday, October 2, 2023 11:12 AM **To:** Aaron A. Romney <[aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)>; James Moriarty [ **Cc:** Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com](mailto:PFay@npmlaw.com)>; Bassett, Nicholas [; Luft, Avi E. [; Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>](mailto:willfarmer@paulhastings.com); Kosciewicz, Jonathon P. [ **Subject:** Trustee v. Mei Guo (A.P. # 23-5008) -- defendant's RFP search terms\n\nExternal E-mail - CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Firm. Do NOT reply, click links or open attachments, unless you recognize the sending email address and know the content is safe..\n\nHi Aaron and Jim –\n\nI understand the defendant intends to propose search terms with respect to her RFPs in this A.P. When can we expect those? The trustee would like to be in a position to begin running searches as soon as possible. Thanks much.\n\nBest,\n\nPat\n\nPatrick R. Linsey Direct: 203.781.2847 | [plinsey@npmlaw.com](mailto:plinsey@npmlaw.com)\n\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, CT 06510 New Haven | Hartford | Fairfield | White Plains | [www.npmlaw.com](htt)\n\n*Please Note: The information contained in this email message is a PRIVATE communication that may contain confidential attorney-client information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or use it or disclose it to others. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.*\n\n*Thank you.*","body_zh":"附件A\n\n发件人：Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）\n\n收件人：\n抄送：James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）\nAaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）；Wernick, Melissa F.（梅利莎·F·韦尼克）；Vartan, Lee（李·瓦尔坦）；Peter Fay（彼得·费伊）；Bassett, Nicholas（尼古拉斯·巴塞特）；Luft, Avi E.（阿维·E·卢夫特）；Farmer, Will C.（威尔·C·法默）；\n主题：\n日期：Dennis Carnelli（丹尼斯·卡内利）\n回复：Trustee v. Mei Guo（受托人诉Mei Guo（郭美））（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告方RFP检索词\n2023年10月12日，星期四，10:39:13 PM\n\n外部电子邮件——注意：此电子邮件来自本所外部。除非您确认发件电子邮件地址并知悉内容安全，否则请勿回复、点击链接或打开附件。\n\nJim，您好——\n\n我们不认同您对该规则的理解。无论如何，在不放弃受托人权利或立场的前提下，为避免就此问题进行动议程序，我们将按您建议的方式进行。\n\n此致，\n\nPat\n\n发件人：James Moriarty 发送时间：2023年10月12日，星期四，12:01 PM 收件人：Patrick Linsey 抄送：Aaron A. Romney ；Wernick, Melissa F. ；Vartan, Lee ；Peter Fay ；Bassett, Nicholas ；Luft, Avi E. ；Farmer, Will C. ；Dennis Carnelli 主题：回复：Trustee v. Mei Guo（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告方RFP检索词\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。点击链接前，请确认您认识发件人。\n\nPat：\n\n我们不知道有任何依据允许受托人以您所建议的方式使用Rule 502(d)。Rule 502(d)旨在处理快速阅览协议，并规定对无意中出示的特权材料进行追回。事实上，Manning法官（曼宁）在破产案件中作出的保护令已包含一项Rule 502(d)规定，载明了收回无意中出示的特权信息的程序。无论如何，债务人在首先审阅受托人拟在对抗程序中出示／主动使用的特权文件之前，绝不可能考虑订立一项约定，即使该约定不会构成弃权——而我们并不确信事实如此。正如先前所述，债务人愿意对涉案文件进行特权审查，如同在Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）对抗程序中所做的那样，以便：i) 可能缩小涉案文件的数量；以及ii) 使\n\n债务人能够就受托人的请求作出知情决定。请告知我您是否希望按此方式进行。否则，债务人反对出示或使用任何特权文件，并将反对受托人提出的任何动议。\n\nJim\n\n发件人：Patrick Linsey []\n\n发送时间：2023年10月11日，星期三，8:36 PM\n\n收件人：James Moriarty []\n\n抄送：Aaron A. Romney <[aromney@zeislaw.com]>；Wernick, Melissa F. []；Vartan, Lee []；Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas []；Luft, Avi E. []；Farmer, Will C. []；Dennis Carnelli [] 主题：回复：Trustee v. Mei Guo（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告方RFP检索词\n\n外部电子邮件——注意：此电子邮件来自本所外部。除非您确认发件电子邮件地址并知悉内容安全，否则请勿回复、点击链接或打开附件。\n\nJim，您好——\n\n继我们昨天的通话之后，请参见下文《联邦证据规则》502 (d)和(e)的相关规定。在不放弃受托人关于债务人与被告共用律师所产生效力的立场，或受托人根据特权命令寻求救济的权利的前提下，一项保留特权的约定命令应可在无须进行动议程序的情况下解决该问题。请告知我们您的想法。谢谢。\n\n此致，\n\nPat\n\n(d) 法院命令的控制效力。联邦法院可命令，与该法院正在审理的诉讼有关的披露不构成对特权或保护的放弃——在此情形下，该披露在任何其他联邦或州程序中亦不构成放弃。\n\n(e) 当事人协议的控制效力。关于联邦程序中披露效力的协议，仅对该协议的当事人具有约束力，除非该协议被纳入法院命令。\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。点击链接前，请确认您认识发件人。\n\n谢谢，Pat。Z&Z（泽斯律师事务所）在破产案件中担任债务人的律师，并在一项对抗程序中担任Ms. Guo作为唯一被告的律师。因此，该情形与Greenwich Land完全相同，应以同样方式处理。我们的观点是，如果受托人按您所述方式进行，即在对抗程序中向Z&Z作为Ms. Guo的律师出示文件，或甚至向Z&Z出示文件并主张向Z&Z出示文件即满足受托人向Ms. Guo在对抗程序中出示文件的义务，受托人将违反特权命令。如我们所讨论，如果任何一方认为进一步讨论会有成效，我们将联系对方。\n\nJim\n\n发件人：Patrick Linsey [] 发送时间：2023年10月10日，星期二，5:39 PM 收件人：James Moriarty []；Aaron A. Romney []；Wernick, Melissa F. []；Vartan, Lee [] 抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas [；Luft, Avi E. [；Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Dennis Carnelli [] 主题：回复：Trustee v. Mei Guo（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告方RFP检索词\n\n外部电子邮件——注意：此电子邮件来自本所外部。除非您确认发件电子邮件地址并知悉内容安全，否则请勿回复、点击链接或打开附件。\n\nJim，您好——\n\nGreenwich Land中的程序不适用，因为与Greenwich Land不同，在本对抗程序中，债务人与被告由同一律师代理。与您交谈后，我理解您持有不同观点。除此之外，我对下文电子邮件没有任何补充。\n\n此致，\n\nPat\n\n发件人：James Moriarty [] 发送时间：2023年10月10日，星期二，4:40 PM\n\n收件人：Patrick Linsey []；Aaron A. Romney []；Wernick, Melissa F. []；Vartan, Lee []\n\n抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas\n\n[]；Luft, Avi E. []；Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Dennis Carnelli [] 主题：回复：Trustee v. Mei Guo（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告方RFP检索词\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。点击链接前，请确认您认识发件人。\n\n在Greenwich Land对抗程序中，受托人在出示文件之前向债务人的律师提供文件供其审阅，以便债务人确定其是否同意就任何享有特权或可能享有特权的文件放弃特权。这是在本案中必须遵循的同一程序。受托人不能在对抗程序中向Z&Z作为Ms. Guo的律师出示文件，因为那将导致特权被放弃，而受托人根据特权命令无权放弃特权。\n\nJim\n\n发件人：Patrick Linsey [] 发送时间：2023年10月10日，星期二，3:32 PM 收件人：Aaron A. Romney <[aromney@zeislaw.com]>；Wernick, Melissa F. []；Vartan, Lee [；James Moriarty [] 抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas [；Luft, Avi E. [；Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Dennis Carnelli [] 主题：回复：Trustee v. Mei Guo（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告方RFP检索词\n\n外部电子邮件——注意：此电子邮件来自本所外部。除非您确认发件电子邮件地址并知悉内容安全，否则请勿回复、点击链接或打开附件。\n\n为明确起见——我们是作为受托人就本对抗程序中被告RFP作出的出示的一部分，向Z&Z出示文件。\n\n如果您或您的同事希望讨论，我很乐意讨论；但从受托人一方而言，无须进一步讨论。\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney [] 发送时间：2023年10月10日，星期二，3:28 PM 收件人：Patrick Linsey []；Wernick, Melissa F. []；Vartan, Lee []；James Moriarty []\n\n抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas\n\n[]；Luft, Avi E. []；Farmer,\n\nWill C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Dennis Carnelli []\n\n主题：回复：Trustee v. Mei Guo（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告方RFP检索词\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。点击链接前，请确认您认识发件人。\n\n我并不真正理解您在此转达的受托人立场。显然，向债务人的律师提供文件并要求我们确认债务人是否同意放弃特权，并不构成对任何事项的放弃，我们对此没有异议。\n\n我可以明天或本周晚些时候与您讨论此事。\n\n发件人：Patrick Linsey [] 发送时间：2023年10月10日，星期二，3:09 PM 收件人：Aaron A. Romney <[aromney@zeislaw.com]>；Wernick, Melissa F. []；Vartan, Lee [；James Moriarty [] 抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas [；Luft, Avi E. [；Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Dennis Carnelli [] 主题：回复：Trustee v. Mei Guo（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告方RFP检索词\n\n外部电子邮件——注意：此电子邮件来自本所外部。除非您确认发件电子邮件地址并知悉内容安全，否则请勿回复、点击链接或打开附件。\n\nAaron，您好——\n\n在整个第11章案件中，Z&Z（以及尤其是您和Jim）一直审阅可能受债务人特权保护的文件。对被告RFP有回应性且可能受特权保护的文件将出示给Z&Z。再次说明，这似乎是债务人与被告应讨论的问题，而非受托人的问题。\n\n如果您希望讨论，我很乐意安排通话（且不必在今天）——但我预计受托人的立场不会改变。如我所述，受托人预计将于下周开始出示文件。谢谢。\n\n1. Pat\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney [] 发送时间：2023年10月10日，星期二，2:58 PM 收件人：Patrick Linsey []；Wernick, Melissa F. []；Vartan, Lee []；James Moriarty [] 抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas [；Luft, Avi E. [；Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Dennis Carnelli [] 主题：回复：Trustee v. Mei Guo（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告方RFP检索词\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。点击链接前，请确认您认识发件人。\n\nPat，我今天无法就此进行讨论，但债务人并未授权Z&Z或受托人放弃其任何特权。据我理解，向任何第三方提供债务人的特权信息可能构成放弃，而根据特权命令，受托人无权单方面作出该等放弃。\n\n发件人：Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西）[ 发送时间：2023年10月10日，星期二，下午2:49 收件人：Aaron A. Romney（艾伦·A·罗姆尼）<[aromney@zeislaw.com]>；Wernick, Melissa F.（梅利莎·F·韦尼克）[；Vartan, Lee（李·瓦尔坦）[；James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）[ 抄送：Peter Fay（彼得·费伊）<[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas（尼古拉斯·巴西特）[；Luft, Avi E.（阿维·E·卢夫特）[；Farmer, Will C.（威尔·C·法默）<[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Dennis Carnelli（丹尼斯·卡内利）[ 主题：回复：受托人诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告的 RFP 检索词\n\n外部电子邮件——注意：本电子邮件来自本所外部。除非您认识发件电子邮件地址并知悉内容安全，否则请勿回复、点击链接或打开附件。\n\nAaron，你好——感谢你的回复。\n\n由于被告与债务人由共同律师代理，被告律师可获取该等信息（其中大部分被告律师已阅览）——因此我们不认为存在所述疑虑。债务人与被告之间如何处理特权／放弃问题，是他们自己的问题。受托人预计下周开始提交文件（包括下文讨论的 W&C 和 HR 文件）。\n\n谢谢。\n\n1. Pat\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。点击链接前请核实您认识发件人。Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Dennis Carnelli [ 主题：回复：受托人诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告的 RFP 检索词\n\n[；Vartan, Lee [；James Moriarty\n\n[；Luft, Avi E. [；Farmer,\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney [\n\n抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas\n\n收件人：Patrick Linsey [；Wernick, Melissa F.\n\n发送时间：2023年10月10日，星期二，上午10:27\n\n[\n\nPat——感谢你的电子邮件。我已快速阅读，但尚未详细研究。今天我被其他事项缠身。我确实想立即回复的一点是，如债务人同意向任何人提交享有特权的文件将导致特权放弃，则债务人不得同意该等提交。我相信，长期以来我们在该问题上的立场一直非常一致。\n\n此外，据我所知，Z&Z 未因我们代理债务人而从 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）收到享有特权的文件。Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利律师事务所）确曾因个人损害特权审查向 Z&Z 提供享有特权的文件（尽管那是相当久以前），且我参加了 W&C 的 2004 审查，但 Hodgson Russ 从未因特权审查向我们提交任何文件（至少据我所能回忆），我们未收到 Hodgson Russ 2004 审查的通知，并且据我所能回忆，我们未收到 2004 审查笔录副本。\n\n发件人：Patrick Linsey [\n\n发送时间：2023年10月9日，星期一，晚上9:48\n\n收件人：Wernick, Melissa F. <[mwernick@csglaw.com]>；Vartan, Lee <[lvartan@csglaw.com]>；James Moriarty [；Aaron A. Romney [ 抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas\n\n[；Luft, Avi E. [；Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Dennis Carnelli [ 主题：回复：受托人诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告的 RFP 检索词\n\n外部电子邮件——注意：本电子邮件来自本所外部。除非您认识发件电子邮件地址并知悉内容安全，否则请勿回复、点击链接或打开附件。\n\nMelissa、Lee、Aaron 和 Jim：\n\n感谢你们的电子邮件及拟议检索词。为避免延误证据开示程序，受托人在收到被告的检索词之前，已根据律师预先拟定的检索词开展检索——且相关性审查正在进行中。受托人选定的检索词与被告的清单之间存在大量重叠。尽管如此，被告清单中包含的其他检索词——尤其是未聚焦于本对抗程序所涉实体和个人财产的检索词——明显过于宽泛。（例如，某些拟议检索一般涉及某些律师事务所与债务人的关系，其中大部分并非本对抗程序所涉事项；另一些则一般涉及债务人及销售、转让等，完全脱离本案所涉事实。）\n\n因此，请在本电子邮件下方查阅：(A) 受托人最初检索的检索词；(B) 被告清单中已由受托人初始检索词涵盖的检索词；(C) 受托人同意检索的被告清单中的额外检索词；及 (D) 受托人拒绝检索的被告清单中的额外检索词，因为除其他原因外，所请求的检索词过于宽泛，且受托人基于该等检索词收集、检索和审查更多文件将构成不当负担（且与本争议的需要不相称）。对于类别 (B) 下的检索词，其中包括多种情形：被告较窄的检索词已被受托人较宽的检索词涵盖（例如，通过将 “Mei” 作为检索词，受托人已处理被告拟议的检索词：“Mei” AND (“plane” or “airplane” or “jet” or “purchase” or “transfer” or “sale”)）。\n\n受托人的检索针对依据本对抗程序主题事项选定文件保管人所持有的全部文件进行，即：(i) 债务人；(ii) Williams & Connolly；(iii) Hodgson Russ；(iv) ACASS；(v) Mei Guo；(vi) UBS AG（瑞银集团）；(vii) Vistra（维思达）；(viii) Raich Ende Malter（莱希·恩德·马尔特）；及 (ix) Appleby Global（Appleby 全球）。此外，该等检索还针对受托人取得的任何文件提交材料（无论文件保管人为谁）进行；在受托人的初步 Rule 2004 审查中，该等材料被标记为与“个人财产”有关（而非受托人在其 Rule 2004 审查中使用的其他“问题标签”）。合计形成逾 49,000 份文件的收集集，受托人已针对其运行检索，并正在审查检索结果的相关性。如以下所述，受托人将根据类别 (C) 中被告拟议的检索词进行若干额外检索，并同样审查和提交相关结果。\n\n上述措施对于本对抗程序中的争议而言完全合理且相称——尤其考虑到被告援引第五修正案，以拒绝提供任何回应受托人请求的文件或信息。（受托人保留对任何特权主张提出质疑的一切权利。）实际上，受托人为回应被告的文件请求已经发生并持续发生大量费用。本对抗程序中的证据开示，也并非邀请被告和／或债务人对与本案所涉请求无关的受托人调查成果进行钓鱼式取证（这正是诸如 “Kwok” AND “purchase” or “transfer” or “sale” 等拟议检索词的明显含义）。\n\n关于特权，请亦确认债务人同意在相关范围内提交受债务人律师—当事人特权保护的文件（该特权已由受托人承继）。我预计绝大多数（如非全部）该等文件将来自 Williams & Connolly 或 Hodgson Russ 的文件保管人，Aaron 和 Jim 应已大体熟悉这些文件。\n\n如对上述事项有任何问题，请随时告知我们。否则，我们将等待债务人就特权问题作出回应。受托人继续保留一切权利，包括其答复和异议中所载权利。谢谢。\n\n此致，\n\nPat\n\n1. 受托人的初始检索\n\n• “mei”\n\n• “daughter”\n\n• “bombardier”\n\n• “hangar”\n\n• “airfield”\n\n• “jumbo”\n\n• “aircraft”\n\n• “plane”\n\n• “airplane”\n\n• “jet”\n\n• “anton”\n\n• “whitecroft”\n\n• “allied capital”\n\n• “creative apex”\n\n• “crystal breeze”\n\n• “elite well”\n\n• “globalist international”\n\n• “infinite increase”\n\n• “infinitum developments”\n\n• “noble fame”\n\n• “rosy acme”\n\n• “head win”\n\n• “acass”\n\n• “global jet”\n\n• ((“beijing pangu” or “beijing zenith”) w/15 (“plane” or “jet” or “airplane” or “bombardier”))\n\n2. 被告拟议且已由受托人初始检索涵盖的检索词\n\n• “Anton”\n\n• “Bombardier”\n\n• “Head Win Group”\n\n• “ACASS” or “ACASS Canada”\n\n• “Whitecroft”\n\n• “Allied Capital” or “Allied Capital Global”\n\n• “Creative Apex Investments” or “Creative Apex”\n\n• “Crystal Breeze” or “Crystal Breeze Investments”\n\n• “Elite Well” or “Elite Well Global”\n\n• “Globalist International”\n\n• “Infinitum Developments”\n\n• “Infinite Increase”\n\n• “Noble Fame” or “Noble Fame Global”\n\n• “Rosy Acme” or “Rosy Acme Ventures”\n\n• “Yu Yong” or “Yong” AND (“plane” or “airplane” or “jet”)\n\n• “Natasha Qu” or “Natasha” or “Qu” AND (“plane” or “airplane” or “jet”)\n\n• “Han Chunguang” or “Chunguang” AND (“plane” or “airplane” or “jet”)\n\n• “Ho” AND (“Bombardier” or “plane” or “airplane” or “jet”)\n\n• “Kwok” AND (“plane” or “airplane” or “jet”)\n\n• “Guo” AND (“plane” or “airplane” or “jet”)\n\n• “Mei” AND (“plane” or “airplane” or “jet” or “purchase” or “transfer” or “sale”)\n\n• “Miles” AND (“plane” or “airplane” or “jet”)\n\n• \\* @acass.com\n\n• “@acass.com”\n\n• (“Williams & Connolly” or “W&C” or \\* @wc.com) AND Mei\n\n• (“Hodgson” or \\* @hodgsonruss.com) AND Mei\n\n3. 被告拟议且受托人同意检索的检索词\n\n• “Global XRS” or “Global Express XRS”\n\n• “Serial” AND (“9189”)\n\n• “Registration” AND (“T7-17777”)\n\n• Globalist\n\n• Infinitum\n\n4. 被告拟议且受托人拒绝检索的检索词\n\n• (“Williams & Connolly” or “W&C” or \\* @wc.com) AND (“Kwok” or “Ho” or “Guo” or “Miles”)\n\n• (“Hodgson” or \\* @hodgsonruss.com) AND (“Kwok” or “Ho” or “Guo” or “Miles”)\n\n• “Yu Yong” or “Yong” AND (“signat!” or “bank” or “account” or “purchase” or “transfer” or “sale”)\n\n• “Natasha Qu” or “Natasha” or “Qu” AND (“signat!” or “bank” or “account” or “purchase” or “transfer” or “sale”)\n\n• “Han Chunguang” or “Chunguang” AND (“purchase” or “transfer” or “sale” or “title” or “signat!” or “bank” or “account”)\n\n• “Ho” AND (“purchase” or “transfer” or “sale”)\n\n• “Kwok” AND (“purchase” or “transfer” or “sale”)\n\n• “Guo” AND (“purchase” or “transfer” or “sale”)\n\n• “Miles” AND (“purchase” or “transfer” or “sale”)\n\n发件人：Wernick, Melissa F. [\n\n发送时间：2023年10月5日，星期四，晚上9:50\n\n收件人：James Moriarty [；Patrick Linsey [；Aaron A. Romney [\n\n抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas\n\n[；Luft, Avi E. [；Farmer，\n\nWill C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com]>；Kosciewicz, Jonathon P.（乔纳森·P·科谢维奇）\n\n[；Vartan, Lee <[lvartan@csglaw.com]>\n\n主题：回复：受托人诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告的 RFP 检索词\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。点击链接前请核实您认识发件人。\n\nPat：\n\n晚上好。请见附件。我们认为，应将检索词适用于受托人控制范围内的文件，因为我们不知道受托人从何人处取得了可能具有相关性的文件，因此无法确定应针对哪些来源或文件保管人运行检索词。\n\n此外，我们仍请求提供全部 ACASS 文件提交材料，以及受托人（及其代理人）与本对抗程序有关的通信，包括与 Natasha Qu（娜塔莎·瞿）、Yu Yong（于勇）、Williams & Connolly、Hodgson Russ 及 ACASS 的通信。\n\n谢谢，Melissa\n\n[] MELISSA F. WERNICK 成员 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 律师事务所）\n\nO 973.530.2157 F 973.530.2357 [mwernick@csglaw.com] 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068\n\n[csglaw.com]\n\n发件人：James Moriarty [] 发送时间：Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:58 PM 收件人：Patrick Linsey []；Aaron A. Romney [] 抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas []；Luft, Avi E. []；Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>]；Kosciewicz, Jonathon P. []；Vartan, Lee <[lvartan@csglaw.com>]；Wernick, Melissa F. [] 主题：回复：Trustee（受托人）诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告的 RFP 检索词\n\n\\* 外部邮件 \\*\n\nPat：\n\n我们应于明天前向您提交建议的检索词。\n\nJim\n\n发件人：Patrick Linsey [] 发送时间：Monday, October 2, 2023 11:12 AM 收件人：Aaron A. Romney []；James Moriarty [] 抄送：Peter Fay <[PFay@npmlaw.com]>；Bassett, Nicholas []；Luft, Avi E. []；Farmer, Will C. <[willfarmer@paulhastings.com>]；Kosciewicz, Jonathon P. [] 主题：Trustee（受托人）诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）（A.P. # 23-5008）——被告的 RFP 检索词\n\n外部电子邮件——警告：本电子邮件来自本所外部。除非您确认发件电子邮件地址并知悉内容安全，否则请勿回复、点击链接或打开附件。\n\nAaron 和 Jim，你们好：\n\n我理解被告拟就本 A.P. 中其 RFP 提出检索词。我们何时可望收到这些检索词？受托人希望能够尽快开始运行检索。非常感谢。\n\n此致，\n\nPat\n\nPatrick R. Linsey 直线电话：203.781.2847 [plinsey@npmlaw.com]\n\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, CT 06510 New Haven Hartford Fairfield White Plains [www.npmlaw.com]\n\n请注意：本电子邮件所含信息属私人通信，可能包含保密的律师—客户信息。如您并非预定收件人，请勿阅读、复制或使用该信息，亦不得向他人披露。如您误收本邮件，请立即回复本邮件通知发件人，然后从您的系统中删除本邮件。\n\n谢谢。","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3753,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:39:02"}