{"id":"court_ctb_335_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":335,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | In re        | Chapter 11              |","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| In re        | Chapter 11              |\n|--------------|-------------------------|\n|              |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|              |                         |\n| Debtor       |                         |\n\n## LTMTTED OBJECTTON OF GOLDEN SPRTNG (NEW YORK) LTD. TO MOTION OF OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS FOR A2OO4 EXAMINATION\n\nGolden Spring (New YorD Ltd. (\"GSNY\"), by and through its attomeys, Cohn Birnbaum & Shea, P.C., hereby files its limited objection to the Motion of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"OCC\") of Debtorfor Authorization to Conduct an Examination of Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and to Subpoena Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Banlcr. P. 2004 and 9016 and D. Conn. Banlv. L.R. 2004-1 (the \\*2004 Motion\") [ECF No. 297]. In support of its limited objection, GSNY states as follows:\n\n1. Although GSNY disagrees with many of the characteizations set forth in the 2004 Motion, GSNY does not object to the granting of the 2004 Motion consistent with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Rules\") and the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Local Rules\").\n\n2. GSNY does not object to producing documents pursuant to Rules 2004 and9016. Nor does GSNY object to providing testimony at an examination pursuant to Rule 2004.\n\n3. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, the proposed order submitted by the OCC violates Rule 20O4 andcontradicts Local Rule 2004-1.\n\n1\n\n# A. The Proposed Order Violates Rule 2004.\n\n# 4. Rule 2004(c) provides as follows:\n\nThe attendance of an entity for examination and for the production of documents or electronically stored information . . . may be compelled as provided in Rule 9016 for the attendance of a witness at a hearing or trial.\n\nRule 2004(c) (emphasis added).\n\n5. The proposed order submitted with the 2004 Motion does not provide that the attendance of GSNY will be compelled by subpoena. Instead, the Proposed Order itself compels GSNY to produce documents and attend an examination.\n\n6. Under the Proposed Order, GSNY is ordered to \"serve a response to the Subpoena, along with any responsive documents.\" Proposed Order, at fl 3 (emphasis added). Therefore, as currently worded, the Proposed Order is a court order compelling production. Under Rule 2004, however, the production of documents is to be compelled by subpoena, not by court order.\n\n7. Further, the Proposed Order requires a response within 14 days. Rule 9016, incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P.45, requires an objection within 14 days, but permits a motion to quash or a motion to modiff \"on timely motion.\" See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c). As a result, the Proposed Order may improperly limit the time that GSNY has to respond to the subpoena.\n\n8. The Proposed Order requires the production of documents within 14 days, even if an objection, a motion to modifr, or a motion to quash is filed. This predetermines that the subpoena is valid in all respects and that the subpoena, inter alia, permits a reasonable time to comply. However, if the subpoena does not permit a reasonable time to comply, then it mustbe quashed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(dX3)(AXD.\n\n2\n\n9. Additionally, the command in the Proposed Order requiring GSNY to produce documents provides no mechanism for GSNY to protect its confidential commercial information. SeeFed. R. Civ. P.45(dX3)(BXi).\n\n10. The direction in the Proposed Order to produce \"any responsive documents\" contains no mechanism to protect GSNY from undue burden. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(dxl). This Court should not predetermine that the subpoena does not impose an undue burden on GSNY without knowing the documents, or amount thereof, that the OCC will request.\n\n11. The Proposed Order commands GSNY to be examined in Bridgeport, Connecticut absent an agreement of the parties. Proposed Order, at fl 5. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, this Court should not order the examination to take place in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Typically, the examination of corporate officials is conducted where the corporation has its principal place of business, which would be in New York.l See In re Handy &HarmanRef.Grp., lnc.,295 B.R. 179, 182(Bankr.D.Conn.2003)(holdingthatwhena corporation is a party, there is a presumption in favor of conducting depositions of the corporation in its principal place of business).\n\n12. The Proposed order directs - as an order of the Court - GSNY to preserve documents and electronically stored information . See Proposed Order, at fl 5. ESI. Para. Neither Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 nor Rule 2004 authorize this Court to issue such an order to GSNY. The Proposed Order Contradicts Local Rale 200a-l@)(3).\n\n13. Local Rule 2004-1(cX3) provides: \"The failure to file a response or objection pursuant to this Rule shall not prejudice the proposed examinee, witness, or party from whom\n\n<sup>I</sup>GSNy anticipates reaching an agreement on this issue, which agreement might include remote testimony, particularly given Covid concerns.\n\ndocuments are sought from filing a motion for a protective order, to quash the subpoena, or to vacate an order entered.\"\n\n14. The Proposed Order contradicts Local Rule 2004-l(c)(3). It requires the production of documents and the examination of a corporate designee. Thus, a motion for a protective order or motion to quash directed to a subpoena will provide GSNY with no relief. GSNY's remaining alternative is to file a motion to vacate the Proposed Order. Establishing the legal and factual predicate for obtaining such an order may be significantly more burdensome to GSNY than establishing the standards for a protective order.\n\nWHEREFORE, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. hereby submits its limited objection to Ihe Motion of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Debtorfor Authorization to Conduct an Examination of Golden Spring Qrlew York) Ltd. and to Subpoena Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Banlv. P. 2004 and 9016 and D. Conn. Banlw. L. R. 2004-I [ECF No. 297].\n\n### GOLDEN SPRTNG (NEW YORK) LTD.\n\n/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger Timothy D. Miltenberger (ct08874) Scott D. Rosen Cohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C. 100 Pearl Street, l2th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 493-2262 Tmiltenbereer@cb shealaw. com\n\n#### CERTIFICATION\n\nI hereby certifr that on May 6, 2022 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the Court's elechonic filing system to the Debtor (through counsel), the United States Trustee, Golden Spring (New YorD Ltd., the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (through counsel), and to all appearing parties. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> /s/ Timothy D. Miltenbereer Timothy D. Miltenberger","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人\n\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）对无担保债权人官方委员会关于根据第2004条进行调查之动议的有限异议\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，简称“GSNY”）通过其代理律师事务所 Cohn Birnbaum & Shea, P.C.，特此对债务人的 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会，简称“OCC”）关于根据《联邦破产程序规则》（Fed. R. Bankr. P.）第2004条与第9016条以及《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》（D. Conn. Bankr. L.R.）第2004-1条提请授权对金泉（纽约）有限公司进行调查并发传票要求出示文件的动议（“2004动议”）[ECF No. 297]提出有限异议。为支持其有限异议，GSNY陈述如下：\n\n1. 尽管GSNY不同意2004动议中所载的诸多定性，但GSNY并不反对在符合《联邦破产程序规则》（“规则”）和《美国康涅狄格区破产法院本地规则》（“本地规则”）的前提下准许2004动议。\n\n2. GSNY不反对根据第2004条和第9016条规则出示文件。GSNY亦不反对根据第2004条规则在调查中作证。\n\n3. 然而，基于下述理由，OCC提交的拟定裁定违反了第2004条规则，并与本地规则第2004-1条相抵触。\n\nA. 拟定裁定违反第2004条规则。\n\n4. 第2004(c)条规则规定如下：\n\n可按照第9016条规则中关于强制证人出席听证会或审判的规定，强制某实体出席以接受调查并出示文件或电子存储信息……\n\n第2004(c)条规则（后加强调）。\n\n5. 随2004动议提交的拟定裁定并未规定将通过传票强制GSNY出席。相反，拟定裁定本身即强制GSNY出示文件并出席调查。\n\n6. 根据拟定裁定，GSNY被命令“就传票送达答复，并附上任何符合要求的相应文件”。拟定裁定第3段（后加强调）。因此，按照目前的措辞，拟定裁定是一项强制出示的法院命令。然而，根据第2004条规则，出示文件应当通过传票强制执行，而非通过法院命令。\n\n7. 此外，拟定裁定要求在14天内答复。结合了《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Civ. P.）第45条的第9016条规则虽然要求在14天内提出异议，但允许“在及时提出动议的情况下”提出撤销传票动议或修改传票动议。参见《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45(c)条。因此，拟定裁定可能会不当地限制GSNY对传票作出回应的时间。\n\n8. 拟定裁定要求即使已提出异议、修改动议或撤销动议，也必须在14天内出示文件。这预先断定了传票在各方面均有效，且该传票除其他事项外已给予了合理的遵守时间。然而，若传票未给予合理的遵守时间，则其必须被撤销。参见《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45(d)(3)(A)(i)条。\n\n9. 此外，拟定裁定中要求GSNY出示文件的指令，未为GSNY提供任何保护其商业秘密信息的机制。参见《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45(d)(3)(B)(i)条。\n\n10. 拟定裁定中出示“任何符合要求的相应文件”的指示，不包含保护GSNY免受过重负担的机制。参见《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45(d)(1)条。在尚未知晓OCC将要求出示哪些文件或文件数量的情况下，本法院不应预先断定该传票不会对GSNY造成过重负担。\n\n11. 拟定裁定命令在双方未达成协议的情况下在康涅狄格州布里奇波特对GSNY进行调查。拟定裁定第5段。在双方未达成协议的情况下，本法院不应命令调查在康涅狄格州布里奇波特进行。通常，对公司高级管理人员的调查在其公司主营业地进行，即应在纽约进行。1 参见 In re Handy & Harman Ref. Grp., Inc., 295 B.R. 179, 182 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2003)（裁定当公司为当事人时，推定在公司的主营业地进行公司取证质询）。\n\n12. 拟定裁定以法院命令的形式指示GSNY保存文件及电子存储信息。参见拟定裁定第5段。无论是《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条还是第2004条规则，均未授权本法院向GSNY签发此类命令。拟定裁定与本地规则第2004-1(c)(3)条相抵触。\n\n13. 本地规则第2004-1(c)(3)条规定：“未根据本规则提出答复或异议，不应妨碍被提议的受调查人、证人或被索取文件的一方提出保护令动议、撤销传票动议或撤销已作出命令的动议。”\n\n1 GSNY预计就此问题达成协议，特别是在考虑到新冠疫情担忧的情况下，该协议可能包括远程作证。\n\n14. 拟定裁定与本地规则第2004-1(c)(3)条相抵触。其要求出示文件并对公司指定代表进行调查。因此，针对传票提出的保护令动议或撤销动议将无法为GSNY提供任何救济。GSNY剩下的替代途径是提出撤销拟定裁定的动议。为获得此类裁定而确立法律和事实依据，对GSNY而言可能比确立保护令的标准繁重得多。\n\n据此，Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 特此对债务人的无担保债权人官方委员会关于根据《联邦破产程序规则》第2004条与第9016条以及《康涅狄格区破产本地规则》第2004-1条提请授权对金泉（纽约）有限公司进行调查并发传票要求出示文件的动议 [ECF No. 297] 提出有限异议。\n\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.\n\n/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger (ct08874)\nScott D. Rosen\nCohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C.\n100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n(860) 493-2262\nTmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com\n\n证明书\n\n本人特此证明，于2022年5月6日，前述文件的副本已通过电子方式归档，并将在法院电子归档系统的运作下通过电子邮件发送给所有当事方，包括债务人（通过律师）、United States Trustee（联邦破产受托人）、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.、无担保债权人官方委员会（通过律师）以及所有出庭当事方。当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本份归档文件。\n\n/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger","key_entities":["Je","CIPA","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":297,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1092,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:43:17"}