{"id":"court_ctb_342_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":342,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nDebtor.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n### **MEI GUO'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B) and 45(d)(3)(A)(4), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014 and 9016, and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 30(a), made applicable to this proceeding by Local Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1001-1(b), party in interest Mei Guo (\"Ms. Guo\"), individually and as the designated representative of party in interest Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) LLC (\"HKI Delaware\"), respectfully moves for a protective order (the \"Motion\") establishing the means by which Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\") may conduct the May 16, 2022, depositions of Ms. Guo and HKI Delaware in connection with PAX's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, In the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Motion to Dismiss\") (Doc. No. 183). In support hereof, Ms. Guo represents as follows:\n\n#### **Introduction**\n\nThis Motion seeks to ensure, to the extent possible, the physical safety and emotional security of a young woman through entry of a Court Order establishing reasonable safeguards related to her upcoming deposition. As set forth in detail below, Ms. Guo is the subject of an ongoing social media campaign to harass and intimidate her that includes dissemination of altered and/or fabricated images of her and public references to her location. These messages advocate and encourage sexual assault and other forms of violence against Ms. Guo and her family.\n\nMoreover, the persons responsible for this heinous conduct have a history of exploiting information made public through judicial proceedings, including the Debtor's Chapter 11 Case.\n\nPAX has a right to Ms. Guo's and HKI Delaware's sworn testimony. At the same time, Ms. Guo has a fundamental right to be safe and free from threats and intimidation. Ms. Guo respectfully submits that a Court Order allowing her to testify from an undisclosed location—with her camera turned off once a certified Court reporter has verified her identify— adequately and fairly balances those interests.\n\n### **A. Jurisdiction and Venue**\n\n- 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 USC §§ 157 and 1334.\n- 2. The Motion to Dismiss is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 157(b)(2)(A).\n- 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 USC § 1409(a).\n\n### **B. Good Cause Exists to Issue the Requested Protective Order**\n\n### *i. Ms. Guo and Her Family Have Been Persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party*\n\n4. Ms. Guo is the daughter of the debtor Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"). (*See* Affidavit of Mei Guo, sworn to January 28, 2022, (the \"January 28 Aff.\"), submitted to the New York State Supreme Court in support of the Debtor's opposition to motion for contempt in the matter captioned *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.*, Index No. 652077/2017 (the \"New York Action\"), at ¶1. A copy of the January 28 Aff. is attached hereto as Exhibit A).\n\n5. The Debtor has been a political target of the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") for many years; the Debtor fled to the United States in early 2015 after learning that the CCP was going to arrest him on politically motivated charges based upon fabricated evidence. (*Id.*, at ¶2).\n\n6. The CCP took out its anger and frustration over the Debtor's refusal to submit to false charges on Ms. Guo, her mother, and her extended family. (*Id.*, at ¶3).\n\n7. Days after the Debtor arrived in the United States, Ms. Guo and her mother, who remained in mainland China, were detained by the CCP for approximately 10 days. (*Id.*, at ¶4).\n\n8. Ms. Guo was thereafter detained a second time in December 2016. The second detention lasted approximately 40 days. (*Id.*).\n\n9. During each of her detentions, Ms. Guo's communications with her family were cutoff, and she was physically and psychologically tortured. (*Id.*). For example, Ms. Guo was kept awake for 48 hours at a time, monitored every minute of every day, and prohibited from physically moving, using the bathroom, or even brushing her hair, without the permission of her jailers. (*Id.*).\n\n10. Ms. Guo was eventually released by the CCP, but the Debtor remained an outspoken critic of the CCP and its many abuses, which continued to anger Chinese authorities. (*Id.*, at 5).\n\n11. In or about April 2017, a high-ranking Chinese official told Ms. Guo and her mother that they would be permitted to briefly visit the Debtor in the United States in order to convince him to stop exposing the CCP's corruption and to return to China. (*Id.*).\n\n12. On May 16, 2017, Ms. Guo and her mother traveled from China to the United States accompanied by the high-ranking Chinese official and several Chinese security agents. Ms. Guo and her mother were bargaining chips that the CCP intended to use to lure the Debtor back to China. (*Id.*, at 6).\n\n13. The high-ranking Chinese official was unable to coerce the Debtor to return to China, and once in the United States Ms. Guo and her mother were able to evade the Chinese\n\nofficial's demands that they return to China as well. Instead, they remained in the United States. (*Id.*).\n\n14. Ms. Guo has a significant and well-founded fear of being re-arrested and tortured again if she is returned to China; Ms. Guo is thus presently seeking political asylum in the United States. (*Id.*).\n\n## ii. *Ms. Guo is the Target of Harassment, Violent Threats and Intimidation Over Social Media*\n\n15. Although Ms. Guo is no longer subject to the immediate dangers of living in China, she is not beyond the reach of the CCP and its agents. Indeed, Ms. Guo is regularly the subject of threats on social media, and she is forced to live in constant fear for her safety. (*Id.*).\n\n16. Politically interested third parties have made threats and vile and disgusting social media comments directed to Ms. Guo for years. These threats and comments became more focused when Ms. Guo testified in the New York Action.\n\n17. The organizations and individuals who seek to harass and intimidate Ms. Guo have no boundaries. Without limitation, they have (i) disseminated falsified or altered images purporting to be Ms. Guo from fake social media accounts purporting to belong to her; (ii) attempted to publicly disclose Ms. Guo's location while publicly encouraging people to sexually assault Ms. Guo and perform other horrific and violent acts toward her; and (iii) impersonated individuals who are close with Ms. Guo or her family in order to spread false information about her from *seemingly* credible sources.\n\n18. The social media campaign against Ms. Guo dates back at least 2017, shortly after Ms. Guo escaped mainland China to the United States. In October of 2017, a fake twitter account purporting to belong to Yvette Wang, a business associate of Ms. Guo's brother, posted an altered\n\nimage of Ms. Guo that was taken from her phone. The post stated Ms. Guo's age and her height. (See Exhibit B). 1\n\n19. In November of 2017, someone posted from a Twitter account stating: \"if you don't rape Mei Guo tonight, you will have no food tomorrow.\" (See Exhibit C).\n\n20. In December of 2017, a false Twitter account of someone purporting to be the Debtor's assistant posted Ms. Guo's picture from her Chinese government issued identification from when she was in high school, with an alteration made to one of Ms. Guo's eyes. Only the Chinese government had this photograph. The post purports to say that the owner of the account felt bad for Ms. Guo because her father raped many women and that she was in the hospital with Ms. Guo after her abortion. (See Exhibit D).\n\n21. Additional Tweets around this time no longer bear dates because the accounts have been suspended. For example, a fake Twitter account purporting to belong to an assistant of the Debtor at the time, Yu Yong, which also depicted Ms. Yu's photograph from her government issued identification, purports to say that Ms. Yu had to fly to the United States right away because Ms. Guo was pregnant and needed to have another abortion (allegedly her third). The post includes a falsified record purportedly from Planned Parenthood that refers to Ms. Guo. (See Exhibit E).\n\n22. The social media activity directed to Ms. Guo escalated shortly before she testified in connection with the New York contempt hearing on February 2, 2022. Many of these posts establish that people are watching Ms. Guo's involvement in court proceedings related to the\n\n<sup>1</sup> The social media posts described herein are written in Chinese. The undersigned has attached screenshots of these posts to allow any party in interest to verify their content. Ms. Guo has not had time to obtain an official translation of them since the time her counsel determined that this Motion was necessary. Counsel will obtain official translations upon the Court's request.\n\nDebtor's dispute with PAX and using it to disseminate information about Ms. Guo to harass and intimidate her.\n\n23. For example, on January 5, 2022, someone posted from a Twitter account that if someone was raping Ms. Guo to please count him in. (See Exhibit F).\n\n24. On January 6, 2022, someone posted from a Twitter account: \"I will stop by Miles Kwok's building today to wait for Mei and to check if she has \\*\\*\\*\\* come and join me, I will be there around 2pm.\" (See Exhibit G).\n\n25. Ms. Guo's January 28 Aff. was signed and filed on the New York Supreme Court's docket on January 28, 2022. On January 29, someone posted a portion of her January 28 Aff. on Twitter, including her notarized signature page, and stated: \"Mei Guo is in the states and about to go to the court, according to the document she signed, she signed it on Jan 28th in Queens, she showed her ID and got notarized which means she is in the states!\" (Exhibit H).\n\n26. On February 1, 2022, someone posted on Twitter: \"Mei Guo's hearing tomorrow is not public, it's like you go to a nude beach but hiding your private parts.\" (Exhibit I).\n\n27. On February 7, 2022, someone posted on Twitter a Chinese translation of portions of Ms. Guo's testimony from the February 2, 2022, contempt hearing adlibbed with foul language commentary. (Exhibit J).\n\n28. On February 8, 2022, someone posted a screenshot of a letter from Ms. Guo's New York counsel to Judge Ostrager and stated: \"Mei Guo writes a letter to the judge and says, 'The lady may be back asap.' Why is this ugly pig always wanting to make a scene? Any judge will F\\*\\*\\* her whole family when they see this letter.\" (Exhibit K).\n\n29. Moreover, the statements directed toward Ms. Guo have continued since the Debtor filed his Chapter 11 petition. On March 2, 2022, someone posted on Twitter: \"The hearing was\n\nvirtual, I wonder where is Mei Guo\" \"She will end up in Fengxian (a village in China that they chain up a girl for sex slave for the governor officials).\" (Exhibit L).\n\n30. On April 5, 2022, someone posted: \"Feb 2nd, after the court. You can just tell from her transcript, her words are confusing and not even make sense, just like her asshole dad....\" (Exhibit M).\n\n31. Based on (i) the CCP's actions toward Ms. Guo and her family; (ii) efforts undertaken by third parties, at least some of whom appear to be agents of the CCP, to post fake and/or altered images of Ms. Guo; and (iii) efforts undertaken by third parties to report on Ms. Guo's location while encouraging physical violence and sexual assault against her, Ms. Guo has a compelling need to limit access to her image and information concerning her location in order to protect her physical safety and emotional security.\n\n## **C. Law and Argument**\n\n### 32. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B) provides:\n\n## (c) PROTECTIVE ORDERS.\n\n(1) *In General.* A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending—or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: \\* \\* \\*\n\n(B) specifying terms, including time and place or the allocation of expenses, for the disclosure or discovery; . . . . 2\n\n<sup>2</sup> As set forth in the accompanying declaration of Aaron A. Romney, submitted in accordance with D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37, counsel for Ms. Guo and PAX conferred but were unable to resolve or narrow the matters presented by the Motion.\n\n33. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(4), applicable to the subpoena served on Ms. Guo to conduct her individual deposition, provides in pertinent part:\n\n(3) QUASHING OR MODIFYING A SUBPOENA.\n\n(A) When Required*.* On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:\n\n. . .\n\n(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.\n\n34. \"A court has broad discretion regarding whether to issue a protective order under Rule 26(c).\" *Burgess v. Town of Wallingford*, No. 3:11-CV-1129 (CSH), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135781, \\*21-\\*22 (D. Conn., Sept. 21, 2012), (citations omitted). Moreover, \"[t]he text of Rule 26(c) is construed liberally to include a wide range of potential harms not explicitly listed.\" *Id.*, at \\*22-\\*23, (citations omitted). The party seeking a protective order under Rule 26(c) has the burden to establish the existence of good cause to obtain the relief sought. (*Id.*, at \\*22-\\*23), (citations omitted). The same framework applies to a motion to quash or modify a subpoena under Rule 45(d). *Garneau v. Paquin*, No. 3:13-CV-00899(AVC), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70272, \\*3-\\*4 (D. Conn., June 1, 2015).\n\n35. Ms. Guo has been, and continues to be, subjected to both physical and psychological persecution by the CCP and others. She seeks a protective order solely to minimize the extent that the discovery process in her father's Chapter 11 Case aggravates the abuse to which she is subject. Under the circumstances present here, the discovery process should not require Ms. Guo to reveal her location at any given time or present herself in a manner that would allow third parties to capture and disseminate her image online to an audience that encourages violence and sexual assault against her.\n\n36. For these reasons, good cause exists for the Court to issue a protective order allowing Ms. Guo to testify at her deposition and as HKI Delaware's corporate representative from a remote, undisclosed location without broadcasting her image to anyone other than the Court reporter who agrees to be subject to a confidentiality agreement and will verify her identify. *See Garneau*, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70272, at \\*6 (\"Ordinarily, good cause exists 'when a party shows that disclosure will result in a clearly defined, specific and serious injury.'\") (citations omitted); *see also Securities Indus. and Fin. Markets. Ass'n. v. Garfield*, 469 F. Supp. 2d 25, 36 (D. Conn. 2007) (granting preliminary injunction preventing on-line publication of a list of political donors and their family members based on privacy rights and noting that \"[t]he Internet has revolutionized the scope and manner in which information is available for public access. The Internet has also, unfortunately, provided criminals with a new medium through which to commit crimes.\"); *Burgess*, at \\*41-\\*42 (entering protective order precluding plaintiff from posting transcripts of depositions conducted in the case on-line without redactions because \"the personal information disclosed includes such identifying information as addresses, phone numbers, and birth dates materials which, when placed on the Internet, might provide means for unwanted access to those individuals named\"); D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 30(a) (noting that depositions constitute private matters \"which the public is not entitled to attend\").\n\n37. Ms. Guo's and HKI Delaware's depositions have been noticed and subpoenaed, respectively, for May 16, 2022 beginning at 10:00 a.m.\n\n38. The Notice and the Subpoena each provide in pertinent part that:\n\n1. The deposition will be conducted either in person or remotely, using audio-visual conference technology;\n\n2. The court reporter will either report the deposition from the same location as the witness or a location separate from the witness and will remotely administer the oath to the witness;\n\n3. Counsel for the parties and their clients will participate either from the same location or from separate locations;\n\n4. The witness may be required to provide government-issued identification, which must be legible on camera;\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n8. The deposition may be recorded by stenographic, electronic, and/or visual means; and\n\n9. Counsel for all parties will be required to stipulate on the record their consent to this manner of deposition and their waiver of any objection to this manner of taking the deposition, including any objection to the admissibility at trial of this testimony based on the manner of remote deposition taking.\n\n(A copy of the notice of HKI Delaware's Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit N; a copy of the subpoena compelling Ms. Guo's deposition is attached hereto as exhibit O).<sup>3</sup>\n\n39. Ms. Guo does not seek to preclude or delay her deposition or HKI Delaware's deposition. Ms. Guo only requests that the Court order procedural safeguards to protect her legitimate privacy and security interests and prevent third parties from obtaining and disseminating her image or information about her location.\n\n40. Under the unique and compelling circumstances present here, Ms. Guo respectively seeks an order directing that her individual deposition and HKI Delaware's deposition proceed as follows:\n\n- a. That PAX conduct the deposition by remote means using either the Microsoft Teams or WebEx platforms. That PAX not be permitted to conduct the deposition on Zoom;\n- b. That a court reporter who agrees to a confidentiality agreement control the deposition platform;\n- c. That Ms. Guo and the court reporter be permitted to log-in to the platform ten minutes before all other participants so the reporter may confirm Ms. Guo's identity and swear-her-in;\n\n<sup>3</sup> PAX originally noticed Ms. Guo's deposition for May 12, 2022. The parties moved it to May 16, 2022 by agreement.\n\n- d. That following confirmation of her identity by the reporter, Ms. Guo be permitted to turn off her camera, that the reporter not be permitted to allow appearing counsel to enter the virtual room until after Ms. Guo has turned off her camera, and that Ms. Guo not be compelled to turn her camera back on during the deposition;\n- e. That no party be permitted to compel Ms. Guo to provide any information concerning her residential address, or the physical location from where she is providing testimony. That no party likewise be permitted to compel Ms. Guo to provide any information concerning the residential address or physical location of her family members who have been subjected to persecution by the CCP and ongoing harassment;\n- f. That Ms. Guo's individual deposition and HKI Delaware's 30(b)(6) deposition only be recorded by stenographic and audio means and only by the court reporter;\n- g. That no person be permitted to record video of any portion of the deposition or take screenshots of the deposition;\n- h. That for at least three (3) full business days from when Ms. Guo's counsel receives a copy of the transcript of Ms. Guo's deposition, access to the transcript be limited to the eyes of the attorneys who have appeared for PAX, HKI Delaware, the Debtor, the Office of the United States Trustee and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, in order to allow Ms. Guo's and HKI Delaware's counsel sufficient time to seek an additional protective order limiting the use of certain portions of the transcript. If Ms. Guo and/or HKI\n\nDelaware files such a motion for protective order, Ms. Guo requests that the restrictions on the transcript continue until such time as the Court rules on the motion for protective order.\n\n41. Ms. Guo respectfully submits that the forgoing safeguards will permit PAX to obtain the information it seeks from Ms. Guo and HKI Delaware while ensuring, to the fullest extent possible, Ms. Guo's physical safety and emotional well-being. A copy of Ms. Guo's proposed Order granting this Motion is attached hereto.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nMs. Guo is a non-party to PAX's Motion to Dismiss, which is the contested matter to which the subpoena to Ms. Guo and deposition notice to HKI Delaware relate. Ms. Guo has been persecuted by a foreign government and others. She has documented herein that third parties have wrongfully disseminated her image and information concerning her location in order to threaten, embarrass and humiliate her. The procedural safeguards sought herein are designed to allow Ms. Guo to provide PAX with the sworn testimony that it seeks without compromising Ms. Guo's physical safety or emotional security.\n\nFor these reasons, Ms. Guo respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief sought herein and order such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated this 10th day of May, 2022.\n\nMEI GUO\n\nBy: */s/ Aaron A. Romney, Esq.* Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 (203) 368-4234 (203) 368-5473 (fax) Email: [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) Its Attorneys\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 10th day of May, 2022, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice ofElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ Aaron A. Romney, Esq.* Aaron A. Romney","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\nMEI GUO（郭美）请求保护令的动议\n\n根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B) 和 45(d)(3)(A)(4)（依 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014 及 9016 适用于本诉讼程序），以及 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 30(a)（依 Local Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1001-1(b) 适用于本诉讼程序），利害关系方 Mei Guo（郭美，下称「郭女士」）以个人身份并作为利害关系方 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，下称「HKI Delaware」）的指定代表，谨此请求法院作出保护令（下称「本动议」），以确立 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，下称「PAX」）就其「驳回第 11 章案件的动议，或者在备位上部分加入联邦受托人请求指定第 11 章受托人的命令的动议」（下称「驳回动议」）（文档编号 183）于 2022 年 5 月 16 日对郭女士及 HKI Delaware 进行采录证言的方式。为支持本动议，郭女士陈述如下：\n\n引言\n\n本动议旨在通过法院作出确立有关即将进行的采录证言的合理保护措施的命令，在可能的最大限度内保障一名年轻女性的人身安全与心理安全。如下文详述，郭女士目前正遭受持续的社交媒体骚扰与恐吓行动，包括散布经篡改和/或伪造的其个人图像以及公开提及她的所在位置。这些信息鼓吹并煽动对郭女士及其家人实施性侵犯和其他形式的暴力。\n\n此外，对该等令人发指的行为负有责任的人士，素有利用通过司法程序（包括债务人的第 11 章案件）公开的信息的过往记录。\n\nPAX 有权获取郭女士及 HKI Delaware 的宣誓证言。与此同时，郭女士享有获得安全以及免受威胁和恐吓的基本权利。郭女士谨此认为，法院作出命令允许其在不公开的地点提供证言——并在具备资质的法庭记录员核实其身份后关闭摄像头——足以且公平地平衡上述各项权益。\n\nA. 管辖权与审判地\n\n- 1. 根据 28 USC §§ 157 及 1334，本法院对本案具有管辖权。\n- 2. 根据 28 USC § 157(b)(2)(A)，驳回动议属于核心诉讼程序。\n- 3. 根据 28 USC § 1409(a)，本案审判地属于本司法区管辖范围。\n\nB. 存在签发所请求保护令的正当理由\n\ni. 郭女士及其家人遭受中国共产党的迫害\n\n4. 郭女士是债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，下称「债务人」）的女儿。（见郭美于 2022 年 1 月 28 日宣誓的誓章（下称「1 月 28 日誓章」），该誓章提交至 New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院），用以支持债务人在题为 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.、案卷编号 652077/2017 的案件（下称「纽约诉讼」）中反对藐视法庭动议的主张，见第 1 段。1 月 28 日誓章之副本作为附件 A 随附于此）。\n\n5. 债务人多年来一直是中国共产党（下称「中共」）的政治目标；在得知中共将根据伪造的证据以出于政治动机的指控逮捕他后，债务人于 2015 年初逃往美国。（同上，第 2 段）。\n\n6. 中共因债务人拒绝屈服于虚假指控而产生愤怒和挫败感，并将此发泄在郭女士、其母亲以及其家族亲属身上。（同上，第 3 段）。\n\n7. 在债务人抵达美国几天后，仍留在中国大陆的郭女士及其母亲被中共拘留了大约 10 天。（同上，第 4 段）。\n\n8. 郭女士此后于 2016 年 12 月第二次被拘留。第二次拘留持续了大约 40 天。（同上）。\n\n9. 在每次拘留期间，郭女士与家人的通讯均被切断，并遭受了身心折磨。（同上）。例如，郭女士曾连续 48 小时不被允许睡觉，每一天的每一分钟都受到监视，未经看守人员许可，不得活动身体、使用洗手间，甚至不得梳头。（同上）。\n\n10. 郭女士最终被中共释放，但债务人仍然直言不讳地批评中共及其诸多侵权行为，这继续激怒中国当局。（同上，第 5 段）。\n\n11. 约在 2017 年 4 月，一名中国高级官员告诉郭女士及其母亲，她们将被允许短暂赴美探望债务人，以便说服其停止揭露中共的腐败并返回中国。（同上）。\n\n12. 2017 年 5 月 16 日，郭女士及其母亲在一名中国高级官员和数名中国安全特工的陪同下从中国前往美国。郭女士及其母亲是中共企图用来诱骗债务人返回中国的筹码。（同上，第 6 段）。\n\n13. 该中国高级官员未能胁迫债务人返回中国，而郭女士及其母亲一到达美国，便得以避开该中国官员要求她们也返回中国的命令。相反，她们留在了美国。（同上）。\n\n14. 郭女士对其若被遣返回中国将再次被捕并遭受酷刑抱有重大且有充分根据的恐惧；因此，郭女士目前正在美国寻求政治庇护。（同上）。\n\nii. 郭女士是社交媒体上骚扰、暴力威胁和恐吓的目标\n\n15. 尽管郭女士不再面临生活在中国的直接危险，但她并未脱离中共及其代理人的触及范围。事实上，郭女士经常在社交媒体上受到威胁，被迫生活在对其自身安全的持续恐惧之中。（同上）。\n\n16. 多年来，具有政治利益的第三方一直针对郭女士发出威胁以及发表卑劣、令人恶心的社交媒体言论。当郭女士在纽约诉讼中作证时，这些威胁和言论变得更加集中。\n\n17. 企图骚扰和恐吓郭女士的组织和个人毫无底线。包括但不限于，他们已经 (i) 通过冒充属于郭女士的虚假社交媒体账户散布假冒为郭女士本人的伪造或篡改图像；(ii) 企图公开披露郭女士的所在位置，同时公开煽动人们对郭女士实施性侵犯以及对其施加其他可怕的暴力行为；以及 (iii) 冒充与郭女士或其家人关系密切的个人，以便通过看似可信的来源散布有关她的虚假信息。\n\n18. 针对郭女士的社交媒体行动至少可以追溯到 2017 年，即郭女士逃离中国大陆来到美国后不久。2017 年 10 月，一个冒充属于郭女士兄弟的商业伙伴 Yvette Wang（王雁平）的推特虚假账户发布了一张取自郭女士手机且经过篡改的郭女士图像。该帖子注明了郭女士的年龄和身高。（见附件 B）。1\n\n19. 2017 年 11 月，有人通过一个推特账户发帖称：“今晚不强奸郭美，明天就没饭吃。”（见附件 C）。\n\n20. 2017 年 12 月，一个冒充债务人助理的人的推特虚假账户发布了郭女士高中时由中国政府签发的身份证件上的照片，并对郭女士的一只眼睛进行了篡改。该照片只有中国政府才拥有。该帖子声称账户所有者为郭女士感到难过，因为她父亲强奸了许多女性，并且她在郭女士堕胎后曾与郭女士一起在医院。（见附件 D）。\n\n21. 该时期前后的其他推文由于账户已被封禁而不再带有日期。例如，一个冒充当时债务人的助理 Yu Yong（于泳）的推特虚假账户（该账户也展示了于女士由政府签发的身份证件照片），声称于女士必须立即飞往美国，因为郭女士怀孕了并且需要再次堕胎（据称是其第三次堕胎）。该帖子包含一份据称来自 Planned Parenthood（计划生育联盟）且提及郭女士的伪造记录。（见附件 E）。\n\n22. 针对郭女士的社交媒体活动在 2022 年 2 月 2 日她就纽约藐视法庭听证会作证前不久升级。其中许多帖子证实，有人正在监视郭女士参与有关\n\n1 此处所述的社交媒体帖子均以中文书写。下署人已随附这些帖子的屏幕截图，以供任何利害关系方核实其内容。自郭女士的律师认定有必要提出本动议以来，郭女士尚无时间取得这些帖子的官方译本。在法院要求时，律师将取得官方译本。\n\n债务人与 PAX 之间争议的法庭诉讼程序的情况，并利用该情况散布有关郭女士的信息以对其进行骚扰和恐吓。\n\n23. 例如，2022 年 1 月 5 日，有人通过一个推特账户发帖称，如果有人要强奸郭美，请把他算上。（见附件 F）。\n\n24. 2022 年 1 月 6 日，有人通过一个推特账户发帖称：“我今天会顺道去郭文贵的大楼等郭美，看看她有没有\\\\\\\\快来加入我，我下午 2 点左右到那里。”（见附件 G）。\n\n25. 郭女士的 1 月 28 日誓章于 2022 年 1 月 28 日签署并提交至纽约最高法院的案件卷宗。1 月 29 日，有人在推特上发布了其 1 月 28 日誓章的一部分（包括她经公证的签名页），并声称：“郭美在美国，马上就要出庭了，根据她签署的文件，她是 1 月 28 日在法拉盛/皇后区签的，她出示了身份证件并进行了公证，这意味着她在美国！”（附件 H）。\n\n26. 2022 年 2 月 1 日，有人在推特上发帖称：“郭美明天的听证会不公开，就像你去天体海滩却把私密部位遮起来一样。”（附件 I）。\n\n27. 2022 年 2 月 7 日，有人在推特上发布了郭女士在 2022 年 2 月 2 日藐视法庭听证会上的部分证言的中文翻译，并夹杂着污言秽语的评论。（附件 J）。\n\n28. 2022 年 2 月 8 日，有人发布了郭女士的纽约律师致 Judge Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）的一封信函的屏幕截图，并称：“郭美给法官写信说，‘该女士可能会尽快回来。’为什么这个丑猪总是想作妖？任何法官看到这封信都会干他全家。”（附件 K）。\n\n29. 此外，自债务人提交其第 11 章破产申请以来，针对郭女士的言论一直在持续。2022 年 3 月 2 日，有人在推特上发帖称：“听证会是\n\n线上的，我想知道郭美在哪里”“她最终会去丰县（中国的一个村庄，他们把一个女孩用铁链锁起来作为政府官员的性奴隶）。”（附件 L）。\n\n30. 2022 年 4 月 5 日，有人发帖称：“2 月 2 日，法庭之后。你从她的笔录就能看出来，她的话混乱不堪，甚至说不通，就像她那个混蛋爸爸一样……”（附件 M）。\n\n31. 基于 (i) 中共针对郭女士及其家人的行径；(ii) 第三方（其中至少有些人似乎是中共的代理人）发布郭女士的虚假和/或篡改图像的企图；以及 (iii) 第三方通报郭女士所在位置同时煽动对其施加人身暴力和性侵犯的企图，郭女士迫切需要限制对其图像以及有关其所在位置的信息的获取，以保护其人身安全和心理安全。\n\nC. 法律依据与论证\n\n32. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B) 规定：\n\n(c) 保护令。\n\n(1) 通则。当事人或任何被要求进行证据开示的人，均可向诉讼受理法院申请保护令；或者作为替代方案，就与证言宣誓录取有关的事项，向将进行证言宣誓录取的地区所在法院提出申请。该动议必须附有一份证明，证明动议人已真诚地与其他受影响当事人进行或尝试进行了协商，以努力在不诉诸法院诉讼的情况下解决争议。法院可出于正当理由签发命令，以保护当事人或个人免遭烦扰、难堪、压迫或不当负担或费用，包括以下一项或多项内容：* * *\n\n(B) 明确披露或开示的条件，包括时间与地点或费用的分摊；. . . . 2\n\n2 正如随附的 Aaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）依据 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 提交的声明中所述，郭女士与 PAX 的代理律师进行了协商，但未能解决或缩小本动议所提出的争议事项。\n\n33. 适用于向郭女士送达以对其进行个人证言宣誓录取的传票的《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Civ. P.）第 45(d)(3)(A)(4) 条在相关部分规定：\n\n(3) 撤销或修改传票。\n\n(A) 必须执行的情形。一经适时提出动议，被要求遵守传票所在地的法院必须撤销或修改存在下列情形的传票：\n\n. . .\n\n(iv) 使当事人承受不当负担。\n\n34. “对于是否根据第 26(c) 条签发保护令，法院拥有广泛的裁量权。”Burgess v. Town of Wallingford，案号 No. 3:11-CV-1129 (CSH)，2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135781，第 *21-*22 页（D. Conn.，2012年9月21日）（援引判例略）。此外，“第 26(c) 条的文本应作宽泛解释，以涵盖未予明确列出的广泛潜在损害。”同上，第 *22-*23 页（援引判例略）。根据第 26(c) 条寻求保护令的一方负有确立存在正当理由的举证责任，以获得所寻求的救济。（同上，第 *22-*23 页）（援引判例略）。相同的框架亦适用于根据第 45(d) 条撤销或修改传票的动议。Garneau v. Paquin，案号 No. 3:13-CV-00899(AVC)，2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70272，第 *3-*4 页（D. Conn.，2015年6月1日）。\n\n35. 郭女士曾遭受且目前仍在遭受 CCP（中国共产党）及其他各方的身体与心理迫害。她申请保护令仅仅是为了将她父亲的第11章破产案（Chapter 11 Case）中的证据开示程序加剧其所受虐待的程度降至最低。在目前的情况下，证据开示程序不应要求郭女士在任何特定时间透露其所在位置，也不应要求她以一种允许第三方抓取并在网络上将其肖像传播给鼓励对其施加暴力和性侵犯的群体的方式出镜。\n\n36. 基于这些理由，存在正当理由由法院签发保护令，允许郭女士在进行个人宣誓录供及作为 HKI Delaware（HKI特拉华公司）的企业代表作证时，于一处未公开的远程地点作证，且除同意受保密协议约束并对其身份进行核实的法庭记录员外，不得向任何其他人播送其肖像。参见 Garneau，2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70272，第 *6 页（“通常，当一方证明披露将导致明确界定、具体且严重的损害时，即存在‘正当理由’。”）（援引判例略）；另见 Securities Indus. and Fin. Markets. Ass'n. v. Garfield，469 F. Supp. 2d 25，36（D. Conn. 2007）（基于隐私权授予初步禁令，禁止在网络上公布政治捐赠者及其家属名单，并指出“互联网彻底改变了公众获取信息的范围与方式。遗憾的是，互联网也为罪犯实施犯罪提供了一种新的媒介”）；Burgess，第 *41-*42 页（签发保护令，禁止原告在网络上公布该案中录取的未经涂黑遮蔽的证词笔录，因为“披露的个人信息包括地址、电话号码和出生日期等身份识别信息，这些材料一旦被放到互联网上，可能会为针对上述被具名个人的不受欢迎的接触提供手段”）；D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 30(a)（指出宣誓录供构成“公众无权旁听”的私密事项）。\n\n37. 郭女士及 HKI 特拉华公司的证词宣誓录取已分别发出通知并送达传票，定于2022年5月16日上午10:00开始。\n\n38. 该《通知》与《传票》均在相关部分规定：\n\n1. 证词宣誓录取将亲自到场或远程利用视听会议技术进行；\n\n2. 法庭记录员将与证人在同一地点或与证人分开的地点记录宣誓证词，并将对证人进行远程监誓；\n\n3. 各方代理律师及其委托人将从同一地点或不同地点参与；\n\n4. 证人可能会被要求出示政府颁发的身份证件，该证件在镜头前必须清晰可辨；\n\n* * *\n\n8. 证言宣誓录取可以通过速记、电子和/或录像手段进行记录；以及\n\n9. 所有当事人的代理律师都将被要求在笔录中约定同意以此种方式进行宣誓录供，并放弃对该种宣誓录供方式的任何异议，包括基于远程宣誓录供方式对该证词在审判中的可采性提出的任何异议。\n\n（HKI 特拉华公司的证词宣誓录取通知副本作为证据 N 附于本动议之后；强制郭女士宣誓作证的传票副本作为证据 O 附于本动议之后）。3\n\n39. 郭女士并不寻求阻止或拖延其本人或 HKI 特拉华公司的证词宣誓录取。郭女士仅请求法院下达程序性保障措施命令，以保护其合法的隐私与安全利益，并防止第三方获取及传播其肖像或有关其位置的信息。\n\n40. 在本案存在的独特且令人信服的情形下，郭女士分别请求法院下达命令，指示其个人证言宣誓录取及 HKI 特拉华公司的证词宣誓录取按以下方式进行：\n\n- a. 由 PAX 使用 Microsoft Teams 或 WebEx 平台以远程方式进行宣誓录供。不得允许 PAX 在 Zoom 上进行宣誓录供；\n- b. 由同意保密协议的法庭记录员控制宣誓录供平台；\n- c. 允许郭女士和法庭记录员在所有其他参与者之前十分钟登录该平台，以便记录员确认郭女士的身份并对其进行监誓；\n\n3 PAX 最初通知将郭女士的宣誓录供定于2022年5月12日。经双方协议，当事人将其改期至2022年5月16日。\n\n- d. 在记录员确认其身份后，允许郭女士关闭其摄像头，在郭女士关闭摄像头之前不得允许记录员让出庭律师进入虚拟房间，且在宣誓录供期间不得强迫郭女士重新打开摄像头；\n- e. 不得允许任何一方强迫郭女士提供有关其居住地址或其提供证词所在的物理位置的任何信息。同样不得允许任何一方强迫郭女士提供有关其遭受 CCP 迫害和持续骚扰的家庭成员的居住地址或物理位置的任何信息；\n- f. 郭女士的个人证词宣誓录取及 HKI 特拉华公司的 30(b)(6) 证词宣誓录取仅由法庭记录员通过速记和录音手段进行记录；\n- g. 不得允许任何人对宣誓录供的任何部分进行录像或进行宣誓录供的屏幕截图；\n- h. 自郭女士的代理律师收到郭女士证词笔录副本之日起至少三（3）个完整工作日内，对该笔录的查阅权限仅限于代表 PAX、HKI 特拉华公司、债务人（Debtor）、美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）以及无担保债权人官方委员会（Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors）出庭的律师，以便郭女士及 HKI 特拉华公司的代理律师有充足时间寻求额外的保护令，以限制该笔录某些部分的使用。如果郭女士和/或 HKI\n\n特拉华公司提交了此类保护令动议，郭女士请求对笔录的限制持续至法院就该保护令动议作出裁定之时。\n\n41. 郭女士谨此认为，前述保障措施将使 PAX 能够从郭女士及 HKI 特拉华公司获得其所寻求的信息，同时最大程度地确保郭女士的人身安全与心理健康。郭女士拟定的准予本动议的裁定草案副本附于本动议之后。\n结论\n\n郭女士并非 PAX 的《驳回起诉动议》（Motion to Dismiss）的当事人，而该动议正是涉及向郭女士发出的传票及向 HKI 特拉华公司发出的宣誓录供通知的争议事项。郭女士曾遭受外国政府及其他各方的迫害。她在本动议中已证明，第三方曾非法传播其肖像及有关其位置的信息，以对其进行威胁、使其难堪和羞辱她。本动议所寻求的程序性保障措施旨在使郭女士能够向 PAX 提供其所寻求的宣誓证词，同时不损害郭女士的人身安全或心理安全。\n\n基于上述理由，郭女士谨请法院准予本动议所寻求的救济，并裁定法院认为公正妥当的进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022年5月10日。\n\nMEI GUO（郭美）\n\n签署人：/s/ Aaron A. Romney, Esq.\nStephen M. Kindseth（律师执业号 ct14640）\nAaron A. Romney（律师执业号 ct28144）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5473\n电子邮件：[skindseth@zeislaw.com] [aromney@zeislaw.com]\n其代理律师\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于2022年5月10日，前述文件的副本已通过电子方式归档提交。本提交的通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行向所有当事人发送电子邮件，或按《电子归档通知》所示通过邮寄方式向任何无法接收电子归档的人员发送。各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n> /s/ Aaron A. Romney, Esq.\nAaron A. Romney","key_entities":["Guo","CCP","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3695,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:42:57"}