{"id":"court_ctb_352_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":352,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF' CONNDCTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | In re: | Chapter 11 |","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF' CONNDCTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| In re: | Chapter 11 |\n|--------------|-------------------------|\n| | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | |\n| Debtor | |\n\n### NOTICE OF CONTESTED MATTER RESPONSE DATE\n\nGolden Spring (I.{ew York) Limited (\"GSNY\") has filed a motion to Modifu or Quash Subpoenas Issued by Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (the \"Motion\") with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut. Notice is hereby given that any response to the Contested Matter must be filed with the Court not later than May 27,2022, in accordance with Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(a) and 90141 . In the absence of a timely filed response the proposed order in the Contested Matter may enter without further notice andhearing, see 1l U.S.C. g 102(1).\n\nDated May 12,2022\n\n#### GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LIMITED\n\nBy /s/ Timoth)' D. Miltenberger Timothy D. Miltenberger (ct08874) Scott D. Rosen Cohn Birnbuam & Shea P.C. 100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 4e3-2262 Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com\n\n1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(0, if service is made by mail, three days are added after the response date set in this notice.\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| In re: | | Chapter 1l |\n|--------------|--|-------------------------|\n| | | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | | |\n| Debtor | | |\n\n## MOTTON OF GOLDEN SPRTNG (NEW YORK) LTD. TO MODIFY OR QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PACIF'IC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY F'UND L.P.\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited (\"GSNY\"), by and through its undersigned attorneys Cohn Birnbuam & Shea P.C. (ooCBS\"), pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr P. 9016, incorporating Fed. R. Bankr, P. 45(d), hereby moves for protection from numerous subpoenas (detailed below) issued by Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund LP (\"PAX\") between April22,2022 and May 5, 2022, and states as follows:\n\n### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nIn the period between March 29,2022, and May 5,2022, (\"PAX\") has issued nineteen subpoenas on Golden Spring (l.{ew YorD Ltd. (\"GSNY\"), its officers, directors, and employees, supposedly related to PAX's motion to dismiss this bankruptcy case. The debtor subsequently consented to PAX's motion to dismiss, thus mooting the need for further discovery from GSNY. While other creditors filed objections to PAX's motion to dismiss, those objections raise no issues of fact related to GSNY. GSNY therefore files this motion to quash out of an abundance of caution to protect its rights in the event that PAX continues to contend that additional discovery is warranted from GSNY.\n\nPAX sent most of its subpoenas to GSNY (and others) on GSNY's counsel as a first choice. The subpoenas all require responses within 14 business days (nine of them require\n\nresponses in seven business days or fewer, and one requires a response within two business days), are frequently repetitive, and seek documents or testimony about the same topics over and over. Moreover, the document requests repeat pre-petition document requests with which GSNY has already complied. Nevertheless, PAX continues to request documents that it has already received from GSNY and its employees.\n\nThe subpoenas issued to GSNY were not properly served, fail to take reasonable steps to protect GSNY from undue burden and expense, and fail to provide a reasonable time to comply. For these reasons, the subpoenas should be quashed.\n\n# I. BACKGROUND\n\nSince late March, PAX has issued the following nineteen subpoenas on GSNY and its directors, officers and employees:\n\n| Date | Issued onl | Sent bv | Tvpe |\n|-----------|------------|-----------|----------------|\n| 3129t2022 | Qiang Guo | Email to | 3o(bx6) |\n| | | CBS; | Deposition on |\n| | | Process | Tuesday, April |\n| | | Server to | T2 |\n| | | GSNY | |\n| 312912022 | GSNY | Email to | Documents due |\n| | | CBS; | by Thursday, |\n| | | Process | Mar.31 |\n| | | Server to | |\n| | | GSNY | |\n| 3/2912022 | GSNY | Email to | 30(b)(6) |\n| | | CBS; | Deposition on |\n| | | Process | Tuesday, April |\n| | | Server to | 12 |\n| | | GSNY | |\n| 41rU2022 | GSNY | Email to | 30(bx6) |\n| | | CBS | Deposition on |\n\nt Frequently, the party named in the subpoena is different than the party named on the attached notice. For example, the May 3 subpoena is addressed to Mr. Max Krasner without any reference to GSNY, but the attached Rule 30(b)(1) notice is addressed to Mr. Krasner \"in his capaci\\$ as employee of [GSNY].\" Similarly, the May 3 subpoena to Mr. Qiang Guo is addressed to Mr. Qiang Guo without any reference to GSNY. The deposition notice references Mr. Qiang Guo as owner and managing agent of GSNY (he is neither).\n\n| | | | Tuesday, April
t2 |\n|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 412212022 | Qiang Guo cio CBS | Email to
CBS | 30(bx1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
I2 |\n| 412212022 | GSNY | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
May 2 |\n| 412212022 | Qiang Guo c/o CBS | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
Mav 2 |\n| 412212022 | Yanping Wang c/o
CBS | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
May 2 |\n| 412812022 | Max Krasner | Email to
CBS | 3O(bx1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
t2 |\n| 5/312022 | Max Krasner, in his
capacity as employee
of GSNY | Email to
CBS | 30(bx1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
t2 |\n| 51312022 | Qiang Guo, in his
capacity as owner and
managing agent of
GSNY | Email to
CBS | 3o(bx1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
t2 |\n| s1312022 | Qiang Guo, in his
capacity as owner and
managing agent of
GSNY | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
May 9 |\n| 51312022 | Yanping Wang, in
her capacity as
President, Secretary,
and Treasurer of
GSNY | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
May 9 |\n| 514/2022 | GSNY via its owner,
Qiang Guo | Email to
CBS | 30(b)(6)
Deposition on
Saturday, May
t4 |\n| slsl2022 | Max Krasner | Process
Server to
GSNY | 3O(bx1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
t2 |\n\n| 51512022 | Qiang Guo | Process
Server to
GSNY | 3O(bxl)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
t2 |\n|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|\n| sts12022 | Qiang Guo | Process
Server to
GSNY | Documents due
by Thursday,
Mav 12 |\n| sls12022 | Yanping Wang | Process
Server to
GSNY | Documents due
by Thursday,
May 12 |\n| 51512022 | Yanping Wang, to be
responded to by
GSNY through Wang
as its officer | Process
Server to
GSNY | Documents due
by Monday,
May 9 |\n\nAs shown above, except for the subpoenas served on May 5,2022, PAX sent all the above-referenced subpoenas to GSNY's counsel, CBS. With two exceptions discussed below, CBS advised PAX that it was not authorized to accept subpoenas directed to others aside from GSNY. In response, PAX claimed-and wrongly so-that all of its pre-May 5 subpoenas were intended for GSNY, and were not served on GSNY's directors, officers, and employees in their individual capacities. PAX's claim, however, did not jive with the plain language of the subpoenas themselves. PAX asserted this position despite the fact that its subpoenas expressly identified the party to be deposed or to produce documents as ooMax Krasner\" or \"Qiang Guo\" or \"Yanping Wang\" without any reference whatsoever to GSNY.\n\nIn addition to the April 11 subpoena to GSNY directly, on May 3,2022, GSNY advised PAX that its counsel would accept service of a subpoena on its President, Yanping (Yvette) Wang, so long as the subpoena was modified to properly reflect that it was being issued to GSNY, not to Ms. Wang in her individual capacity. PAX sent a revised subpoena to counsel for GSNY which did not comply with GSNY's request. Nevertheless, counsel for GSNY accepted\n\n4\n\nthat subpoena on behalf of GSNY and responded in a timely manner. Miltenberger Affidavit, at fl6.\n\nMany of the subpoenas request the same or similar documents and many of those documents have already been produced to PAX. For example, the April22 subpoena to GSNY, the April 22 subpoena to Mr. Guo, the May 3 subpoena to Mr. Guo, and the May 5 subpoena to Mr. Guo all request documents related to the Sherry-Netherland co-op unit for the period from 2015 to the present.2 When GSNY notified PAX that it had previously produced documents related to the Sherry Netherland spanning a large portion of this time period, PAX responded that it had received no such documents. GSNY then inquired whether PAX was in receipt of documents in response to its March2l,202l subpoena. PAX responded that it had received documents in response to that subpoena and confirmed that the documents in its possession included documents related to the Sherry Netherland. PAX's counsel claimed, however, that there was a2,000-page gap in the GSNY's bates numbering in the production. GSNY then promptly provided PAX with information confirming that there was no gap in the bates numbering and that the o'missing\" documents contained GSNY's bank records, which were turned over pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. See generallyMiltenberger Affidavit, at .]|fl l0 -12. Apparently, PAX has misplaced, or is not even aware of, the highly sensitive documents that GSNY had previously produced.\n\nSimilarly, multiple subpoenas for documents and depositions request information about the ownership structure and corporate management of GSNY (see, e.g,, the March 29 subpoena to GSNY; the April 1 1 subpoena to GSNY; and the May 5 subpoena to Mr. Guo). GSNY\n\n2 Seeking documents covering an eight-year period and commanding their production in 14 days or far fewer cannot be construed as taking reasonable steps to prevent an undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(dxl).\n\nproduced this material to PAX prior to this bankruptcy filing, and then re-produced information sufficient to establish its ownership, officers, and directors after the bankruptcy filing. Nevertheless, PAX continues to request this same information.\n\nAs yet another example, PAX requests information regarding Yanping Wang's employment and compensation as an officer of GSNY. Prior to the bankruptcy filing, however, Ms. Wang produced her personal bank statements to PAX pursuant to an order of Justice Ostrager. Justice Ostrager expressly ordered that PAX destroy any information produced by Ms. Wang \"that is not relevant to Mr. Kwok's assets or income.\" After GSNY reminded PAX of Ms. Wang's prior production, PAX responded that it had destroyed the production, which confirms that none of the documents in Ms. Wang's production were relevant to Mr. Kwok's assets or income. Nevertheless, PAX againdemanded the documents to produced again.\n\nFinally, PAX has provided no colorable basis for many of its document requests. How the compensation paid by GSNY to Ms. Wang impacts the motion to dismiss Ho Wan Kwok's bankruptcy case is unknown to GSNY.3 Certainly, such requests infringe upon Ms. Wang's privacy rights. During GSNY's meet and confer with PAX, PAX contended that it wanted to know the scope of Ms. Wang's employment and her job responsibilities. Ms. Wang was deposed for nearly seven hours in April and answered questions on those very topics.\n\n3 On May 1 I , 2022, the debtor consented to PAX's motion to dismiss the Bankruptcy case. Further, none of the objections that were filed to PAX's motion to dismiss raise any issue relating to Ms. Wang.\n\n# II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY.\n\nRule 45 permits an officer of the court to issue a subpoena commanding ooeach person to whom it is directed to attend and testi\\$r at a deposition.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. a5(a)(1)(A)(iii). Like Rule 26, Rule 45 sets certain substantive and procedural standards which must be met in order to avail oneself to the benefits accorded by the rule. Service must be properly made with an appropriate witness fee. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b). On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modiff a subpoena that fails to allow a reasonable time to comply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3XAXi)-(ii); Graduation Sols., LLC v. Acadima, LLC,2018 WL 10398566, at\\*2 (D. Conn. 2018). An attorney issuing a subpoena must take reasonable steps to prevent undue burden on the recipient. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(dX1). The party resisting production bears the responsibility of establishing undue burden. Cris v. Fareri,2Ol l WL 443396I, at\\*1 (D. Conn. 2011).\n\n## A, PAX Has Not Validly Served a Subpoena on GSNYfor the Testimony of Mr. Guo or Mr. Krasner.\n\nRule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person. ooThe courts do not agree on the meaning of delivering a copy.' Some courts have held that delivery requires personal service.\" Prall v, Hartford Prosecutors,20lI WL 1336385, at \\*1 (D.Conn. Apr.7,20ll); see also SECv. Prince,322 F.R.D. 450, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (collecting cases and authority). Nevertheless, \"[t]here is no Second Circuit case law interpreting the Rule 45 requirement of delivery as requiring personal service.\" Kenyonv. Simon & Schuster, Inc.,2016 WL 5930265, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1I,2016).\n\nCourts in this Circuit have noted that Rule 45 \"neither requires in-hand service nor prohibits alternative means of service.\" JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDIA Grp., ZZC, No. 08 cv-9116 (PGG), 2009 WL 1313259, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 11,2009) (internal quotation marks\n\nomitted) (quoting Cordius Trust v. Kummerfeld,2OO0 WL 10268, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2000)). Altemative service methods - such as service by certified mail - will be permitted where such service \"reasonably insures [sic] actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness\" and \"comports with due process\" insofar as it is ooreasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide fthe witness] with both notice and an opportunity to present objections.\" JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.4.,2009 WL 1313259, at\\*3 (quoting Cordius Trust,2000 WL 10268, at\\*2).\n\nCourts typically require aparty (here, PAX) to seek leave to serve by alternative means ooto demonstrate a prior diligent attempt to personally serve\" before permitting substituted service under Rule 45. Kenyon,2016 WL 5930265, at\\*3. Thus, the court in Estebanv. Santa Rosa Rest., LLC,20I6 WL 2350101, at\\*2 (D. Conn. 2016), only after finding that the proposed deponent had evaded service, directed an alternative manner of service of the subpoena and witness fee.\n\nIn this case, PAX can and should serve GSNY at its principal place of business or through its statutory agent for service. PAX served its March 29 subpoena(s) on GSNY in this manner and GSNY complied. However, since March 29, PAX has refused and failed to serve GSNY directly, and has instead emailed GSNY's counsel, even though counsel advised PAX that it was not authorized to accept service on behalf of others. To the best of GSNY's information and belief, PAX never attempted to serve GSNY at its principal place of business (or through its statutory agent) with the ApriI22, April28, or May 3 subpoenas. PAX knows the location of GSNY's principal place of business - indeed, it served the May 5 subpoenas on the three individuals (Mr. Guo, Mr. Krasner, and Ms. Wang) at that address by process server. Moreover, as noted above, PAX has never sought leave to make substitute service.\n\n8\n\nFurther, none of the deposition subpoenas served upon CBS for GSNY include the requisite witness fee.a See Fed. R. Civ. P. a5@)(1); Esteban,2016 WL 2350101, \\*\\*2, citing Songv. Dreamtouch, Inc.,200lWL 487413,at\\*7 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (\"Where no fee is tendered with the service of a subpoena requiring a witness' attendance, the service is invalid.\").\n\n## B, The Subpoenas Are Not Reasonably Calculated to Prevent an Undue Burden on GSNY and Constitute Harassment.\n\nA party contending that a subpoena should be quashed pursuant to Rule a5(c)(3XAXiv) must demonstrate that compliance with the subpoena would be unduly burdensome. See Akande v. Graser,2010 WL 3613912, at \\*1 (D. Conn. Sept. 3, 2010); Jones v. Hirschfeld,2lg F.R.D. 7I,74-75 (S.D.N.Y.2003). An evaluation of undue burden requires the court to weigh the burden to the subpoenaed party against the value of the information to the serving party. Whether a subpoena imposes an undue burden depends upon such factors as relevance and the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document request, the time period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are described, and the burden imposed. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Metropolitan Lfe Insurance Co.,228 F.R.D. 111, 113 (D. Conn. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n\nWith respect to non-partiess in particular, although \"[t]he permissible scope of discovery from a non-party is generally the same as that applicable to discovery sought from parties[,] ... [t]he burden on the party from which discovery is sought must, of course, be balanced against the need for the information sought .\" Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.,28I F.R.D. 85,92 (D. Conn. 2012) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover,2009 WL 585434, at \\*5 (D. Conn. 2009) (applying\n\no Upon information and belief, PAX issued subpoenas on three individuals associated with GSNY (but not on GSNY) and provided a witness fee.\n\ns GSNY is not aparty to the proceedings on PAX's motion to dismiss. The deadline for objections was May I I and GSNY filed none. PAX's motion to dismiss seeks no relief against GSNY.\n\nbalancing test of Rule 26(b)(2)(C) to deny in part plaintiffs Rule 45 motion to compel production of documents from non-party). In performing such a balance, courts have considered the fact that discovery is being sought from a non-party, which weighs against permitting discovery. See, e.g., Medical Components, Inc. v. Clossic Medical, Inc.,2l} F.R.D. 175, 180 n. 9 (M.D.N.C .2002) (\"The current generally prevailing view is that the Court may first consider whether information should be obtained by direct discovery from a party, as opposed to from a non-party, and that the court should give special weight to the unwanted burden thrust upon nonparties when evaluating the balance of competing needs.\"); see also Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc.,984F.2d 422,424 (Fed.Cir. 1993) ( \"Discovery of persons not party to the litigation is contemplated by the Rules. Although Rule 26(b) applies equally to discovery of nonparties, the fact of nonparty status may be considered by the court in weighing the burdens imposed in the circumstances.\") (collecting cases). Within this Circuit, courts have held nonparty status to be a \"significant\" factor in determining whether discovery is unduly burdensome. Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc., l2l F.R.D. 163,179 (E.D.N.Y.1988), affd, 870 F.2d 642 (Fed.Cir. 1 989)\n\nIn this case, compliance is unduly burdensome. PAX has repeatedly subpoenaed the same documents, even though GSNY produced several thousands of pages of documents last year responsive to the requests. By way of example, documents concerning payments regarding the Sherry Netherland, Ms. Wang's compensation, the officers and directors of GSNY, and its corporate structure, have already been produced to PAX. PAX simply did not review GSNY's prior production. It appears to GSNY that PAX is still unaware of what that production contained. Similarly, PAX is seeking the testimony of three witnesses from GSNY to answer questions on the same topics. The result of this activity is PAX serving more than 15 subpoenas in less than 3 weeks (since April 22,2022) seeking information from GSNY. PAX has by no means taken reasonable steps to protect GSNY from undue burden and its actions to date constitute harassment.\n\n## C, The Subpoenas Do Not Provide a Reasonable Time to Comply.\n\nUnder Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(dX3XAXi), a court is required to quash a subpoena when it oofails to allow a reasonable time to comply.\" Courts within this circuit have ruled that the service of a subpoena five to nine days in advance of a hearing is not \"reasonable time to comply.\" See Arch Ins. Co. v. Centerplan Constr. Co., LLC,2017 WL 4998645, at \\*1 (D. Conn. 2017) (seven days to respond is unreasonable); Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc. v. Assoc. Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. Ltd.,No.2015 WL 6741852, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4,2015) (finding five days between receipt of the subpoena and the deposition date to be an unreasonable amount of time); Brown v. Hendler,20l1 WL 321139, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31,2011) (ruling nine days between service of the subpoena and the deposition date to violate Rule 45).6\n\nDespite the hearing on PAX's motion to dismiss being scheduled more than 20 days from the date of its most recent subpoenas, PAX consistently provides an uffeasonable time to comply. The subpoenas all require responses within 14 business days. Nine of the subpoenas require responses in seven business days or fewer, and one requires a response within just two business days. This is not a reasonable time to comply. For this additional reason, the subpoenas must be quashed.\n\n6 Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, motions to dismiss must be decided on an expedited basis. See 1l U.S.C. \\$ I I l2(bx3). However, the movant may consent to additional time for a determination of its motion to dismiss. Thus, PAX has the capacity to extend the timeline if it so desires. PAX cannot be allowed to demand an expedited timeline and unduly burden non-parties.\n\n## D. The Noticing Purty Cannot Designate the Witness Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6),\n\nUnder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), aparty may issue a notice of intent to take a deposition to an organization, and then the organization shall designate ooone or more officers, directors or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testifu on its behalf.\" The corporate entity itself designates the representative. Id. To the extent aparty wants to subpoena an individual of its choice for a deposition, it must do so under Rule 30(a)(1), which states thataparty \"may take the testimony of any person, including apary, by deposition upon oral examination without leave of court.\" Rule 30(a) allows a party to take the deposition of nonparty witnesses, including employees. ooExcept where the employee has been designated by the corporation under Rule 30(b)(6), an employee is treated in the same way as any other witness. His or her presence must be obtained by subpoena rather than by notice.\" Cummings v Gen. Motors Corp.,365 F.3d 944,953 (lOth Cir.2004),as modffiedondenial ofreh'g(June2, 2004), and abrogated on other grounds by Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich,Inc.,546 U.S. 394 (2006), citing 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure Civ.2d g 2103.\n\nIn this case, PAX has conflated Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a) and (b)(6) by detailing areas of inquiry and then self-designating the individual that will testi\\$ about those topics. This procedure is not recognized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If PAX seeks a witness to testi\\$ on topics designated under Rule 30(b)(6), then GSNY determines the appropriate witness, not PAX.\n\nt2\n\n# ilI. CONCLUSION\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. respectfully requests that this Court quash all the subpoenas served upon it.\n\n#### GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LIMITED\n\nBy /s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger Timothy D. Miltenberger (ct08874) Scott D. Rosen Cohn Birnbuam & Shea P.C. 100 Pearl Street, 12ft Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 493-2262 Tmiltenberger@ cbshealaw.com\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nDebtor.\n\nIn re: Chapter l1 HO WAN KWOK, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n## AFF'IDAVIT OF TIMOTHY MILTENBERGER REGARDING MOTION TO MODIFY OR QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PACIF'IC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.\n\nPursuant to D.Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(a), the undersigned certifies as follows:\n\nl. Iam over eighteen years old and believe in the obligations of an oath.\n\n2. Imake this affidavit on my own personal knowledge.\n\n3. To date, I have had numerous telephone conversations and email exchanges with Attorney Laura Aronsson at O'Melveny & Myers LLP (\"OM\") about the approximately twenty subpoenas that have been issued by OM since March29,2022 on behalf of Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\") directed to my client Golden Spring (l.{ew York) Ltd. (\"GSNY\") and others. Fifteen of those subpoenas have been issued since April 22,2022, supposedly in connection with PAX's motion to dismiss the above-referenced bankruptcy case\n\n(the \"Bankrtupcy Case\").\n\n4. My conversations with Attorney Aronsson have included discussions over (i) proper service of the subpoenas, (ii) the production of documents prior to the filing of the Bankrtupcy Case, and (iii) the relevance of documents and testimony sought.\n\n5. On May 11,2022, the debtor consented to PAX's motion to dismiss the Bankruptcy Case, thus obviating the need for additional discovery from GSNY.\n\n6. As I have advised Attomey Aronsson, my firm represents GSNY and is not authorized to accept service ofsubpoenas on behalfofany person or entity other than its client. When my firm accepted service of a subpoena, GSNY responded to the subpoena.\n\n7. My conversations with Attorney Aronsson regarding whether PAX had taken reasonable steps to protect GSNY from an undue burden have reached an impasse.\n\n8. While responding to PAX's subpoenas, my client advised me that it had been served with subpoenas by PAX prior to the Bankruptcy Case. My client further advised me that it has already produced thousands of pages of documents to PAX in response to one such subpoena dated March I8,2021, and that its prior productions included materials responsive to PAX's post-petition document requests. The previously produced documents responsive to PAX's post-petition subpoenas include, without limitation, GSNY's corporate documents, bank statements spanning three years, and other documents related to the \"Sherry-Netherland.\"\n\n9. I advised Attorney Aronsson of the prior productions and the substantial overlap with PAX's current document requests and asked her to determine what GSNY records were akeady in OM's possession. That due diligence clearly should have been conducted by OM before it bombarded GSNY with many more subpoenas requesting information that had already been provided.\n\n10. After receiving the Apil22 subpoena from PAX, I inquired with counsel to PAX about its March 2021 subpoena to GSNY. OM located some documents produced pursuant to the March 2021 subpoena and identified documents that were responsive to its current document request regarding the \"Sherry-Netherland.\" However, Attorney Aronsson noted that GSNY's production in compliance with PAX's March 18,2l2lsubpoena had an approximately 2,000-\n\n2\n\npage gap in the bates numbering and asked me to confirm that GSNY did not have any other do cuments relating to the \" Sherry-Netherland. \"\n\n11. In response, I advised Attorney Aronsson that there was no gap in the bates numbering of GSNY's production. Subsequently,I provided her with the emails transmitting the \"missing\" (according to OM) 2,000-page production and asked OM to locate it.\n\n12. On May 1I,2022, approximately one month after subpoenaing information from GSNY, OM noted that it had found the \"missing\" GSNY production and reviewed it. This occurred only after I had advised OM that there was no gap in the bates numbering and provided OM with the emails transmitting the documents. After locating the oomissing\" documents, OM wrote: \"this production contains over 900 checks made out to various entities between April 2018 and JuIy 2020. We note that for a significant number of these checks, the payee information is redacted, rendering them useless from a discovery standpoint.\" OM then demanded that GSNY reproduce its202I documents without redaction.\n\n13. Included in the \"missing\" 2,000-page production is a least one check dated July 30, 2018 in the amount of \\$20,000 and payable to the Sherry-Netherland. Apparently, as of the date hereof, PAX has still not reviewed the materials that GSNY produced back in 202L\n\n14. Prior to the Bankruptcy Case, PAX also subpoenaed the President of GSNY, Yanping (Yvette) Wang in her personal capacity.\n\n15. Ms. Wang produced her own personal bank records to PAX pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court of New York.\n\n16. On May 11,2022, after I advised OM that Ms. Wang had previously produced the requested documents, OM acknowledged receiving her production and that it had destroyed it pursuant to Justice Ostrager's order. That order had required OM to oopromptly destroy any\n\n> a J\n\ninformation that is not relevant to Mr. Kwok's assets or income.\" Even though OM had destroyed Ms. Wang's production only after it had confirmed its lack of relevance to the debtor's assets or income, PAX is still demanding that GSNY (or Ms. Wang) reproduce the same documents. What's more, PAX has offered no confidentiality protections whatsoever for any such production.\n\n17. PAX has issued numerous subpoenas to GSNY without ever reviewing the documents that GSNY produced in202l to determine whether it was requesting documents that it already possessed. When GSNY notified PAX of its prior production, PAX seemed unaware of it, then wrongly claimed the production was incomplete, and then demanded that it be made again.\n\n18. On May 11,2022,I discussed with Attorney Aronsson the relevance of Ms. Wang's compensation to the issues raised in PAX's motion to dismiss. Attorney Aronsson advised me that the scope of Ms. Wang's employment, what she does, and her compensation were relevant to the motion to dismiss.\n\n19. GSNY has produced, both pre-petition and post-petition, documents establishing Ms. Wang's role (both historical and current) on behalf of GSNY (as well as identi\\$ing the owners, officers, and directors of GSNY since the company's inception).\n\n20. On April 12,2022, in response to a 30(b)(6) deposition subpoena served on GSNY, Ms. Wang served as the deponent and testified for approximately seven hours. During that deposition, Ms. Wang described, inter alia, the scope of her employment and job responsibilities.\n\n4\n\n21. During the deposition, GSNY's counsel did not object to questions regarding Ms Wang's job functions or role at GSNY and Ms. Wang testified fully on these, and many other, topics.\n\n> \\_/s/ Timothy Timothy D. Miltenberger\n\nSubscribed to and sworn before me, this l2th day of May, 2022.\n\n/s/ Scott Rosen Scott Rosen Commissioner of the Superior Court\n\n#### T]NITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COTIRT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DWISION\n\n| In re: | Chapter ll |\n|--------------|-------------------------|\n| | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | |\n| Debtor. | |\n\n# \\*\",\\$xliB1FJ\"?J,\"#-.'ilf-HtilS-t'\"RlHH\\$,ou' PACIFIC ALLIANCE, ASIA OPPORTUMTY FUND L.P.\n\nThe undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:\n\n1. Iam over eighteen years of age and believe in the obligations of an oath.\n\n2. Unless expressly stated otherwise herein, I make this affidavit on my own\n\npersonal knowledge.\n\n3. Iam the President of Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"GSNY\")'\n\n4. Prior to the filing of the above captioned bankruptcy case in February 2021 (the\n\n\"Bankuptcy Case\"), GSNY was served with a subpoena for documents by Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\").\n\n5. In response to that subpoena, GSNY produced to PAX more than 2,800 pages of documents, including highly sensitive and confidential documents. The documents that GSNY produced included its sensitive bank records spanning three years. The documents produced also included GSNY's historical \"corporate book,\" identifling the company's owners, officers, and directors since its outset.\n\n6. Prior to the Bankruptcy Case, I was also personally served by PAX with a subpoena for documents.\n\n7. In response to that subpoena, I produced approximately 100 pages of my own personal bank records.\n\n8. Since the filing of the Bankrtupcy Case, PAX has issued approximately twenty additional subpoenas to GSNY, its officers, directors, and employees.\n\n9. PAX's document requests in these post-bankruptcy petition subpoenas substantially overlap with the documents that PAX requested and produced last year. For example, documents concerning payments regarding the Sherry Netherland, my compensation, the officers and directors of GSNY, and its corporate structure, have already been produced to PAX.\n\n10. That said, PAX has again requested GSNY's corporate formation documents, documents regarding its owners, officers and directors, documents related to my compensation, documents retated to the Sherry-Netherland, and documents related to certain transactions, which have already been provided to PAX.\n\n11. On March 29,2022, PAX served subpoenas for documents and a 30(bX6) deposition on GSNY via its statutory agent for service.\n\n12. GSNY responded to that subpoena by producing approximately 930 pages of documents, including the documents identif,ing its current owners, officers, and directors, which had already been produced to PAX.\n\n13. On April 12,2A22,1testified for approximately 7 hours as a 30(bX6) witness for CSNY in connection with the Bankruptcy Case. During that deposition, I testified, among many other topics, extensively about the scope of my employment and my job responsibilities.\n\n14, GSNY's attomeys have also responded to the subpoena directed to me as President of GSNY that was served on them. GSNY's counsel advised PAX that they would accept service of this subpoena, so long as the subpoena was modified to properly reflect that it was being issued to GSNY, not to me in an individual capacity. PAX sent a revised subpoena (which did not comply with counsel for GSNY's request). Nevertheless, GSNY's counsel accepted that subpoena on behalf of GSNY and responded in a timely manner.\n\nSubscribed to and swom before me, this l2th day of May, 2022.\n\nPublic\n\nlsslon 4o/\"\n\nVAMILE FORERO NotoryPubllc Stote of NewYork No,01FO6070665 Ortollfied In Nassou Countv Cnmmlqrlon Fyni'es Morch 64, QAa 6\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIn re: Chapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor\n\n## PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTTON OF GOLDEN SPRTNG (NEW YORK) LTD. TO MODIFY OR QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PACIF'IC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTIINITY F'IIND I,.P.\n\nUpon the motion by Golden Spring (New York) Limited to quash from numerous\n\nsubpoenas (the \"Subpoenas\") issued by Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund LP (\"PAX\") between\n\nApril22,2022 and May 5, 2022, it is hereby\n\nORDERED, that the motion is granted and the Subpoenas are hereby quashed.\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| In re: | Chapter I I |\n|--------------|-------------------------|\n| | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | |\n| Debtor | |\n\n#### CERTIF'ICATE OF' SERVICE\n\nIn accordance with the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 20Q2 and7004,the undersigned certifies that on the l2th day of May 2022,the following documents were served on the Office of the United States Trustee and all appearing parties via the Court's electronic filing system and, on or before May 13,2022, by First Class Mil on the parties listed below.\n\n## 1. Documents Served:\n\n- a. Motion of Golden Spring (New York) LTD. Modifu or Quash Subpoenas Issued by Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n- b. Affidavit of Timothy D. Miltenberger\n- c. Affrdavit of Yanping Wang\n- d. Proposed Order\n- e. Notice of Contested Matter Response Date\n- 2. Parties Served Via F'irst Class Mail:\n\nHo Wan Kwok 373 Taconic Road Greenwich, CT 06831\n\nCheng Jian Wu Jian She c/o Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C. 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F Flushing, NY 11354 USA Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\n#### Guo Baosheng\n\ncloLaw Office ofNing Ye, Esq. 135-11 38th Avenue, Suite 1A Flushing, NY 11354 USA Attn:Ning Ye, Esq.\n\n#### Yang Lan and Wu Zheng\n\n900 Third Avenue, lSth Floor c/o Arkin Solbakken, LLP New York, NY 10022 Attn: Robert C. Angelillo\n\n## Hong Qi Qu\n\nc/o Kevin Tung, P.C. 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F Flushing,NY 11354USA Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\n#### Jian Gong\n\nC/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C. 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D Flushing, NY 11354 USA Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\n#### Yan Zhao\n\nC/O Law Office ofNing Ye, Esq 135-l l 38th Avenue, Suite 1A Flushing, NY 11354 USA Attn:Ning Ye, Esq.\n\n#### Yua Hua Zhuang Shi\n\nC/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C. 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F Flushing, NY 11354 USA Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\n#### Liehong ZhuanglXiao Yan Zhu\n\nC/O Trexler & Zhang,LLP 224West 35th Street,I2th Floor New York, NY 10001 USA Attn: Jonathan T. Trexler, Esq.\n\n#### Samuel Nunberg\n\nC/O Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP 363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor\n\nNew York, NY 10001 USA Attn: Andrew T. Miltenberg, Esq\n\n## Lamp Capital, LLC\n\nAttn: Bernardo Enriquez 667 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10065\n\n#### Jun Chen aka Jonathan Ho\n\nC/O Wayne Wei Zhu, Esq. 4125 Kissena Blvd, Suite 112 Flushing, NY 11355 USA Attn: Wayne Wei Zhu\n\n### Yue Hua Zhu Shi\n\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D c/o Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C. Flushing, NY 11354 Attn: Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\n## Jia Li Wang\n\nC/O Thompson Hine 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 USA Attn: Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n\n### WA&HF'', LlClRuizeng An\n\nCiO AFN Law 4l Madison Avenue, 3lst Floor New York, NY 10010 USA Attn: Angus Ni, Esq.\n\n> /s/ Timothv D. Miltenberger Timothy D. Miltenberger (c108874) Scott D. Rosen Cohn Birnbuam & Shea P.C. 100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 493-2262 Tmiltenberger@ cbshealaw.com","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分部\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争议事项答复日期通知\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited（黄金之春（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“GSNY”）已向美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院提交动议，请求修改或撤销由Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，以下简称“PAX”）发出的传票（以下简称“本动议”）。现通知：任何针对该争议事项的答复均须依照《联邦破产程序规则》2002(a)和9014，于2022年5月27日之前向法院提交。如未及时提交答复，争议事项中的拟议裁定可在不另行通知和举行听证的情况下作出，见11 U.S.C. § 102(1)。\n\n日期：2022年5月12日\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LIMITED（黄金之春（纽约）有限公司）\n\n代理人：/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger（蒂莫西·D·米尔滕伯格）(ct08874)\nScott D. Rosen（斯科特·D·罗森）\nCohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C.（科恩·伯恩鲍姆与谢伊律师事务所）\n100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n(860) 493-2262\nTmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com\n\n1根据《联邦破产程序规则》9006(f)，如通过邮寄方式送达，则在本通知规定的答复日期之后加计三日。\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分部\n\n关于： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.（黄金之春（纽约）有限公司）请求修改或撤销由PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）发出的传票的动议\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited（以下简称“GSNY”）经由其下列签署的律师Cohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C.（以下简称“CBS”），依据Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016（援引Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)），特此请求就Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund LP（以下简称“PAX”）于2022年4月22日至2022年5月5日期间发出的多份传票（详述如下）获得保护，并陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n在2022年3月29日至2022年5月5日期间，PAX已向Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（以下简称“GSNY”）、其高级管理人员、董事及雇员发出十九份传票，据称与PAX请求驳回本破产案件的动议有关。债务人随后同意PAX的驳回动议，从而使无需再向GSNY进行进一步证据开示。尽管其他债权人对PAX的驳回动议提出异议，但该等异议并未提出与GSNY有关的任何事实争议。因此，GSNY出于谨慎，为保护其权利而提出本撤销动议，以防PAX继续主张有必要从GSNY获得额外证据开示。\n\nPAX优先向GSNY的律师送达其大多数传票（以及向其他人发出的传票）。所有传票均要求在14个工作日内作出答复（其中九份要求在七个工作日或更短时间内答复，另有一份要求在两个工作日内答复），经常重复，并一再要求提供关于相同主题的文件或证言。此外，文件请求重复了GSNY已予遵从的破产申请前文件请求。尽管如此，PAX仍持续要求GSNY及其雇员提供其已经收到的文件。\n\n向GSNY发出的传票未得到适当送达，未采取合理步骤保护GSNY免受不当负担和费用，且未给予合理的遵从时间。因此，应撤销该等传票。\n\nI. 背景\n\n自3月下旬以来，PAX已向GSNY及其董事、高级管理人员和雇员发出以下十九份传票：\n\n日期 送达对象 送达方式 类型\n\n3/29/2022 Qiang Guo（郭强） 通过电子邮件发送至CBS；由送达员送达GSNY 30(b)(6)证言录取，日期为4月12日星期二\n\n3/29/2022 GSNY 通过电子邮件发送至CBS；由送达员送达GSNY 文件应于3月31日星期四前提交\n\n3/29/2022 GSNY 通过电子邮件发送至CBS；由送达员送达GSNY 30(b)(6)证言录取，日期为4月12日星期二\n\n4/11/2022 GSNY 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 30(b)(6)证言录取，日期为4月12日星期二\n\n1传票中列名的当事人与所附通知中列名的当事人经常不同。例如，5月3日的传票仅向Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）先生发出，未提及GSNY，但所附Rule 30(b)(1)通知则向Krasner先生发出，称其“以[GSNY]雇员的身份”接受证言录取。同样，向Qiang Guo先生发出的5月3日传票仅向Qiang Guo先生发出，未提及GSNY。证言录取通知将Qiang Guo先生称为GSNY的所有人及管理代理人（其两者皆非）。\n\n4/22/2022 Qiang Guo，经由CBS 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 30(b)(1)证言录取，日期为5月12日星期四\n\n4/22/2022 GSNY 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 文件应于5月2日星期一前提交\n\n4/22/2022 Qiang Guo，经由CBS 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 文件应于5月2日星期一前提交\n\n4/22/2022 Yanping Wang（王燕平），经由CBS 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 文件应于5月2日星期一前提交\n\n4/28/2022 Max Krasner 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 30(b)(1)证言录取，日期为5月12日星期四\n\n5/3/2022 Max Krasner，以GSNY雇员身份 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 30(b)(1)证言录取，日期为5月12日星期四\n\n5/3/2022 Qiang Guo，以GSNY所有人及管理代理人身份 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 30(b)(1)证言录取，日期为5月12日星期四\n\n5/3/2022 Qiang Guo，以GSNY所有人及管理代理人身份 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 文件应于5月9日星期一前提交\n\n5/3/2022 Yanping Wang，以GSNY总裁、秘书及财务主管身份 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 文件应于5月9日星期一前提交\n\n5/4/2022 GSNY，由其所有人Qiang Guo代表 通过电子邮件发送至CBS 30(b)(6)证言录取，日期为5月14日星期六\n\n5/5/2022 Max Krasner 由送达员送达GSNY 30(b)(1)证言录取，日期为5月12日星期四\n\n5/5/2022 Qiang Guo 由送达员送达GSNY 30(b)(1)证言录取，日期为5月12日星期四\n\n5/5/2022 Qiang Guo 由送达员送达GSNY 文件应于5月12日星期四前提交\n\n5/5/2022 Yanping Wang 由送达员送达GSNY 文件应于5月12日星期四前提交\n\n5/5/2022 Yanping Wang，应由GSNY通过其作为高级管理人员的Wang作出答复 由送达员送达GSNY 文件应于5月9日星期一前提交\n\n如上所示，除2022年5月5日送达的传票外，PAX将上述所有传票发送给GSNY的律师CBS。除下文讨论的两项例外外，CBS告知PAX，其无权接受针对GSNY以外他人的传票。作为回应，PAX主张——但该主张错误——其所有5月5日前的传票均意在向GSNY发出，并非向GSNY的董事、高级管理人员和雇员以其个人身份送达。然而，PAX的主张与传票本身的明确文字不一致。尽管其传票明示将应接受证言录取或出示文件的一方确定为“Max Krasner”或“Qiang Guo”或“Yanping Wang”，且完全未提及GSNY，PAX仍坚持该立场。\n\n除直接向GSNY发出的2022年4月11日传票外，2022年5月3日，GSNY告知PAX，其律师将接受向其总裁Yanping（Yvette）Wang送达的传票，条件是该传票经修改后正确反映其系向GSNY发出，而非向Wang女士以其个人身份发出。PAX向GSNY律师发送了一份经修订的传票，但其不符合GSNY的要求。尽管如此，GSNY律师仍代表GSNY接受了该传票，并及时作出答复。Miltenberger Affidavit，第¶6段。\n\n许多传票要求提供相同或类似的文件，其中许多文件已经提交给PAX。例如，向GSNY发出的4月22日传票、向Guo先生发出的4月22日传票、向Guo先生发出的5月3日传票以及向Guo先生发出的5月5日传票，均要求提供2015年至今与Sherry-Netherland合作公寓单元有关的文件。2 当GSNY通知PAX其此前已出示涵盖该期间大部分时间的Sherry Netherland相关文件时，PAX答复称其未收到任何此类文件。GSNY随后询问PAX是否已收到其针对2021年3月21日传票所作答复中的文件。PAX答复称其已收到针对该传票的文件，并确认其持有的文件包括与Sherry Netherland有关的文件。然而，PAX的律师主张，GSNY出示文件中的贝茨编号存在2,000页的缺口。GSNY随即向PAX提供资料，确认贝茨编号并无缺口，且所谓“缺失”的文件包含GSNY的银行记录，该等记录系根据保密协议移交。总体见Miltenberger Affidavit，第¶¶10-12段。显然，PAX遗失了GSNY此前出示的高度敏感文件，或者甚至并不知道这些文件的存在。\n\n同样，多份要求文件和证言录取的传票要求提供有关GSNY所有权结构和公司管理的信息（例如，向GSNY发出的3月29日传票；向GSNY发出的4月11日传票；以及向Guo先生发出的5月5日传票）。GSNY在本破产申请前已向PAX出示该等材料，并在破产申请后再次出示足以证明其所有权、高级管理人员和董事的信息。尽管如此，PAX仍持续要求提供相同信息。\n\n2寻求涵盖八年期间的文件，并命令在14日或远少于14日内出示该等文件，不能被解释为已采取合理步骤防止不当负担。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)。\n\n作为又一例证，PAX要求提供有关Yanping Wang作为GSNY高级管理人员的雇佣和报酬的信息。然而，在破产申请前，Wang女士已根据Ostrager法官的命令向PAX出示其个人银行对账单。Ostrager法官明确命令PAX销毁Wang女士出示的任何“与Kwok先生的资产或收入无关”的信息。在GSNY提醒PAX注意Wang女士此前出示的文件后，PAX答复称其已销毁该等出示文件，这证实Wang女士出示文件中的任何文件均与Kwok先生的资产或收入无关。尽管如此，PAX再次要求重新出示该等文件。\n\n最后，PAX并未为其许多文件请求提供任何表面成立的依据。GSNY不知晓GSNY向Wang女士支付的报酬如何影响驳回Ho Wan Kwok破产案件的动议。3 当然，该等请求侵犯Wang女士的隐私权。在GSNY与PAX进行会谈协商期间，PAX主张其希望了解Wang女士受雇的范围及其工作职责。Wang女士于4月接受了近七小时的证言录取，并就这些确切主题回答了问题。\n\n3于2022年5月11日，债务人同意PAX请求驳回该破产案件的动议。此外，针对PAX驳回动议所提出的任何异议，均未提出与Wang女士有关的任何问题。\n\nII. 论证及法律依据\n\nRule 45允许法院工作人员发出传票，命令“传票所指向的每一人出席并在证言录取中作证。”Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii)。与Rule 26一样，Rule 45规定了若干实体和程序标准，必须满足该等标准方可享有该规则赋予的利益。送达必须附有适当的证人费用并以适当方式进行。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)。经及时动议，要求遵从的地区法院必须撤销或修改未给予合理遵从时间的传票。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i)-(ii)；Graduation Sols., LLC（毕业解决方案有限责任公司）v. Acadima, LLC（阿卡迪玛有限责任公司）, 2018 WL 10398566, at *2 (D. Conn. 2018)。发出传票的律师必须采取合理步骤，以防止受领人遭受不当负担。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)。抗拒出示的一方负有证明不当负担的责任。Cris v. Fareri, 2011 WL 4433961, at *1 (D. Conn. 2011)。\n\nA. PAX未就Guo先生或Krasner先生的证言向GSNY有效送达传票。\n\n《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条规定，送达传票须将副本交付给被指名之人。法院对于“交付副本”的含义并无一致意见。一些法院认为，交付要求本人送达。Prall v. Hartford Prosecutors, 2011 WL 1336385, at *1 (D. Conn. Apr. 7, 2011); see also SEC v. Prince, 322 F.R.D. 450, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)（汇集相关案例和权威依据）。然而，“第二巡回区并无将第45条所要求的交付解释为要求本人送达的判例法。”Kenyon v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2016 WL 5930265, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2016)。\n\n本巡回区内的法院指出，第45条“既不要求亲手送达，也不禁止替代送达方式。”JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDIA Grp., LLC, No. 08 cv-9116 (PGG), 2009 WL 1313259, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009)（省略内部引号）（引自 Cordius Trust v. Kummerfeld, 2000 WL 10268, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2000)）。在该等送达“合理确保[原文如此]证人实际收到传票”且“符合正当程序”的情况下，即在当时情形下“合理地足以向[证人]同时提供通知及提出异议的机会”，法院将允许替代送达方式——例如通过挂号信送达。JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2009 WL 1313259, at *3（引自 Cordius Trust, 2000 WL 10268, at *2）。\n\n法院通常要求当事人（本案中为 PAX）在根据第45条准许替代送达之前，申请许可采取替代方式送达，以“证明其先前曾勤勉尝试本人送达”。Kenyon, 2016 WL 5930265, at *3。因此，Esteban v. Santa Rosa Rest., LLC, 2016 WL 2350101, at *2 (D. Conn. 2016) 一案中的法院仅在认定拟询问证人曾规避送达后，才命令以替代方式送达传票及证人费用。\n\n本案中，PAX 能够且应当在 GSNY（Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.，金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）的主要营业地点或通过其法定送达代理人向其送达。PAX 曾以该方式向 GSNY 送达其 March 29 传票，且 GSNY 已予遵从。然而，自 March 29 以来，PAX 拒绝且未能直接向 GSNY 送达，反而向 GSNY 的律师发送电子邮件，尽管该律师已告知 PAX，其无权代表他人接受送达。据 GSNY 所知和所信，PAX 从未尝试在 GSNY 的主要营业地点（或通过其法定代理人）向 GSNY 送达 ApriI 22、April 28 或 May 3 的传票。PAX 知悉 GSNY 主要营业地点的位置——事实上，其已通过送达员在该地址向三名个人（Mr. Guo（郭先生）、Mr. Krasner（Krasner先生）和 Ms. Wang（王女士））送达 May 5 传票。此外，如上所述，PAX 从未申请许可进行替代送达。\n\n此外，向 CBS（Cohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C.）送达、针对 GSNY 的任何证言传票均未包含所需的证人费用。a See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1); Esteban, 2016 WL 2350101, **2, citing Song v. Dreamtouch, Inc., 2001 WL 487413, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)（“如送达要求证人出席的传票时未同时支付费用，则该送达无效。”）。\n\nB. 该等传票并非为避免对 GSNY 造成不当负担而合理设计，且构成骚扰。\n\n主张应依据第45(c)(3)(A)(iv)条撤销传票的一方，必须证明遵从该传票将造成不当负担。See Akande v. Graser, 2010 WL 3613912, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 3, 2010); Jones v. Hirschfeld, 219 F.R.D. 71, 74-75 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)。对不当负担的评估要求法院权衡被传唤方所承受的负担与送达方获得该信息的价值。传票是否造成不当负担，取决于诸如相关性、当事人对文件的需要、文件请求的范围、所涵盖的时间期间、对文件描述的具体程度，以及所施加的负担等因素。Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 228 F.R.D. 111, 113 (D. Conn. 2005)（省略内部引号及引证）。\n\n就尤其是非当事人而言，尽管“从非当事人处获取证据开示的允许范围通常与适用于向当事人寻求证据开示的范围相同，[……]当然，必须将被寻求证据开示的一方所承受的负担与对所寻求信息的需要加以平衡。”Tucker v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 281 F.R.D. 85, 92 (D. Conn. 2012); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover, 2009 WL 585434, at *5 (D. Conn. 2009)（适用第26(b)(2)(C)条的平衡测试，部分驳回原告根据第45条提出的要求非当事人出示文件的强制动议）。在进行此种平衡时，法院已考虑到证据开示系向非当事人寻求这一事实，该事实不利于准许证据开示。See, e.g., Medical Components, Inc. v. Clossic Medical, Inc., 210 F.R.D. 175, 180 n. 9 (M.D.N.C. 2002)（“目前普遍占主导地位的观点是，法院可以首先考虑信息是否应通过向当事人直接进行证据开示而非向非当事人获取，并且法院在评估相互竞争的需要之间的平衡时，应特别重视强加于非当事人的非自愿负担。”）；see also Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993)（“规则预见到对非诉讼当事人的人进行证据开示。尽管第26(b)条同样适用于对非当事人的证据开示，法院在衡量该等情形下所施加的负担时，可以考虑非当事人身份这一事实。”）（汇集相关案例）。在本巡回区内，法院认为非当事人身份是认定证据开示是否造成不当负担的“重要”因素。Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 163, 179 (E.D.N.Y. 1988), aff’d, 870 F.2d 642 (Fed. Cir. 1989)。\n\n本案中，遵从将造成不当负担。PAX 一再就同一文件发出传票，尽管 GSNY 去年已就该等请求出示数千页文件。举例而言，关于 Sherry Netherland（雪梨荷兰酒店）的付款、Ms. Wang 的报酬、GSNY 的高级管理人员和董事，以及其公司结构的文件，均已向 PAX 出示。PAX 根本未审阅 GSNY 先前出示的文件。GSNY 认为，PAX 似乎仍不知悉该等出示文件所包含的内容。同样，PAX 正寻求取得 GSNY 三名证人的证言，以就相同主题回答问题。此等行为的结果是，PAX 在不足 3 周内（自 April 22, 2022 起）送达了超过 15 份传票，以寻求 GSNY 的信息。PAX 绝未采取合理措施保护 GSNY 免受不当负担，其迄今为止的行为构成骚扰。\n\nC. 该等传票未提供合理的遵从时间。\n\n根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i)，当传票“未能给予合理的遵从时间”时，法院必须撤销该传票。本巡回区内的法院已裁定，在听证会前五至九天送达传票并非“合理的遵从时间”。See Arch Ins. Co. v. Centerplan Constr. Co., LLC, 2017 WL 4998645, at *1 (D. Conn. 2017)（七天的答复时间不合理）；Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc. v. Assoc. Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. Ltd., No. 2015 WL 6741852, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2015)（认定在收到传票与证言日期之间相隔五天为不合理的时间）；Brown v. Hendler, 2011 WL 321139, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2011)（裁定传票送达与证言日期之间相隔九天违反第45条）。6\n\n尽管关于 PAX 驳回动议的听证会安排在其最近传票日期后 20 多天举行，PAX 仍一贯提供不合理的遵从时间。所有传票均要求在 14 个工作日内作出答复。其中九份传票要求在七个工作日或更短时间内作出答复，一份则要求仅在两个工作日内作出答复。这并非合理的遵从时间。基于这一额外理由，该等传票必须予以撤销。\n\n6 根据《美国破产法典》，驳回动议必须以加速方式裁定。See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(3)。然而，动议提出人可同意为裁定其驳回动议提供额外时间。因此，如 PAX 希望，其有能力延长时间表。不得允许 PAX 一面要求加速的时间表，一面对非当事人施加不当负担。\n\nD. 发出通知的一方不得根据第30(b)(6)条指定证人。\n\n根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第30(b)(6)条，当事人可以向组织发出拟进行证言录取的通知，之后该组织应指定“一名或多名高级职员、董事或管理代理人，或其他同意代表其作证的人员。”公司实体本身指定代表人。Id. 在当事人希望传唤其自行选择的个人接受证言录取的范围内，其必须根据第30(a)(1)条进行，该条规定，当事人“可在未经法院许可的情况下，通过口头询问的证言录取方式取得任何人的证言，包括当事人。”第30(a)条允许当事人取得非当事人证人（包括雇员）的证言。“除非该雇员已由公司根据第30(b)(6)条指定，否则该雇员与任何其他证人受到相同对待。其出席必须通过传票而非通知取得。”Cummings v. Gen. Motors Corp., 365 F.3d 944, 953 (10th Cir. 2004), as modified on denial of reh’g (June 2, 2004), and abrogated on other grounds by Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006), citing 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure Civ.2d § 2103.\n\n本案中，PAX 通过详细列明询问事项，继而自行指定将就该等主题作证的个人，混淆了 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a) 和 (b)(6)。此程序未获《联邦民事诉讼规则》认可。如 PAX 寻求一名就根据第30(b)(6)条指定的主题作证的证人，则应由 GSNY 而非 PAX 决定适当的证人。\n\n12\n\nIII. 结论\n\n基于上述理由，Golden Spring (New York) Limited（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）谨请求本法院撤销向其送达的所有传票。\n\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LIMITED\n\n签字：/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger（Miltenberger）\n(ct08874)\nScott D. Rosen（Rosen）\nCohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C.\n100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n(860) 493-2262\nTmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n债务人。\n\n关于：第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nTIMOTHY MILTENBERGER（Timothy Miltenberger）关于 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）发出之传票的修改或撤销动议的宣誓书\n\n根据 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(a)，下列签署人证明如下：\n\n1. 我已年满十八周岁，并相信宣誓义务。\n\n2. 我基于本人亲身知悉作出本宣誓书。\n\n3. 截至目前，我已就 O’Melveny & Myers LLP（“OM”）自 March 29, 2022 起代表 Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.（“PAX”）向我的客户 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“GSNY”）及其他人发出的约二十份传票，与 OM 的 Laura Aronsson 律师进行了多次电话交谈及电子邮件往来。其中十五份传票自 April 22, 2022 起发出，据称与 PAX 提出的驳回上述破产案件的动议有关\n\n（“破产案件”）。\n\n4. 我与 Aronsson 律师的沟通包括关于以下事项的讨论：(i) 对传票的适当送达，(ii) 在提交 Bankruptcy Case（破产案件）之前出示文件，以及 (iii) 所寻求文件和证言的相关性。\n\n5. 2022年5月11日，债务人同意 PAX（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund，太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）提出的驳回破产案件动议，从而无需再向 GSNY（Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.，金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）进行额外取证。\n\n6. 如我已告知 Aronsson 律师，我的律师事务所代理 GSNY，无权代表除其客户以外的任何个人或实体接受传票送达。当我的律师事务所接受传票送达时，GSNY 对该传票作出了回应。\n\n7. 我与 Aronsson 律师就 PAX 是否已采取合理措施保护 GSNY 免受不当负担所进行的沟通已陷入僵局。\n\n8. 在回应 PAX 的传票时，我的客户告知我，其在破产案件之前已收到 PAX 送达的传票。我的客户进一步告知我，其已就一份日期为 March 18,2021 的该等传票向 PAX 出示数千页文件，且其先前出示的文件包括对 PAX 提交申请后文件请求作出回应的材料。此前出示的、对 PAX 提交申请后传票作出回应的文件包括但不限于 GSNY 的公司文件、涵盖三年的银行对账单，以及与“Sherry-Netherland”有关的其他文件。\n\n9. 我已将先前出示文件及其与 PAX 当前文件请求之间的实质性重叠告知 Aronsson 律师，并要求其确定 OM 已持有哪些 GSNY 记录。在 OM 以更多传票轰炸 GSNY、请求已被提供的信息之前，OM 显然本应进行该等适当审查。\n\n10. 在收到 PAX 的 Apil22 传票后，我向 PAX 的律师询问其于 March 2021 向 GSNY 发出的传票。OM 找到了一些依据 March 2021 传票出示的文件，并确认了对其有关“Sherry-Netherland”的当前文件请求作出回应的文件。然而，Aronsson 律师指出，GSNY 为遵守 PAX 的 March 18,2l2lsubpoena 而出示的文件在 Bates 编号中约有 2,000 页的缺口，并要求我确认 GSNY 没有任何其他与“Sherry-Netherland”有关的文件。\n\n11. 作为回应，我告知 Aronsson 律师，GSNY 出示文件的 Bates 编号不存在缺口。随后，我向她提供了传送 OM 所称“缺失”的 2,000 页文件的电子邮件，并要求 OM 查找该等文件。\n\n12. 2022年5月1I日，即向 GSNY 传票索取信息约一个月后，OM 表示其已找到并审阅“缺失”的 GSNY 出示文件。此事仅发生在我告知 OM Bates 编号不存在缺口并向 OM 提供传送该等文件的电子邮件之后。找到“缺失”文件后，OM 写道：“该出示文件包含 2018年4月至 JuIy 2020 期间向各实体开具的 900 多张支票。我们注意到，其中相当数量的支票的收款人信息被涂黑，使其从取证角度而言毫无用处。”OM 随后要求 GSNY 重新出示其未涂黑的 2021 文件。\n\n13. 在“缺失”的 2,000 页出示文件中，至少包括一张日期为 July 30, 2018、金额为 \\$20,000、付款给 Sherry-Netherland 的支票。显然，截至本文件日期，PAX 仍未审阅 GSNY 于 202L 出示的材料。\n\n14. 在破产案件之前，PAX 还以个人身份向 GSNY 总裁 Yanping (Yvette) Wang（王艳萍）发出传票。\n\n15. Wang 女士依据 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的命令，向 PAX 出示了其个人银行记录。\n\n16. 2022年5月11日，在我告知 OM Wang 女士此前已出示所请求文件后，OM 确认收到其出示文件，并确认其已依 Ostrager 法官的命令将其销毁。该命令要求 OM“迅速销毁任何与 Kwok 先生资产或收入无关的信息。”尽管 OM 仅在确认 Wang 女士出示文件与债务人资产或收入无关后才将其销毁，PAX 仍要求 GSNY（或 Wang 女士）重新出示相同文件。更有甚者，PAX 对任何该等出示完全未提供任何保密保护。\n\n17. PAX 向 GSNY 发出了大量传票，却从未审阅 GSNY 于 202l 出示的文件，以确定其是否正在请求其已持有的文件。当 GSNY 通知 PAX 其先前出示文件时，PAX 似乎对此毫不知情，随后错误地声称该出示不完整，继而要求再次出示。\n\n18. 2022年5月11日，我与 Aronsson 律师讨论了 Wang 女士的报酬与 PAX 驳回动议所提出问题的相关性。Aronsson 律师告知我，Wang 女士的受雇范围、其工作内容及其报酬均与驳回动议相关。\n\n19. GSNY 在提交申请前和提交申请后均已出示文件，证明 Wang 女士代表 GSNY 所担任的职务（包括历史职务和现任职务）（以及自公司成立以来 GSNY 的所有者、高级管理人员和董事）。\n\n20. 2022年4月12日，针对向 GSNY 送达的一份 30(b)(6) 证言传票，Wang 女士作为证人接受询问并作证约七小时。在该证言中，Wang 女士尤其说明了其受雇范围和工作职责。\n\n21. 在证言过程中，GSNY 的律师未对有关 Wang 女士在 GSNY 的工作职能或角色的问题提出异议，Wang 女士就该等事项及众多其他事项作出了充分证言。\n\n/s/ Timothy Timothy D. Miltenberger（Timothy D. Miltenberger）\n\n本人于 2022年5月12日宣誓并在本人面前签署。\n\n/s/ Scott Rosen（Scott Rosen）\n高等法院专员\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于： Chapter ll\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE, ASIA OPPORTUMTY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）\n\n以下签署人经正式宣誓，陈述如下：\n\n1. 本人已年满十八岁，并相信宣誓所负义务。\n\n2. 除非本文件明确另有说明，本人基于自身知情作出本宣誓书。\n\n3. 本人是 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“GSNY”）的总裁。\n\n4. 在上述破产案件于 February 2021 提交之前（下称“Bankuptcy Case”），GSNY 收到 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（“PAX”）送达的一份文件传票。\n\n5. 为回应该传票，GSNY 向 PAX 出示了超过 2,800 页文件，包括高度敏感及保密文件。GSNY 出示的文件包括涵盖三年的敏感银行记录。出示文件还包括 GSNY 的历史“公司档案”，列明公司自成立以来的所有者、高级管理人员及董事。\n\n6. 在破产案件之前，PAX 还亲自向本人送达了一份文件传票。\n\n7. 为回应该传票，本人出示了约 100 页本人的个人银行记录。\n\n8. 自破产案件提交以来，PAX 已向 GSNY、其高级管理人员、董事及雇员发出约二十份额外传票。\n\n9. PAX 在这些破产申请后传票中的文件请求，与 PAX 去年请求和出示的文件存在实质性重叠。例如，有关 Sherry Netherland 的付款、本人报酬、GSNY 的高级管理人员和董事及其公司结构的文件，均已出示给 PAX。\n\n10. 尽管如此，PAX 再次请求 GSNY 的公司设立文件、有关其所有者、高级管理人员及董事的文件、有关本人报酬的文件、有关 Sherry-Netherland 的文件，以及有关某些交易的文件；该等文件均已提供给 PAX。\n\n11. 2022年3月29日，PAX 通过其法定送达代理人，向 GSNY 送达文件传票和 30(bX6) 证言传票。\n\n12. GSNY 通过出示约 930 页文件回应该传票，包括已向 PAX 出示过的、列明其现任所有者、高级管理人员和董事的文件。\n\n13. 2022年4月12日，本人作为 CSNY 的 30(bX6) 证人，就破产案件作证约 7 小时。在该证言中，本人除就众多其他事项作证外，还广泛说明了本人的受雇范围和工作职责。\n\n14. GSNY 的律师也已对向本人作为 GSNY 总裁所发、并送达给其的传票作出回应。GSNY 的律师告知 PAX，只要修改该传票以适当反映其系向 GSNY 发出而非向本人个人身份发出，他们便会接受该传票的送达。PAX 发出了一份经修订的传票（其未遵守 GSNY 律师的请求）。尽管如此，GSNY 的律师仍代表 GSNY 接受该传票，并及时作出回应。\n\n本人于 2022年5月12日宣誓并在本人面前签署。\n\n公证人\n\nVAMILE FORERO\n纽约州公证人\nNo,01FO6070665\n在 Nassau County 获得资格\n委任期至 Morch 64, QAa 6\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：Chapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人\n\n拟议命令：准许 GOLDEN SPRTNG (NEW YORK) LTD.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）提出的修改或撤销 PACIF'IC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTIINITY F'IIND I,.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）发出之传票的动议\n\n就 Golden Spring (New York) Limited 提出的动议，即撤销 Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund LP（“PAX”）于 April22,2022 至 May 5, 2022 期间发出的多份传票（下称“传票”），特此\n\n命令：准许该动议，并特此撤销该等传票。\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于： Chapter I I\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人\n\n送达证明\n\n根据 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 20Q2 和7004 的适用规定，以下签署人证明：于 May 12, 2022，以下文件已通过法院电子提交系统送达 United States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室及所有已出庭当事人；并于 May 13,2022 或之前，通过 First Class Mil（一级邮件）送达下列当事人。\n\n1. 已送达文件：\n\na. Golden Spring (New York) LTD. 提出的修改或撤销 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 发出之传票的动议\n\nb. Timothy D. Miltenberger（Timothy D. Miltenberger）的宣誓书\n\nc. Yanping Wang（王艳萍）的宣誓书\n\nd. 拟议命令\n\ne. 有争议事项答复日期通知\n\n2. 通过一级邮件送达的当事人：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n373 Taconic Road\nGreenwich, CT 06831\n\nCheng Jian Wu Jian She\nc/o Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F\nFlushing, NY 11354 USA\n收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\nGuo Baosheng\n\nc/o Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.\n135-11 38th Avenue, Suite 1A\nFlushing, NY 11354 USA\n收件人：Ning Ye, Esq.\n\nYang Lan and Wu Zheng\n\n900 Third Avenue, lSth Floor\nc/o Arkin Solbakken, LLP\nNew York, NY 10022\n收件人：Robert C. Angelillo\n\nHong Qi Qu\n\nc/o Kevin Tung, P.C.\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F\nFlushing,NY 11354USA\n收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\nJian Gong\n\nC/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\nFlushing, NY 11354 USA\n收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\nYan Zhao\n\nC/O Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq\n135-l l 38th Avenue, Suite 1A\nFlushing, NY 11354 USA\n收件人：Ning Ye, Esq.\n\nYua Hua Zhuang Shi\n\nC/O Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F\nFlushing, NY 11354 USA\n收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\nLiehong Zhuang/Xiao Yan Zhu\n\nC/O Trexler & Zhang,LLP\n224West 35th Street,I2th Floor\nNew York, NY 10001 USA\n收件人：Jonathan T. Trexler, Esq.\n\nSamuel Nunberg\n\nC/O Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP\n363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor\n\n纽约州纽约市10001 美国 收件人：Andrew T. Miltenberg, Esq.（安德鲁·T·米尔滕伯格律师）\nLamp Capital, LLC（Lamp Capital有限责任公司）\n\n收件人：Bernardo Enriquez（贝尔纳多·恩里克斯） 667 Madison Avenue 纽约州纽约市10065\nJun Chen aka Jonathan Ho（陈军，又名何建）\n\n转交 Wayne Wei Zhu, Esq.（朱伟律师） 4125 Kissena Blvd, Suite 112 法拉盛，纽约州11355 美国 收件人：Wayne Wei Zhu\nYue Hua Zhu Shi（朱世玉华）\n\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D 转交 Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.（凯文·克文·董律师事务所） 法拉盛，纽约州11354 收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.（凯文·董律师）\nJia Li Wang（王嘉丽）\n\n转交 Thompson Hine（汤普森·海因律师事务所） 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor 纽约州纽约市10017 美国 收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.（布赖恩·P·兰肖律师）\nWA&HF, LLC（WA&HF有限责任公司） Ruizeng An（安瑞增）\n\n转交 AFN Law（AFN律师事务所） 41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor 纽约州纽约市10010 美国 收件人：Angus Ni, Esq.（倪安格斯律师）\n\n/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger（蒂莫西·D·米尔滕伯格）\nTimothy D. Miltenberger (c108874)\nScott D. Rosen（斯科特·D·罗森）\nCohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C.（科恩·伯恩鲍姆·谢律师事务所）\n100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n(860) 493-2262\nTmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6026,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:26:53"}