{"id":"court_ctb_361_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":361,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-13","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## NOTICE OF CONTESTED MATTER RESPONSE DATE\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited (\"GSNY\") has filed a motion to Modify 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 and hearing, see 11 U.S.C. § 102(1).\n\nDated May 13, 2022\n\n## GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LIMITED\n\n By /s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger Timothy D. Miltenberger (ct08874) Scott D. Rosen Cohn Birnbuam & Shea P.C. 100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 493-2262 Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com\n\n1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(f), 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 11 |\n|--------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | : | |\n| Debtor. | : | |\n\n# **MOTION OF GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. TO MODIFY OR QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.**\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited (\"GSNY\"), by and through its undersigned attorneys Cohn Birnbuam & Shea P.C. (\"CBS\"), 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 April 22, 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 (New York) 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 | on1
Issued | Sent
by | Type |\n|-----------|---------------|------------|----------------|\n| 3/29/2022 | Qiang Guo | Email to | 30(b)(6) |\n| | | CBS; | Deposition on |\n| | | Process | Tuesday, April |\n| | | Server to | 12 |\n| | | GSNY | |\n| 3/29/2022 | GSNY | Email to | Documents due |\n| | | CBS; | by Thursday, |\n| | | Process | Mar. 31 |\n| | | Server to | |\n| | | GSNY | |\n| 3/29/2022 | GSNY | Email to | 30(b)(6) |\n| | | CBS; | Deposition on |\n| | | Process | Tuesday, April |\n| | | Server to | 12 |\n| | | GSNY | |\n| 4/11/2022 | GSNY | Email to | 30(b)(6) |\n| | | CBS | Deposition on |\n\n1 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 [Employee]without any reference to GSNY, but the attached Rule 30(b)(1) notice is addressed to [Employee] \"in his capacity 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
12 |\n|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 4/22/2022 | Qiang Guo c/o CBS | Email to
CBS | 30(b)(1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
12 |\n| 4/22/2022 | GSNY | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
May 2 |\n| 4/22/2022 | Qiang Guo c/o CBS | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
May 2 |\n| 4/22/2022 | Yanping Wang c/o
CBS | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
May 2 |\n| 4/28/2022 | [Employee] | Email to
CBS | 30(b)(1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
12 |\n| 5/3/2022 | [Employee], in his
capacity as employee
of GSNY | Email to
CBS | 30(b)(1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
12 |\n| 5/3/2022 | Qiang
Guo, in his
capacity as owner and
managing agent of
GSNY | Email to
CBS | 30(b)(1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
12 |\n| 5/3/2022 | Qiang Guo, in his
capacity as owner and
managing agent of
GSNY | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
May 9 |\n| 5/3/2022 | Yanping Wang, in
her capacity as
President, Secretary,
and Treasurer of
GSNY | Email to
CBS | Documents due
by Monday,
May 9 |\n| 5/4/2022 | GSNY via its owner,
Qiang Guo | Email to
CBS | 30(b)(6)
Deposition on
Saturday, May
14 |\n| 5/5/2022 | [Employee] | Process
Server to
GSNY | 30(b)(1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
12 |\n\n| 5/5/2022 | Qiang Guo | Process
Server to
GSNY | 30(b)(1)
Deposition on
Thursday, May
12 |\n|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 5/5/2022 | Qiang Guo | Process
Server to
GSNY | Documents due
by Thursday,
May 12 |\n| 5/5/2022 | Yanping Wang | Process
Server to
GSNY | Documents due
by Thursday,
May 12 |\n| 5/5/2022 | 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 \"[Employee]\" 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\nthat subpoena on behalf of GSNY and responded in a timely manner. *Miltenberger Affidavit,* at ¶ 6.\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 April 22 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](#page-5-0) 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 March 21, 2021 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 a 2,000-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 \"missing\" documents contained GSNY's bank records, which were turned over pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. *See generally* Miltenberger Affidavit, at ¶¶ 10 -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 11 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(d)(1).\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 again demanded 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](#page-6-0) 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 11, 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 \"each person to whom it is directed to attend and testify at a deposition.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(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 modify a subpoena that fails to allow a reasonable time to comply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i)-(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(d)(1). The party resisting production bears the responsibility of establishing undue burden. *Cris v. Fareri*, 2011 WL 4433961, at \\*1 (D. Conn. 2011).\n\n# *A. PAX Has Not Validly Served a Subpoena on GSNY for the Testimony of Mr. Guo or [Employee].*\n\nRule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person. \"The courts do not agree on the meaning of delivering a copy.' Some courts have held that delivery requires personal service.\" *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) (collecting cases and authority). Nevertheless, \"[t]here is no Second Circuit case law interpreting the Rule 45 requirement of delivery as requiring personal service.\" *Kenyon v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.,* 2016 WL 5930265, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 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. IDW Grp., LLC*, 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*, 2000 WL 10268, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2000)). Alternative 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 \"reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide [the witness] with both notice and an opportunity to present objections.\" *JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A*., 2009 WL 1313259, at \\*3 (*quoting Cordius Trust*, 2000 WL 10268, at \\*2).\n\nCourts typically require a party (here, PAX) to seek leave to serve by alternative means \"to 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 *Esteban v. Santa Rosa Rest., LLC*, 2016 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 April 22, April 28, 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, [Employee], and Ms. Wang) at that address by process server. Moreover, as noted above, PAX has never sought leave to make substitute service.\n\nFurther, none of the deposition subpoenas served upon CBS for GSNY include the requisite witness fee.[4](#page-9-0) *See* Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1); *Esteban*, 2016 WL 2350101, at \\*2, *citing Song v. Dreamtouch, Inc.*, 2001 WL 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 45(c)(3)(A)(iv) 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*, 219 F.R.D. 71, 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 Life Insurance Co.*, 228 F.R.D. 111, 113 (D. Conn. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n\nWith respect to non-parties[5](#page-9-1) 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*., 281 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\n4 Upon information and belief, PAX issued subpoenas on three individuals associated with GSNY (but not on GSNY) and provided a witness fee.\n\n5 GSNY is not a party to the proceedings on PAX's motion to dismiss. The deadline for objections was May 11 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 plaintiff's 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. Classic Medical, Inc*., 210 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.*, 984 F.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.,* 121 F.R.D. 163, 179 (E.D.N.Y.1988), aff'd, 870 F.2d 642 (Fed.Cir.1989)\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\n\nin 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(d)(3)(A)(i), a court is required to quash a subpoena when it \"fails 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*, 2011 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](#page-11-0)\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 unreasonable 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* 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(3). 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 Party Cannot Designate the Witness Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6).*\n\nUnder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), a party may issue a notice of intent to take a deposition to an organization, and then *the organization* shall designate \"one or more officers, directors or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf.\" The corporate entity itself designates the representative. *Id*. To the extent a party wants to subpoena an individual of its choice for a deposition, it must do so under Rule 30(a)(1), which states that a party \"may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination without leave of court.\" Rule 30(a) allows a party to take the deposition of nonparty witnesses, including employees. \"Except 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 (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\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 testify about those topics. This procedure is not recognized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If PAX seeks a witness to testify on topics designated under Rule 30(b)(6), then GSNY determines the appropriate witness, not PAX.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 361 Filed 05/13/22 Entered 05/13/22 11:46:00 Page 14 of 28\n\n## **III. 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, 12th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 493-2262 [Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com](mailto:Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATION**\n\nI hereby certify that on May 13, 2022 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to the Debtor (through counsel), to the United States Trustee, to Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (through counsel), and all appearing parties. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> /s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger Timothy D. Miltenberger\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| : | Chapter 11 |\n|---|-------------------------|\n| | |\n| | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | :
:
:
: |\n\n# **AFFIDAVIT OF TIMOTHY MILTENBERGER REGARDING MOTION TO MODIFY OR QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.**\n\nPursuant to D.Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(a), the undersigned certifies as follows:\n\n- 1. I am over eighteen years old and believe in the obligations of an oath.\n- 2. I make this affidavit on my own personal knowledge.\n- 3. To date, I have had numerous telephone conversations and email exchanges with\n\nAttorney Laura Aronsson at O'Melveny & Myers LLP (\"OM\") about the approximately twenty subpoenas that have been issued by OM since March 29, 2022 on behalf of Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\") directed to my client Golden Spring (New 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 (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 Attorney Aronsson, my firm represents GSNY and is not authorized to accept service of subpoenas on behalf of any 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 18, 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 already 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 April 22 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, 2021 subpoena had an approximately 2,000-\n\npage gap in the bates numbering and asked me to confirm that GSNY did not have any other documents 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 11, 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 \"missing\" documents, OM wrote: \"this production contains over 900 checks made out to various entities between April 2018 and July 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 its 2021 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 2021.\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 \"promptly destroy any\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 in 2021 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 identifying 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\n21. During the deposition, GSNY's counsel did not object to questions regarding Ms.\n\nWang's job functions or role at GSNY and Ms. Wang testified fully on these, and many other, topics.\n\n> \\_\\_/s/ Timothy Miltenberger\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Timothy D. Miltenberger\n\nSubscribed to and sworn before me, this 12th day of May, 2022.\n\n\\_\\_/s/ Scott Rosen\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Scott Rosen Commissioner of the Superior Court\n\n| In re: | Chapter 11 |\n|--------------|-------------------------|\n| | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | |\n| Debtor. | |\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| In re: | : | Chapter 11 |\n|--------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | : | |\n| Debtor. | : | |\n\n# *PROPOSED* **ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. TO MODIFY OR QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.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\nApril 22, 2022 and May 5, 2022, it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED,** 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 11 |\n|--------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor. | :
: | |\n\n## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nIn accordance with the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\n\nProcedure 2002 and 7004, the undersigned certifies that on the 13th day of May 2022, the\n\nfollowing documents were served on the Office of the United States Trustee and all\n\nappearing parties via the Court's electronic filing system and served by First Class Mail,\n\npostage prepaid on the parties listed below.\n\n## 1. Documents Served:\n\n- a. Motion of Golden Spring (New York) LTD. Modify or Quash Subpoenas Issued by Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n- b. Affidavit of Timothy D. Miltenberger\n- c. Affidavit of Yanping Wang\n- d. Proposed Order\n- e. Notice of Contested Matter Response Date\n- 2. Parties Served Via First 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\nc/o Law Office of Ning 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, 18th 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 11354 USA 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 of Ning Ye, Esq. 135-11 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## Nan Tong Si Jian\n\nc/o Kevin Tung, Esq. 136-20 38th Avenue Suite 3D Flushing, NY 11354\n\n## Liehong Zhuang/Xiao Yan Zhu\n\nC/O Trexler & Zhang, LLP 224 West 35th Street, 12th 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 New 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, LLC/Ruizeng An\n\nC/O AFN Law 41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10010 USA Attn: Angus Ni, Esq.\n\n## Ning Ye\n\nc/o Robert C. Angelillo Arkin Solbakken, LLP 750 Lexington Avenue 25th Floor New York, NY 10022\n\n## Weican Meng/Boxun, Inc.\n\nc/o Robert C. Angelillo 750 Lexington Avenue 25th Floor New York, NY 10022\n\nBy /s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger Timothy D. Miltenberger (ct08874) Scott D. Rosen Cohn Birnbuam & Shea P.C. 100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 493-2262 Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com","body_zh":"美利坚合众国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院桥港分院\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争议事项答复期限通知\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited（Golden Spring（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“GSNY”）已向美利坚合众国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院提出一项动议，请求修改或撤销Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）签发的传票（以下简称“该动议”）。现通知，任何对该争议事项的答复均须根据《联邦破产程序规则》2002(a)及9014，于2022年5月27日或之前向本院提交。如未及时提交答复，该争议事项中的拟议命令可在无需进一步通知和听证的情况下作出，见11 U.S.C. § 102(1)。\n\n日期：2022年5月13日\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LIMITED\n\n签字：/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、伯恩鲍姆及谢伊专业公司）\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)，如通过邮件送达，则在本通知规定的答复期限后增加三日。\n\n美利坚合众国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院桥港分院\n\n关于： ： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， ：\n： 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 ：\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. 关于修改或撤销 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 签发之传票的动议\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited（Golden Spring（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“GSNY”）通过其下列签署的律师Cohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C.（科恩、伯恩鲍姆及谢伊专业公司，以下简称“CBS”），依据Fed. R. Bankr P. 9016（纳入Fed. R. Bankr. P. 45(d)），特此提出动议，请求就Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund LP（太平洋联盟机会基金有限合伙企业，以下简称“PAX”）于2022年4月22日至2022年5月5日期间签发的多份传票（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向Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（以下简称“GSNY”）、其高级职员、董事及雇员签发了十九份传票，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，因此不再需要向GSNY进一步进行证据开示。尽管其他债权人对PAX的驳回动议提出了异议，但该等异议并未提出任何与GSNY有关的事实争议。因此，GSNY出于谨慎起见提出本撤销传票动议，以在PAX继续主张有必要从GSNY取得额外证据开示的情况下保护其权利。\n\nPAX优先将其大部分传票向GSNY（及其他人）的律师送达。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作出答复，一份要求在两个工作日内作出答复），且经常重复，并一再要求提供关于相同主题的文件或证词。此外，文件请求重复了GSNY已经遵从的破产申请前文件请求。尽管如此，PAX仍持续要求提供其已经从GSNY及其雇员处收到的文件。\n\n向GSNY签发的传票未获适当送达，未采取合理措施保护GSNY免受不当负担和费用，且未给予合理的遵从时间。基于这些理由，应撤销该等传票。\n\n一、背景\n\n自3月下旬以来，PAX已向GSNY及其董事、高级职员和雇员签发下列十九份传票：\n\n签发日期 受送达人 送达方式 类型\n\n3/29/2022 Qiang Guo（郭强） 向CBS发送电子邮件；由送达员向GSNY送达 30(b)(6)；于4月12日星期二进行证言录取\n\n3/29/2022 GSNY 向CBS发送电子邮件；由送达员向GSNY送达 文件应于3月31日星期四前提交\n\n3/29/2022 GSNY 向CBS发送电子邮件；由送达员向GSNY送达 30(b)(6)；于4月12日星期二进行证言录取\n\n4/11/2022 GSNY 向CBS发送电子邮件 30(b)(6)；于4月进行证言录取\n\n4/22/2022 Qiang Guo c/o CBS 向CBS发送电子邮件 30(b)(1)；于5月星期四进行证言录取\n\n4/22/2022 GSNY 向CBS发送电子邮件 文件应于5月2日星期一前提交\n\n4/22/2022 Qiang Guo c/o CBS 向CBS发送电子邮件 文件应于5月2日星期一前提交\n\n4/22/2022 Yanping Wang（王燕平）c/o CBS 向CBS发送电子邮件 文件应于5月2日星期一前提交\n\n4/28/2022 [Employee]（[雇员]） 向CBS发送电子邮件 30(b)(1)；于5月星期四进行证言录取\n\n5/3/2022 [Employee]，以GSNY雇员身份 向CBS发送电子邮件 30(b)(1)；于5月星期四进行证言录取\n\n5/3/2022 Qiang Guo，以GSNY所有人及管理代理人身份 向CBS发送电子邮件 30(b)(1)；于5月星期四进行证言录取\n\n5/3/2022 Qiang Guo，以GSNY所有人及管理代理人身份 向CBS发送电子邮件 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 向CBS发送电子邮件 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 向CBS发送电子邮件 30(b)(6)；于5月星期六进行证言录取\n\n5/5/2022 [Employee] 由送达员向GSNY送达 30(b)(1)；于5月星期四进行证言录取\n\n5/5/2022 Qiang Guo 由送达员向GSNY送达 30(b)(1)；于5月星期四进行证言录取\n\n5/5/2022 Qiang Guo 由送达员向GSNY送达 文件应于5月12日星期四前提交\n\n5/5/2022 Yanping Wang 由送达员向GSNY送达 文件应于5月12日星期四前提交\n\n5/5/2022 Yanping Wang，应由GSNY通过作为其高级职员的Wang作出答复 由送达员向GSNY送达 文件应于5月9日星期一前提交\n\n1 经常出现的情形是，传票中指定的当事人与附随通知中指定的当事人不同。例如，5月3日的传票写明送达对象为[Employee]，未提及GSNY，但附随的规则30(b)(1)通知写明送达对象为[Employee]“以[GSNY]雇员身份”。同样，向Qiang Guo先生发出的5月3日传票写明送达对象为Qiang Guo先生，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\n如上所示，除2022年5月5日送达的传票外，PAX将上述所有传票均发送给GSNY的律师CBS。除下文讨论的两项例外外，CBS告知PAX，其无权接受除GSNY以外其他人的传票送达。作为回应，PAX主张——但该主张错误——其所有5月5日之前的传票均意在向GSNY送达，并非向GSNY的董事、高级职员及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符。尽管其传票明确将应接受证言录取或应出示文件的当事人列为“[Employee]”或“Qiang Guo”或“Yanping Wang”，而完全未提及GSNY，PAX仍主张该立场。\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送达传票，前提是传票经修改以适当反映该传票系向GSNY签发，而非向Wang女士以其个人身份签发。PAX向GSNY律师发送了一份经修改的传票，但该传票并未遵从GSNY的请求。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宣誓书，第6段。\n\n许多传票要求提供相同或类似的文件，且其中许多文件已向PAX提交。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其先前已提交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该等文件。GSNY随后询问PAX是否收到对其2021年3月21日传票作出的文件提交。PAX答复称其已收到对该传票作出的文件提交，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在所提交文件中的Bates编号存在2,000页的缺口。GSNY随后立即向PAX提供资料，确认Bates编号不存在缺口，且所谓“缺失”的文件包含GSNY的银行记录，该等记录系依据保密协议移交。概见Miltenberger宣誓书，第10-12段。显然，PAX已遗失，或者甚至不知道GSNY先前提交的该等高度敏感文件。\n\n同样，多份要求文件及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在本破产申请提交前已向PAX提交该等材料，随后又在破产申请提交后再次提交足以证明其所有权、高级职员及董事的信息。尽管如此，PAX仍持续要求提供同一信息。\n\n2 寻求涵盖八年期间的文件，并命令于14日或远少于14日内提交该等文件，不能被解释为已采取合理措施防止不当负担。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)。\n\n再举一例，PAX要求提供有关Yanping Wang作为GSNY高级职员的雇佣关系及报酬的信息。然而，在破产申请提交前，Wang女士已依据Ostrager法官的命令向PAX提交其个人银行对账单。Ostrager法官明确命令PAX销毁Wang女士提交的任何“与Kwok先生的资产或收入无关”的信息。在GSNY提醒PAX Wang女士先前提交的材料后，PAX答复称其已销毁该等提交材料，这确认Wang女士所提交的文件均与Kwok先生的资产或收入无关。尽管如此，PAX再次要求重新提交该等文件。\n\n最后，PAX对其许多文件请求均未提供表面成立的依据。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，GSNY不得而知。[3] 当然，该等请求侵犯Wang女士的隐私权。在GSNY与PAX进行会商期间，PAX主张其希望了解Wang女士受雇范围及其工作职责。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驳回该破产案件的动议。此外，对PAX驳回动议提出的任何异议均未提出任何与Wang女士有关的问题。\n\n二、论证及法律依据。\n\n规则45允许法院工作人员签发传票，命令“其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)。与规则26相同，规则45规定了某些实体和程序标准，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妥善进行。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)。经及时动议，要求遵从的地区所属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 v. Acadima, LLC, 2018 WL 10398566, at \\*2 (D. Conn. 2018)。签发传票的律师必须采取合理措施，防止对受送达人造成不当负担。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)。抗拒提交文件的一方负有证明存在不当负担的责任。Cris v. Fareri, 2011 WL 4433961, at \\*1 (D. Conn. 2011)。\n\nA. PAX未就Guo先生或[Employee]的证词向GSNY有效送达传票。\n\n《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条规定，送达传票须向被指定人交付副本。“对于‘交付副本’的含义，法院并无一致意见。有些法院认为，交付要求亲自送达。”Prall v. Hartford Prosecutors, 2011 WL 1336385, at *1 (D. Conn. Apr. 7, 2011)；另见 SEC v. Prince, 322 F.R.D. 450, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)（汇集相关案件及权威依据）。然而，“第二巡回区并无将第45条的交付要求解释为要求亲自送达的判例法。”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. IDW 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)）。在此种送达“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，允许采用替代送达方式——例如以挂号信送达——即该方式“在具体情形下经合理计算，能够向[证人]提供通知及提出异议的机会”。JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2009 WL 1313259, at *3（引自 Cordius Trust, 2000 WL 10268, at *2）。\n\n法院通常要求一方当事人（本案中为PAX）在根据第45条准许替代送达之前，申请许可采用替代送达方式，并“证明其先前已勤勉尝试亲自送达”。Kenyon, 2016 WL 5930265, at *3。因此，在 Esteban v. Santa Rosa Rest., LLC, 2016 WL 2350101, at *2 (D. Conn. 2016) 一案中，法院仅在认定拟接受询问的证人曾规避送达后，才命令以替代方式送达传票及证人费用。\n\n在本案中，PAX能够且应当在GSNY的主要营业地，或通过其法定送达代理人向GSNY送达。PAX以此方式向GSNY送达其3月29日的传票，GSNY亦已遵从。然而，自3月29日以来，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其未获授权代表他人接受送达。据GSNY所知及所信，PAX从未尝试在GSNY的主要营业地（或通过其法定代理人）送达4月22日、4月28日或5月3日的传票。PAX知悉GSNY主要营业地的地点——事实上，其通过送达员在该地址向三名个人（Guo先生、[雇员]及Wang女士）送达了5月5日的传票。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送达、要求其代表GSNY作证的任何证言传票，均未附具所需的证人费用。[4] 见 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1)；Esteban, 2016 WL 2350101, at *2，引自 Song v. Dreamtouch, Inc., 2001 WL 487413, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)（“如在送达要求证人出席的传票时未交付费用，则该送达无效。”）。\n\nB. 该等传票未被合理设计以防止对GSNY造成不当负担，且构成骚扰。\n\n主张应依第45(c)(3)(A)(iv)条撤销传票的一方，必须证明遵从传票将造成不当负担。见 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)。评估不当负担要求法院权衡被传唤方所承担的负担与送达方获取该信息的价值。传票是否施加不当负担，取决于诸如相关性及当事人对文件的需要、文件请求的范围、其涵盖的时间期间、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)（省略内部引号及引文）。\n\n尤其就非当事人[5]而言，尽管“从非当事人处获取证据的允许范围，通常与适用于向当事人寻求证据的范围相同，……但当然必须将被寻求证据一方所承担的负担与对所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条提出的强制非当事人出示文件的动议）。在进行此种平衡时，法院考虑到证据系向非当事人寻求这一事实，该事实不利于准许证据开示。见，例如，Medical Components, Inc. v. Classic 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，法院可以首先考虑是否应通过直接向当事人而非非当事人进行证据开示来获取信息，并且法院在评估相互竞争的需要之平衡时，应特别重视强加于非当事人的非自愿负担。”）；另见 Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed.Cir. 1993)（“《规则》设想了对非诉讼当事人的人员进行证据开示。尽管第26(b)条同样适用于对非当事人的证据开示，法院在权衡具体情形下施加的负担时，可以考虑其非当事人身份这一事实。”）（汇集案件）。在本巡回区内，法院已认定，非当事人身份是判断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\n4 据所知及所信，PAX向与GSNY有关联的三名个人（但未向GSNY）发出了传票，并提供了证人费用。\n\n5 GSNY不是PAX撤诉动议程序中的当事人。提出异议的期限为5月11日，GSNY未提出任何异议。PAX的撤诉动议未寻求针对GSNY的任何救济。\n\n在本案中，遵从该等传票将造成不当负担。尽管GSNY去年已针对这些请求出示了数千页文件，PAX仍反复传唤相同文件。例如，关于Sherry Netherland、Wang女士的报酬、GSNY的高级职员和董事以及其公司结构的付款文件，均已向PAX出示。PAX根本未审阅GSNY先前的出示材料。GSNY认为，PAX似乎仍不了解该等出示材料包含何种内容。同样，PAX正寻求GSNY的三名证人就相同主题回答问题。此等行为导致PAX在不足3周内（自2022年4月22日以来）送达了超过15份传票，以寻求来自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“未能提供合理的遵从时间”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”。见 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)（认定收到传票与证言日期之间相隔五天属于不合理的时间）；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PAX撤诉动议的听证会被安排在其最新传票之日起二十多天后举行，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或更少工作日内答复，另有一份仅要求在两个工作日内答复。这并非合理的遵从时间。基于这一额外理由，该等传票必须被撤销。\n\n6 根据《美国破产法典》，撤诉动议必须以加速方式作出裁决。见 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(3)。然而，动议提出人可以同意给予额外时间，以对其撤诉动议作出裁决。因此，如PAX愿意，其有能力延长时间安排。不得允许PAX要求加速的时间安排，同时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，一方当事人可以向一个组织发出拟进行证言的通知，随后该组织应指定“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。”公司实体自行指定代表。Id. 在一方当事人希望传唤其自行选择的个人接受证言的范围内，其必须根据第30(a)(1)条进行，该条规定，一方当事人“可以无需法院许可，通过口头询问的证言方式取得任何人（包括当事人）的证词。”第30(a)条允许一方当事人取得非当事人证人的证言，包括雇员。“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的处理方式相同。必须通过传票而非通知取得其出席。”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在本案中，PAX通过详细列明询问领域，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)。该程序不获《联邦民事诉讼规则》承认。如PAX寻求由证人就根据第30(b)(6)条指定的主题作证，则由GSNY而非PAX确定适当的证人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 361 Filed 05/13/22 Entered 05/13/22 11:46:00 Page 14 of 28\n\nIII. 结论\n\n基于上述理由，Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（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（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）\n\n签字人 /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 Birnbuam & Shea P.C.\n100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n(860) 493-2262\n[Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com]\n\n证明\n\n本人特此证明，于2022年5月13日，上述文件副本已以电子方式提交，并将通过法院电子提交系统的运行，以电子邮件发送给所有当事人，包括债务人（通过律师）、美国受托人、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.、无担保债权人官方委员会（通过律师）以及所有出庭当事人。当事人可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅本次提交文件。\n\n/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger（蒂莫西·D·米尔滕伯格）\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n：第11章\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nTIMOTHY MILTENBERGER（蒂莫西·米尔滕伯格）关于修改或撤销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．本人已年满十八周岁，并相信宣誓所负有的义务。\n\n2．本人根据自身亲身知悉的事实作出本宣誓书。\n\n3．迄今为止，本人已就O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所，以下简称“OM”）自2022年3月29日起代表Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋亚洲联盟机会基金，以下简称“PAX”）向本人客户Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司，以下简称“GSNY”）及其他方发出的约二十份传票，与OM的Laura Aronsson律师（劳拉·阿伦松律师）进行了多次电话交谈和电子邮件往来。其中十五份传票自2022年4月22日起发出，据称与PAX要求驳回上述破产案件（以下简称“破产案件”）的动议有关。\n\n4．本人与Aronsson律师的交谈包括就以下事项进行讨论：(i) 传票的适当送达；(ii) 在提交破产案件之前提供文件；以及(iii) 所寻求文件和证词的相关性。\n\n5．2022年5月11日，债务人同意PAX要求驳回破产案件的动议，因此无需再向GSNY进行额外取证。\n\n6．如本人已告知Aronsson律师，本人所在律师事务所代理GSNY，并未获授权代表除其客户以外的任何个人或实体接受传票送达。当本人所在律师事务所接受一份传票的送达时，GSNY即对该传票作出回应。\n\n7．本人就PAX是否已采取合理措施保护GSNY免受不当负担一事与Aronsson律师进行的讨论已陷入僵局。\n\n8．在回应PAX的传票期间，本人的客户告知本人，其在破产案件之前已收到PAX送达的传票。本人客户进一步告知本人，其已就一份日期为2021年3月18日的传票向PAX提供数千页文件，且其先前提供的材料包括回应PAX破产申请后文件请求的材料。先前已提供的、回应PAX破产申请后传票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．本人已告知Aronsson律师先前已提供的材料，以及该等材料与PAX当前文件请求之间存在的大量重叠，并要求其确定OM已持有哪些GSNY记录。OM显然本应在以更多传票轰炸GSNY、请求已被提供的信息之前进行该等尽职调查。\n\n10．在收到PAX于4月22日发出的传票后，本人向PAX的律师询问其于2021年3月向GSNY发出的传票。OM找到了根据2021年3月传票所提供的部分文件，并识别出回应其当前有关“Sherry-Netherland”的文件请求的文件。然而，Aronsson律师指出，GSNY为遵守PAX于2021年3月18日发出的传票而提供的材料在贝茨编号中存在约2,000页的缺口，并要求本人确认GSNY并无任何其他与“Sherry-Netherland”有关的文件。\n\n11．作为回应，本人告知Aronsson律师，GSNY所提供材料的贝茨编号不存在缺口。随后，本人向其提供了传送OM所谓“缺失”的2,000页材料的电子邮件，并要求OM查找该等材料。\n\n12．2022年5月11日，即向GSNY传唤信息约一个月后，OM指出其已找到并审阅“缺失”的GSNY材料。此事仅发生于本人告知OM贝茨编号不存在缺口并向OM提供传送文件的电子邮件之后。找到“缺失”文件后，OM写道：“该批材料包含2018年4月至2020年7月期间开给各实体的900多张支票。我们注意到，其中相当数量支票的收款人信息已被涂黑，使其从取证角度而言毫无用处。”随后，OM要求GSNY重新提供其2021年的未涂黑文件。\n\n13．“缺失”的2,000页材料中至少包括一张日期为2018年7月30日、金额为$20,000、收款人为Sherry-Netherland的支票。显然，截至本文件日期，PAX仍未审阅GSNY于2021年提供的材料。\n\n14．在破产案件之前，PAX还以GSNY总裁Yanping (Yvette) Wang（王燕萍〔Yvette〕）的个人身份向其发出传票。\n\n15．Wang女士根据New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的一项命令，向PAX提供了其个人银行记录。\n\n16．2022年5月11日，在本人告知OM Wang女士先前已提供所请求文件后，OM承认收到其提供的材料，并承认其已依照Ostrager法官的命令将该材料销毁。该命令要求OM“立即销毁任何与Kwok先生资产或收入无关的信息。”尽管OM仅在确认Wang女士所提供材料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）再次提供相同文件。更有甚者，PAX并未为任何该等提供提出任何保密保护措施。\n\n17．PAX在从未审阅GSNY于2021年提供的文件、以确定其是否正在请求其已持有文件的情况下，向GSNY发出了多份传票。当GSNY告知PAX其先前提供的材料时，PAX似乎并不知情，随后错误地声称该材料不完整，继而要求再次提供。\n\n18．2022年5月11日，本人与Aronsson律师讨论Wang女士的报酬与PAX驳回动议所提出问题的相关性。Aronsson律师告知本人，Wang女士的雇佣范围、其从事的工作及其报酬均与驳回动议有关。\n\n19．GSNY已在破产申请前和破产申请后提供文件，证明Wang女士代表GSNY所担任的职务（包括历史职务和当前职务）（并确认自公司成立以来GSNY的所有人、高级职员及董事）。\n\n20．2022年4月12日，作为对送达给GSNY的一份30(b)(6)证言传票的回应，Wang女士作为证人接受讯问并作证约七小时。在该次证言中，Wang女士尤其说明了其雇佣范围和工作职责。\n\n21．在该次证言中，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女士就该等问题及许多其他事项作出了充分证言。\n\n/s/ Timothy Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger（蒂莫西·D·米尔滕伯格）\n\n本人于2022年5月12日在本人面前签署并宣誓。\n\n/s/ Scott Rosen\nScott Rosen（斯科特·罗森）\n高等法院专员\n\n关于： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州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）， ：\n： 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 ：\n关于准许GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）提出修改或撤销由PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）发出之传票的动议的拟议命令\n\n根据Golden Spring (New York) Limited提出的动议，请求撤销Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund LP（太平洋联盟机会基金有限合伙企业，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（以下简称“传票”），特此\n\n命令：准许该动议，特此撤销该等传票。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州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）， ：\n： 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n\n送达证明\n\n根据《联邦破产程序规则》2002和7004的适用规定，以下签署人证明，于2022年5月13日，以下文件已通过法院电子提交系统向United States Trustee办公室（美国受托人办公室）及所有出庭当事人送达，并已通过预付邮资的一级邮件向下列当事人送达。\n\n1．已送达文件：\n\na．Golden Spring (New York) LTD.提出的修改或撤销由Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.发出之传票的动议\n\nb．Timothy D. Miltenberger的宣誓书\n\nc．Yanping Wang的宣誓书\n\nd．拟议命令\n\ne．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\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\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\n900 Third Avenue, 18th Floor\nc/o Arkin Solbakken, LLP\nNew York, NY 10022\n收件人：Robert C. Angelillo\n\nHong Qi Qu\nc/o Kevin Tung, P.C.\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D & 3F\nFlushing, NY 11354 USA\n收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\nJian Gong\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\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\nYua Hua Zhuang Shi\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\nNan Tong Si Jian\nc/o Kevin Tung, Esq.\n136-20 38th Avenue Suite 3D\nFlushing, NY 11354\n\nLiehong Zhuang/Xiao Yan Zhu\nC/O Trexler & Zhang, LLP\n224 West 35th Street, 12th Floor\nNew York, NY 10001 USA\n收件人：Jonathan T. Trexler, Esq.\n\nSamuel Nunberg\nC/O Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP\n363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor\nNew York, NY 10001 USA\n收件人：Andrew T. Miltenberg, Esq.\n\nLamp Capital, LLC\n收件人：Bernardo Enriquez\n667 Madison Avenue\nNew York, NY 10065\n\nJun Chen aka Jonathan Ho\nC/O Wayne Wei Zhu, Esq.\n4125 Kissena Blvd, Suite 112\nFlushing, NY 11355 USA\n收件人：Wayne Wei Zhu\n\nYue Hua Zhu Shi\n136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D\nc/o Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C.\nFlushing, NY 11354\n收件人：Kevin Tung, Esq.\n\nJia Li Wang\nC/O Thompson Hine\n335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor\nNew York, NY 10017 USA\n收件人：Brian P. Lanciault, Esq.\n\nWA&HF, LLC/Ruizeng An\nC/O AFN Law\n41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor\nNew York, NY 10010 USA\n收件人：Angus Ni, Esq.\n\nNing Ye\nc/o Robert C. Angelillo\nArkin Solbakken, LLP\n750 Lexington Avenue\n25th Floor\nNew York, NY 10022\n\nWeican Meng/Boxun, Inc.\nc/o Robert C. Angelillo\n750 Lexington Avenue\n25th Floor\nNew York, NY 10022\n\n由 /s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger（ct08874）\nScott D. Rosen\nCohn Birnbuam & Shea P.C.\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":5803,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:16:55"}