{"id":"court_ctb_3648_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3648,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"Richard N. Freeth Freeth & Associates, LLC 260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor New York, New York 10016 (212) 775-7082","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Richard N. Freeth Freeth & Associates, LLC 260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor New York, New York 10016 (212) 775-7082\n\nAttorneys for Bofang Investment LLC and Feibo Jiang\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nIn Re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al. Chapter 11\n\nCase No.: 22-50073(JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\n# **NOTICE OF BOFANG INVESTMENT LLC AND FEIBO JIANG'S OPPOSITION TO \"SEVENTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS MOTION\" FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY AND CROSS-MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA**\n\nTO: Kari A. Mitchell Patrick R. Linsey, Esq. NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church St., 13th Floor New Haven, CT 05610 Attorneys for Trustee\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut\n\nThe Trustee, having already spent millions and millions of dollars litigating against Mr. Kwok and anyone who the Trustee, even in the absence of any evidence, considers associated with Mr. Kwok, has filed the \"Seventeenth Supplemental Omnibus Motion\" seeking additional powers to delve into the private dealings of innocent individuals, in this instance Mr. Feibo Jiang and Bofang Investment LLC (the \"Movants\") – who, respectfully, by and through their undersigned counsel, Richard N. Freeth, hereby files this opposition and cross-motion (the \"Motion\") for entry of an order, denying the motion, or in the alternative to quash the subpoena. The Movants further represent in support hereof as follows:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n**1.** The Trustee has sent an impossibly overbroad and unduly burdensome set of discovery demands totaling 122 pages, and demand them on an erroneous party -- the Individual Movant and his sigle-owner LLC, both of which reside in Pennsylvania – considerably more than 100 miles from this Honorable Court. On this basis alone any subpoena which might issue should be quashed.\n\n**2.** Further, be noted that the Trustee has had numerous Opportunities to pursue this type of discovery. The current opposition and cross motion is in response to the \"17th Supplemental omnibus motion.\"\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n**3.** This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334(b). Venue of these cases and this Motion in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (2).\n\n**4.** The legal predicates for the relief requested herein are Rule 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\").\n\n## **FACTS**\n\n**5.** Mr. Jiang, the Individual Movant, does not have first-hand knowledge regarding what business(es) the Debtor was in prior to the Petition Date, or is in at present, or any materially relevant information regarding Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy estate.\n\n**6.** Mr. Jiang emigrated to the U.S. from China, and obtained Permanent Legal Resident status in the U.S. in 2014. *See* Statement of Jiang, attached as Exhibit \"A,\"\n\n**7.** He started to follow Mr. Kwok's exposé after watching his VOA interview on Youtube in 2017. *Id.*\n\n**8.** Mr. Jiang donated to Rule of Law foundation after its establishment. *Id.*\n\n**9.** Mr. Jiang joined the Whistleblower Movement in April 2020. *Id.*\n\n2\n\n**10.** At the same time, Mr. Jiang participated in the G-series investment initiated by Mr. Kwok. *Id.*\n\n**11.** Since the GTV private placement, Mr. Jiang participated in several investment, loan, and membership-card purchase activities. *Id.*\n\n**12.** Among those activities, only for the GTV private placement did Mr. Kwok provide Mr. Jiang account information for wire transfer. For all other financial activities, it is the Farm's volunteers that provided Mr. Jiang information to complete the transfer.\n\n**13.** Ever since Mr. Jiang joined the Whistleblower Movement, the Movants have had no financial transaction with Mr. Kwok.\n\n**14.** No money was passed to or from him or his families. Nor did either Movant receive funds from Mr. Kwok.\n\n**15.** Therefore, Mr. Jiang asserts that he had no business with the Bankruptcy case of Mr. Kwok and that I should not be probed.\n\n**16.** The Movants did nor receive or control any assets belonging to the bankruptcy estates.\n\n**17.** Without any evidence to support this imposition upon the privacy of the Movants, it is unduly prejudicial and unwarranted to impose the burden of having to respond to the extremely exaggerated set of discovery demands propounded by the Trustee.\n\n**18.** In *In re Petroforte Brasileiro de Petroleo Ltda.*, 542 B.R. 899 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2015), a bankruptcy trustee was not permitted to obtain and review documents relating to third party nondebtors that did not relate to transactions with debtor entities, except broad financial discovery was permitted as to those discovery targets in which a majority of the stock was owned by debtor entity.\n\n### **MOVANTS SHOULD BE AWARDED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS**\n\n**19.** The Court should impose sanctions against the Trustee under Federal Rule 45 because he has not taken any reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense to the Movants. Under Federal Rule 45(d)(1), \"a party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take\n\n3\n\nreasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.\" Further, \"[t]he court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). \"Under Rule 45(d)(1), a court must conduct a two-part inquiry to determine: (1) whether the challenged subpoena imposed an undue burden or expense on the person(s) subject thereto; and (2) if so, what, if any, 'reasonable steps' the subpoenaing party and its counsel took to avoid imposing such a burden.\" Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197754, at \\*14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2015) (imposing sanctions because the subpoenas \"were not reasonably tailored to produce information relevant to [the]\" case and they should not have been issued). \"The Rule 45(d)(1) are meant to protect parties from the misuse of subpoenas. \"Sanctions are properly eder imposed attorney's fees are awarded where\" the party improperly issuing the subpoena \"refused to and withdraw it, requiring the non-party to institute a motion to quash.\" Breaking Media, Inc. v.Jowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67473, at \\*18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021).\n\nDated: October 7, 2024 Freeth & Associates, LLC\n\nBy:\n\nRichard N. Freeth\n\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10016 (212)775-7082\n\nAttorneys for\n\n**UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT** *--------------------------------------------------------------------X*\n\nIn Re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al. Chapter 11\n\nCase No.: 22-50073(JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\nThis matter having come on before the Court on the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed on behalf of Jiaming Liu. The parties appeared by and through their respective counsel of record.\n\nThe Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, including all of the records, files, and proceedings herein, finds that the Subpoena is unreasonable, oppressive, and without merit.\n\nIT IS ORDERED that the Subpoena dated January 24, 2023, and served on Jiaming Liu, is QUASHED. THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED.\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_","body_zh":"Richard N. Freeth\nFreeth & Associates, LLC\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor\nNew York, New York 10016\n(212) 775-7082\n\nBofang Investment LLC 与 Feibo Jiang（江飞波）的代理律师\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\nBOFANG INVESTMENT LLC 与 FEIBO JIANG 对旨在进一步获取证据开示的“第十七次补充综合动议”的反对通知及撤销传票的交叉动议\n\n致：\nKari A. Mitchell\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church St., 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 05610\n受托人代理律师\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n受托人在已花费数以百万计美元对郭先生以及受托人在毫无证据的情况下认为与郭先生有关联的任何人进行诉讼之后，又提交了“第十七次补充综合动议”，寻求额外的权力以深入调查无辜个人的私下交易，本案中即为 Feibo Jiang 先生和 Bofang Investment LLC（以下简称“动议人”）——动议人谨通过其下述署名律师 Richard N. Freeth，特此提出本反对意见及交叉动议（以下简称“本动议”），请求作出裁定，驳回该动议，或在退一步的情况下撤销传票。动议人特此进一步陈述以下理由以资支持：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人发出了一套极其过宽且造成不合理负担的证据开示请求，共计122页，并且是向错误的当事人索取——即个人动议人及其独资成立的有限责任公司，两者均位于宾夕法尼亚州——距离本法院远超100英里。仅凭此基础，任何可能发出的传票均应予以撤销。\n\n2. 此外，应当指出的是，受托人此前已有多次机会寻求此类证据开示。当前的反对意见及交叉动议是针对“第17次补充综合动议”作出的回应。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n3. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334(b)，本法院对本案具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本案及本动议在本司法管辖区的审判地是适当的。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)，本程序属于核心程序。\n\n4. 本文所请求救济的法律依据是《联邦破产程序规则》（以下简称“《破产规则》”）第9016条和《联邦民事诉讼规则》（以下简称“《联邦规则》”）第45条。\n\n事实\n\n5. 个人动议人江先生并不直接知悉债务人在申请日前从事何种业务、目前从事何种业务，亦不知悉有关郭先生破产财产的任何实质相关信息。\n\n6. 江先生从中国移民至美国，并于2014年获得美国永久合法居民身份。见江先生的声明，附后作为附件“A”。\n\n7. 他在2017年在 Youtube 上观看郭先生的 VOA（美国之音）采访后，开始关注郭先生的爆料。同上。\n\n8. 江先生在 Rule of Law foundation（法治基金）成立后向其进行了捐款。同上。\n\n9. 江先生于2020年4月加入了 Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）。同上。\n\n10. 与此同时，江先生参与了郭先生发起的 G-series（G系列）投资。同上。\n\n11. 自 GTV 私募以来，江先生参与了多项投资、借贷和购买会员卡活动。同上。\n\n12. 在这些活动中，仅在 GTV 私募时，郭先生向江先生提供了用于电汇的账户信息。对于所有其他财务活动，均由农场的志愿者向江先生提供信息以完成转账。\n\n13. 自江先生加入爆料革命以来，动议人与郭先生之间未发生过任何财务交易。\n\n14. 没有任何款项流向他或其家人，亦没有任何款项来自他或其家人。两位动议人均未从郭先生处收到过资金。\n\n15. 因此，江先生主张他与郭先生的破产案无关，不应受到调查。\n\n16. 动议人并未收到或控制任何属于破产财产的资产。\n\n17. 在没有任何证据支持对动议人隐私施加这种侵扰的情况下，强加负担要求其必须对受托人提出的极度夸大的证据开示要求作出回应，是不当且具有损害性的，也是毫无根据的。\n\n18. 在 In re Petroforte Brasileiro de Petroleo Ltda., 542 B.R. 899 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2015) 案中，破产受托人未被允许获取和查阅与非债务人第三方相关的、且与债务人实体的交易无关的文件，除非是对那些由债务人实体持有多数股权的证据开示对象允许进行广泛的财务证据开示。\n\n应向动议人裁定赔偿律师费及诉讼费用\n\n19. 法院应根据《联邦规则》第45条对受托人实施制裁，因为他未采取任何合理措施来避免给动议人造成不合理的负担或费用。根据《联邦规则》第45(d)(1)条，“负责发出和送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，以避免对受传票约束的人造成不合理的负担或费用。”此外，“要求遵守传票所在区域的法院必须执行此项职责，并对未能遵守的当事人或律师施加适当的制裁——其中可包括误工费和合理的律师费。”Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)。“根据第45(d)(1)条，法院必须进行两项调查以确定：(1) 被异议的传票是否对受其约束的人造成了不合理的负担或费用；以及 (2) 若是，发出传票的当事人及其律师采取了何种（若有的话）‘合理措施’以避免造成此类负担。”Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197754, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2015)（因传票“并非为产生与[该]案相关的信息而合理量身定制”，且本不应发出而实施制裁）。“第45(d)(1)条旨在保护当事人免受传票的滥用。”在不当发出传票的一方“拒绝撤回传票，迫使非当事人提起撤销动议”的情况下，“实施制裁并裁定赔偿律师费是适当的”。Breaking Media, Inc. v. Jowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67473, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021)。\n\n日期：2024年10月7日\nFreeth & Associates, LLC\n\n签署人：\n\nRichard N. Freeth\n\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.\nNew York, NY 10016\n(212)775-7082\n\n代理律师\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\n本案系因代表 Jiaming Liu（刘佳明）提交的撤销传票动议而提交本法院审理。各方当事人均通过其各自的记录在案律师出庭。\n\n法院在审议了各方当事人的提交材料，包括本文涉及的所有记录、案卷和诉讼程序后，认定该传票是不合理的、压迫性的且缺乏事实根据的。\n\n兹裁定：2023年1月24日向 Jiaming Liu 送达的传票予以撤销。保护令动议予以准许。\n\n___________________","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","GTV","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1155,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:46:42"}