{"id":"court_ctb_3649_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3649,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-10-07","title":"Richard N. Freeth Freeth & Associates, LLC 260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor New York, New York 10016 (212) 775-7082","summary_zh":"取证异议及撤销传票交叉动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #3649（2024-10-07立案）。非当事人姜飞波（Feibo Jiang）及 Bofang Investment LLC 对受托人第 17 次综合取证动议提出反对并动议撤销长达 122 页的传票，主张其与破产财产无关且住所超出 100 英里管辖范围，并要求法院对受托人实施制裁及判付律师费。","summary_en":"Amended opposition to discovery motion and cross-motion to quash subpoena — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #3649 (filed 2024-10-07). Non-parties Feibo Jiang and Bofang Investment LLC opposed the Trustee's 17th omnibus discovery motion and moved to quash an alleged 122-page subpoena, asserting lack of involvement with debtor assets, geographic distance exceeding 100 miles, and requesting sanctions and attorney fees.","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# **AMENDED 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\nThis filing on behalf of Bofang Investment LLC and Feibo Jiang amends document #3648, which\n\nwas filed October 7, 2024.\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\n2\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\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\n3\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 reasonable 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 imposed, and 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 8, 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 Bofang Investment LLC and Feibo Jiang","body_zh":"Richard N. Freeth\nFreeth & Associates, LLC（Freeth律师事务所）\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor\nNew York, New York 10016\n(212) 775-7082\n\nBofang Investment LLC与Feibo Jiang之代理律师\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 第11章\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\nBOFANG INVESTMENT LLC与FEIBO JIANG反对进一步调取证据之“第十七次补充综合动议”的修正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代表Bofang Investment LLC和Feibo Jiang提交的本份文件修正了于2024年10月7日提交的文件#3648。\n\n受托人在针对郭先生以及任何受托人在没有任何证据的情况下认为与郭先生有关联的人的诉讼中已经花费了数以百万计的资金，现又提交了“第十七次补充综合动议”，寻求额外权力以深入探查无辜个人的私人交易，本案中即针对Feibo Jiang先生和Bofang Investment LLC（下称“动议提出人”）——动议提出人谨通过其署名律师Richard N. Freeth，特此提交本反对意见及交叉动议（下称“本动议”），请求法庭作出裁定，驳回该动议，或在退一步的情况下撤销传票。动议提出人在此进一步陈述支持理由如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人发出了一套极其宽泛且造成过重负担的证据开示请求，共计122页，并将这些请求强加给了一个错误的当事方——即个人动议提出人及其单一人持股的有限责任公司，二者均居住/位于宾夕法尼亚州——距离尊贵的本法院远远超过100英里。仅凭这一点，任何可能发出的传票都应当予以撤销。\n\n2. 此外，需要指出的是，受托人已经拥有过多次寻求此类证据开示的机会。当前的反对意见和交叉动议是针对“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，这些案件及本动议在本司法管辖区的审判地是正当的。根据28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)，本案属于核心程序。\n\n4. 本文所请求救济的法律依据为Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（《联邦破产程序规则》，下称“《破产规则》”）第9016条以及Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（《联邦民事诉讼规则》，下称“《联邦规则》”）第45条。\n\n事实\n\n5. 个人动议提出人Jiang先生并不直接知悉债务人在申请破产保护日（Petition Date）之前从事何种业务，或目前从事何种业务，亦不知悉关于郭先生破产财产的任何实质相关信息。\n\n6. Jiang先生从中国移民至美国，并于2014年获得美国合法永久居民身份。参见附于附件“A”的Jiang先生声明。\n\n7. 他在2017年于YouTube上观看了郭先生接受VOA（美国之音）的采访后，开始关注郭先生的爆料。同上。\n\n8. Jiang先生在Rule of Law foundation（法治基金）成立后向其进行了捐赠。同上。\n\n9. Jiang先生于2020年4月加入了Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）。同上。\n\n10. 与此同时，Jiang先生参与了由郭先生发起的G系列投资。同上。\n\n11. 自GTV私募以来，Jiang先生参与了数项投资、借贷和购买会员卡的活动。同上。\n\n12. 在这些活动中，仅就GTV私募而言，郭先生向Jiang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Jiang先生提供信息以完成转账。\n\n13. 自从Jiang先生加入爆料革命以来，动议提出人与郭先生之间没有任何财务往来。\n\n14. 没有任何款项流向他或其家人，或自其处流出。动议提出人也均未从郭先生处收取资金。\n\n15. 因此，Jiang先生主张，他与郭先生的破产案件没有任何关系，本人不应当受到调查。\n\n16. 动议提出人未曾接收或控制属于破产财产的任何资产。\n\n17. 在没有任何证据支持对动议提出人隐私进行此类侵犯的情况下，强加负担要求其必须回应受托人提出的极其夸大的整套证据开示请求，是不当造成损害且毫无依据的。\n\n18. 在In re Petroforte Brasileiro de Petroleo Ltda., 542 B.R. 899 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2015)一案中，破产受托人未被允许获取和审查与债务人实体之间的交易无关的第三方非债务人的相关文件，除非是对那些大部分股权由债务人实体持有的证据开示目标，才允许进行广泛的财务证据开示。\n\n应当判给动议提出人律师费及诉讼费用\n\n19. 法院应当根据《联邦规则》第45条对受托人实施制裁，因为其未采取任何合理措施以避免给动议提出人造成过重负担或费用。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步骤，避免对受传票约束的人造成过重负担或费用。”此外，“要求遵守传票所在地的地区法院必须执行这项义务，并对未能遵守的当事人或律师实施适当的制裁——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) 被质疑的传票是否对受其约束的人造成了过重负担或费用；以及 (2) 如果是，发出传票的当事人及其律师采取了何种（若有的话）‘合理步骤’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)（实施制裁的原因是传票“并非为了产生与本案相关的信息而合理量身定制”，且本不应该发出）。第45(d)(1)条旨在保护当事人免受传票滥用的影响。“当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传票动议’时，实施制裁并判给律师费是正当的。”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8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\nBofang Investment LLC与Feibo Jiang之代理律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","GTV","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1077,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-10-07 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-10-07","updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:43:27"}