{"id":"court_ctb_372_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":372,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | |--------------------------------|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT        |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION            |\n|                                |\n\n|        |              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                         |\n|--------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------|\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n| In re: |              |                                                                       | : | Chapter 11              |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        | Ho Wan Kwok, |                                                                       | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : | Date:                   |\n|        |              | Debtor.1                                                              | : | Time:                   |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        |              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                         |\n\n#### **DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\n Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), as made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") 9014 and 9016, Mr. Ho Wan Kwok, the debtor and debtor-in-possession (\"Mr. Kwok\" or the \"Debtor\") in the above-captioned chapter 11 case, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this motion (the \"Motion\"), for entry of an order quashing discovery against the Debtor because it is not relevant to the pending *Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, In the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee* (the \"Motion to Dismiss\"). In further support of the Motion, Mr. Kwok states as follows:\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n1. By this Motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, as made applicable to this case by Bankruptcy Rules 9014 and 9016, the Debtor seeks an order quashing document requests and a notice of deposition directed at the Debtor as they seek information not relevant to any party's claim or defense in connection with the Motion to Dismiss.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n2. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended). This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue of this Chapter 11 Case and this Motion is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n3. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor commenced the Chapter 11 Case by filing a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n4. The Debtor is a debtor-in-possession pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 1107(a) and 1108.\n\n5. No trustee or examiner has been appointed in this Chapter 11 Case. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee for the District of Connecticut (the \"U.S. Trustee\") appointed the official committee of unsecured creditors pursuant to section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n6. On March 22, 2022 the Debtor filed the Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (the \"DIP Motion,\" Docket No. 117). The DIP Motion sought (as amended) approval of an unsecured loan of \\$9 million from Golden Spring (New York) Limited (\"Golden Spring\"), subordinated to all prepetition creditors, of which \\$8 million would be directed to the costs of this case (including fees of an examiner), and \\$1 million would be available for the payment of unsecured claims.\n\n7. On April 6, 2022 Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\") filed the Motion to Dismiss, seeking to dismiss this Chapter 11 case on numerous grounds. In support of the Motion to Dismiss, PAX has served numerous subpoenas on third parties for depositions and sought production of documents from such third parties. On April 22, 2022 PAX also served a notice of deposition of the Debtor (the \"Debtor Deposition Notice\") and requests for documents from the Debtor (the \"Debtor Document Requests\") and the Debtor's attorneys, Brown Rudnick LLP (the \"Brown Rudnick Document Requests\").\n\n8. The Debtor Document Requests are primarily aimed at evidence that would support PAX's allegations that various companies and assets owned by the Debtor's family members belong, in fact, to the Debtor. Ten of the fourteen requests are directed at the initial funding of those entities and payments made by those entities. The other documents sought include documents relating to the DIP loan, the proposed Plan of Reorganization, and the consensual resolution of the Lady May issue whereby HKI posted a \\$37 million escrow and agreed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of Connecticut. The Brown Rudnick Document Requests sought information regarding Brown Rudnick's retention, the Plan, and the consensual resolution of the Lady May issue.\n\n9. The Debtor served document requests (the \"Debtor's Document Requests\") on PAX seeking information relevant to the Motion to Dismiss. In response to the Debtor's Document Requests,<sup>1</sup> PAX:\n\n> x Refused to conduct any search for 11 document requests or to produce any documents, including document requests that go directly to claims asserted by PAX in the Motion to Dismiss, such as its efforts to enforce its judgment.\n\n<sup>1</sup> These responses are attached to the Declaration of Kenneth J. Aulet (the \"Aulet Declaration\"), attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.\n\n- x Identified only documents produced by other parties or generically referred to documents produced in connection with other litigation (without identification of such documents), with no indication PAX conducted any search for relevant documents in response to a document request for \"All Documents and Communications Related to Debtor and any Family Members\", where responsive recent internal communications should exist.\n- x Stated that no responsive documents exist other than documents produced by third parties, including for document requests where responsive recent internal communications should exist (for example, the Debtor's request for Documents and Communications related to Golden Spring, or Documents and Communications related to companies which PAX believes or has reason to believe are associated with the Debtor or any of his Family Members ), in response to 5 document requests.\n- x Stated, after waiting ten days to respond to the Debtor's Document Requests, that PAX would merely agree to \"meet and confer\" with regard to such request, with no indication that PAX had made any effort whatsoever to search for responsive documents, in response to 2 document requests. No indication regarding what PAX required a meet and confer about in order to conduct a search for responsive documents was included.\n- 10. In sum, PAX indicated that for 17 of the 19 document requests that it would not\n\nproduce a single sheet of paper (other than what had already been produced by third parties or in previous litigation), and sought to delay any production regarding the remaining two document requests.\n\n11. The Debtor served a 30(b)(6) subpoena on PAX that included 6 topics, and noticed three officers of PAX for depositions. In response to the six 30(b)(6) topics, PAX refused to produce a witness for **every single topic** – including such a plainly relevant topic as the factual assertions and allegations it made in its motion to dismiss. PAX also objected that its officers (its CEO, the chairman of the board, and its general counsel) could not be deposed by notice, but that it would not make the witnesses available in any event because, it asserted, \"the discovery sought is irrelevant to PAX's [Motion to Dismiss].\" It made this assertion despite that depositions of a named individual do not list topics of examination and, thus, it was unclear on what basis PAX asserted they could have no relevant information.\n\n12. PAX did, however, respond to two interrogatories propounded by the Debtor – the sole information that PAX deemed relevant to the Motion to Dismiss that it would produce. These interrogatory answers simply clarified PAX's assertions regarding what property it asserts or believed is actually owned by the Debtor, and what property it has sought a court determination is owned by the Debtor.\n\n13. Following objections by PAX and the office of the United States Trustee to the DIP Motion, the Court indicated it did not intend to approve the DIP Motion. Subsequently Golden Spring withdrew its proposed loan. This estate thus no longer has access to any source of funding for the payment of the administrative expenses of this bankruptcy. As a result, on May 11, 2022 the Debtor consented to the entry of an order dismissing this bankruptcy case as there was no longer any source of funds for the payment of the administrative expenses of the estate. *See* Dkt. No. 344 (the \"Consent to Motion to Dismiss\").\n\n14. Despite the Consent to the Motion to Dismiss, the Motion to Dismiss is opposed by the Committee and certain creditors, who have indicated their objection to the relief sought in the Motion to Dismiss. However, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\") and certain individual creditors (the \"Objecting Creditors\" and collectively with the Committee, the \"Objectors\") filed objections to the Motion to Dismiss. Although the Objectors asserted that the relief sought in the Motion to Dismiss was not appropriate, they joined in the factual allegations made by PAX.\n\n15. The Committee, in its objection (Docket No. 346, the \"Committee Objection\") does not challenge PAX's various assertions regarding the Debtor's financial affairs, pre-petition conduct that is alleged to have hidden assets, or what assets might belong to the Debtor. *See* Committee Objection at ¶ 46. Indeed, the Committee asserts that it believes \"the Debtor has no\n\n5\n\ndoubt engaged in contemptuous conduct and financial chicanery prior to effectively being forced to file for chapter 11 relief[.]\" *Id*. at ¶ 4. The Committee simply believes that it should pursue causes of action based on those allegations inside bankruptcy, not outside.\n\n16. The Objecting Creditors, in their objection (Docket No. 347, the \"Individual Creditor Objection\") similarly do not object to – and indeed, explicitly state they do not dispute – PAX's allegations of wrongful conduct with regard to the Debtor's creditors. *See* Individual Creditor Objection ¶ 24 (\"The Creditors do not dispute PAX's assertion that the Debtor has engaged in wrongful conduct including efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members, secreting his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members, and orchestrating a shell game… with respect to the Lady May as found by Judge Ostrager in the February 9 Contempt Order. The Creditors also do not dispute that Judge Ostrager already found that Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht, and that these issues should not be relitigated before the Court in this Case. In addition, it is undisputed that one of the reasons the Debtor commenced the Case was because he was facing an imminent risk of incarceration for violating Judge Ostrager's orders.\") (internal citations and quotations omitted).\n\n17. The Objectors argue, instead, that the facts alleged by PAX and undisputed by the Objectors (and certain facts that the Debtor has freely admitted, such as the filing of this case to avoid his incarceration based on his inability to pay the fine levied by Judge Ostrager) do not warrant dismissal, and allege that PAX has ulterior motives in seeking dismissal. *See*, *e.g.*, Individual Creditor Objection at ¶ 2; Committee Objection at ¶¶ 1-4. Unfortunately, the Objectors rely on the assumption that DIP financing is available in this case, which it now no longer is. Certain Objectors have indicated that they may continue their objection to dismissal on other grounds.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n18. Under Federal Rule 26(b)(1), discovery is limited to \"matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.\"\n\n19. Here, none of the Document Requests served by PAX (on the Debtor or on Brown Rudnick) are relevant to any claim or defense raised by PAX and challenged by the Objectors. The Debtor has disclaimed any intent to challenge PAX's factual assertions in connection with the Motion to Dismiss, and affirmatively consented to the relief of case dismissal. *See Favale v. Roman Cath. Diocese of Bridgeport*, 233 F.R.D. 243, 246 (D. Conn. 2005) (protective order issued when a party sought documents and discovery that did not pertain to the claim or defense of any party); *Shannon v. Liberty Mut. Grp. Inc.*, No. 3:20-CV-1192 (RNC), 2021 WL 2644742, at \\*9 (D. Conn. June 28, 2021) (denying motion to compel for information regarding attorney's fees as not relevant to the current stage of the litigation).\n\n20. Further, on May 15, 2022 counsel to the Debtor requested that the Committee identify the factual issues actually in dispute, such that the Debtor could determine if any discovery was appropriate. No such factual issues have been identified as of the filing of this Motion.\n\n7\n\n21. Further, based on the position that PAX took with regard to discovery served by the Debtor, it is unclear how any of the information sought by PAX could be relevant under the relevancy standards espoused by PAX. If, for example, any efforts by PAX to enforce its judgment are not relevant to the Motion to Dismiss, then plainly neither are any of the alleged difficulties that PAX asserts the Debtor caused in PAX's judgment enforcement efforts. If PAX's factual allegations are not relevant enough for PAX to put on a 30(b)(6) witness with regard to those allegations, then the documentary and testimonial evidence that PAX seeks to elicit are not relevant either.\n\n22. Further, to the extent any Objectors seek to oppose dismissal by seeking alternative relief (such as conversion), the factual issues involved in such arguments would not require information from the Debtor – and certainly not the information sought by PAX. Instead, such arguments would likely focus on what was in the best interests of creditors and the estate, and the discovery sought by PAX (and the information in the possession of the Debtor) would not be relevant to such issues.\n\n23. None of the discovery propounded by PAX is relevant also to its alternative form of relief, the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. The discovery sought by PAX focuses on prepetition activities (irrelevant to the appointment of a trustee), resolved matters for which discovery was already taken (the DIP financing and the retention of Brown Rudnick), or matters resolved *with PAX's consent* (the return of the Lady May).\n\n24. Finally, to the extent any party believes that sworn testimony of the Debtor would be relevant (and the Debtor does not believe it would be), the Debtor will be sitting for his third 341 Hearing on May 20, 2022. Any creditor (including PAX and the Objectors) can ask any such questions of the Debtor, under oath, at that time.\n\n8\n\n25. As a result (in part) of PAX's own efforts, there is no funding for these cases. Discovery not aimed at any matter *actually* in dispute in the Motion to Dismiss is a waste of resources, in addition to not being permitted under the Federal Rules. The discovery should be quashed so that the legal issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss can be resolved without the unnecessary (and un-payable) expense to the estate of further discovery.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Debtor respectfully requests the entry of a protective order\n\nquashing the discovery sought by PAX.\n\nDated: May 16, 2022\n\n#### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *William R. Baldiga*  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Bennet S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Kenneth J. Aulet, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrudnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com kaulet@brownrudnick.com\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nDebtor.<sup>1</sup>\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nIn re: : Chapter 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\n:\n\nI, Kenneth J. Aulet, hereby certify that on the 16th day of May, 2022, the Debtor's Motion for Protective Order was sent by e-mail to all appearing parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system\n\nDated: May 16, 2022\n\n### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *Kenneth J. Aulet*  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Bennet S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*)\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Aulet Declaration**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nDebtor.<sup>1</sup>\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nIn re: : Chapter 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073\n\n## **DECLARATION OF KENNETH J. AULET IN SUPPORT OF DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nI, Kenneth J. Aulet, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:\n\n:\n\n1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New York, and am a partner at Brown Rudnick LLP, counsel to the Debtor. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of the Debtor's Motion for a Protective Order\n\n2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is an email from Eli Grossman to counsel to the Debtor, dated May 9, 2022.\n\n3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is PAX's responses and objections to the Debtor's First Request for the Production of Documents\n\n4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is PAX's responses and objections to the Debtor's 30(b)(6) notice to PAX.\n\n5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is an email from Kenneth J. Aulet to Jonathan A. Kaplan, counsel for the Committee, dated May 15, 2022. No response to this email has been received as of the filing of this declaration.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.\n\nDated: May 16, 2022\n\n*/s/ Kenneth J. Aulet*  Kenneth J. Aulet\n\n64708581 v3\n\n## **EXHIBIT**\n\n| From:        | Grossman, Eli                                                                                                      |  |  |\n|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| To:          | Aulet, Kenneth; Baldiga, William R.; Silverberg, Bennett S.; Axelrod, Tristan G.; Jonas, Jeffrey L.; Pinelo, Uriel |  |  |\n| Cc:          | Sarnoff, Stuart M.; Friedman, Peter; Harbach, David; Gonzalez, Mia N.; Warren, Steve; Aronsson, Laura S.           |  |  |\n| Subject:     | RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073                                                                           |  |  |\n| Date:        | Monday, May 9, 2022 10:33:55 PM                                                                                    |  |  |\n| Attachments: | 2022_05_09 PAX\"s Responses and Objections to Kwok\"s First Set of Document Requests.pdf                             |  |  |\n|              | 2022_05_09 PAX\"s Responses and Objections to Kwok\"s First Set of Interrogatories.pdf                               |  |  |\n|              | 2022_05_09 PAX\"s Responses and Objections to Kwok\"s 30b6 Notice to PAX.pdf                                         |  |  |\n\n**CAUTION: External E-mail. Use caution accessing links or attachments.**\n\nCounsel,\n\nPlease see attached for service.\n\nPlease also let us know when you are available to meet and confer regarding the discovery directed at PAX. We are available on Wednesday afternoon.\n\nWe are not at this time accepting service of the deposition subpoenas directed to Lewis, Shan, or Gradel. To the extent that you believe that service has been properly effectuated and our consent is unnecessary, PAX states that it does not intend to make any witness available for a deposition because, among other reasons, the discovery sought is irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, in the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee.\n\nRegards, Eli Grossman\n\nEli A. Grossman O: +1-212-728-5923 egrossman@omm.com\n\n**From:** Aulet, Kenneth <KAulet@brownrudnick.com>\n\n**Sent:** Friday, April 29, 2022 5:27 PM\n\n**To:** Murray, Aisling <amurray@omm.com>; Friedman, Peter <pfriedman@omm.com>; Harbach, David <dharbach@omm.com>; Aronsson, Laura S. <laronsson@omm.com>; Russo, Makenzie B. <mrusso@omm.com>\n\n**Cc:** Baldiga, William R. <WBaldiga@brownrudnick.com>; Silverberg, Bennett S.\n\n<BSilverberg@brownrudnick.com>; Aulet, Kenneth <KAulet@brownrudnick.com>; Axelrod, Tristan G. <TAxelrod@brownrudnick.com>; Jonas, Jeffrey L. <JJonas@brownrudnick.com>; Pinelo, Uriel <UPinelo@brownrudnick.com>\n\n**Subject:** In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073\n\n[EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nAll,\n\nPlease see attached discovery requests directed to PAX in connection with the Motion to Dismiss.\n\nBest,\n\n-Ken\n\n**Kenneth J. Aulet** Partner\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 T: 212-209-4950 F: 212-938-2950 kaulet@brownrudnick.com www.brownrudnick.com\n\n\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\n\nThe information contained in this electronic message may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the recipient of this message is not the above-named intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Brown Rudnick LLP, (617) 856-8200 (if dialing from outside the US, 001-(617)-856-8200) and purge the communication immediately without making any copy or distribution.\n\nTo the extent Brown Rudnick is a \"controller\" of the \"personal data\" (as each term is defined in the European General Data Protection Regulation (EU/2016/679) or in the UK's Data Protection Act 2018) you have provided to us in this and other communications between us, please see our privacy statement and summary here which sets out details of the controller, the personal data we have collected, the purposes for which we use it (including any legitimate interests on which we rely), the persons to whom we may transfer the data and when and how we intend to transfer it outside the European Economic Area.\n\n\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\n\n## **EXHIBIT**\n\n## IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n## PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEBTOR'S FIRST REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS\n\nPursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\"), made applicable to these proceedings by Rules 7026, 7034, and 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") by and through its undersigned counsel, responds and objects to the April 29, 2022 Debtor's First Request for Production of Documents Directed to PAX (the \"Requests\"), as follows:\n\n## GENERAL OBJECTIONS\n\nPAX makes the following General Objections, which apply to each specific Request and are incorporated by reference in each response below as if set forth fully therein. PAX's responses to specific Requests are made subject to and without waiving these General Objections, and failure to reiterate a General Objection below does not constitute a waiver of that or any other objection.\n\n1. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that it calls for PAX to do more than is required under the Federal Rules, the Bankruptcy Rules, or other applicable law.\n\n2. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that it (i) implies the existence of facts or circumstances that do not or did not exist, or (ii) states or assumes legal or factual conclusions. By providing these objections and responses, PAX does not admit any Request's factual or legal premise.\n\n3. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that it seeks information or documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the accountant-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint-defense privilege, the commoninterest privilege, the anticipation-of-litigation doctrine, or any other legally recognized privilege, immunity, exemption or protection from discovery. Any production of such documents in response to these Requests is inadvertent and is not intended to constitute, and shall not constitute, a waiver in whole or in part of such privilege, doctrine, immunity, or other protection.\n\n4. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that it seeks information that constitutes or reflects PAX's trade secrets or confidential, commercial, business, or other proprietary information.\n\n5. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that it seeks documents or information where the disclosure would violate any court order, contract, or agreement obligating it to keep information confidential; or any rights of privacy or other statutory or judicially-recognized protections.\n\n- 2 -\n\n6. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that it seeks documents or information that are cumulative or duplicative; a matter of public record; already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control; or that may be obtained from other sources or through other means of discovery that are more convenient, more efficient, more practical, less burdensome, or less expensive.\n\n7. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that it purports to require PAX to produce \"all\" documents on a given topic. Such a requirement would be overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it would require PAX to search for documents that are not centrally maintained, in files not believed to contain information relevant to the issues in this case, or in files maintained by persons not reasonably believed to have had significant involvement in the transactions or events at issue.\n\n8. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that the probative value, if any, of the documents or discovery sought is outweighed by the costs and burdens to PAX of producing those documents and information.\n\n9. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous.\n\n10. PAX objects to each definition, instruction, and Request to the extent that it seeks information not relevant to the claims and defenses in these proceedings or that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.\n\n11. Subject to the other general and specific objections set forth herein, PAX will use reasonable diligence to obtain responsive information in its possession, custody, or control based on an examination of those files reasonably expected to yield responsive documents or in the\n\n- 3 -\n\npossession of custodians reasonably believed to have had material involvement in the events at issue in this litigation. Documents or information provided by PAX in response to specific Requests should not be construed as a representation that every document in its possession, custody, or control has been examined. It is not practicable to review every document in PAX's possession to determine if they may be responsive to one of the Requests. Each individual Request will be considered separately in making a determination about where to look for responsive documents.\n\n12. PAX reserves the right to (i) modify, amend, correct, supplement, or clarify its responses and objections, if and when additional information or documents come to light; (ii) produce, introduce, or rely on additional or subsequently acquired documents or information in any proceedings held hereafter; and (iii) raise and rely upon any other objections that it learns of during the course of discovery.\n\n#### SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1:\n\nAll Documents and Communications with or concerning Bruno Wu.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, in the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (\"PAX's Motion to Dismiss\"). PAX further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks to discover information allegedly relevant to or re-litigate the merits of the underlying litigation, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (the \"New York Action\").\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\nWithout waiving any of the foregoing objections, PAX identifies the deposition transcripts of the following PAX employees: Jon Lewis (Tr. at 176-78), Ian Zheng (Tr. at 147- 51), Derek Crane (Tr. at 77, 274-80), and Catherine Yang (Tr. 153-54).\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2:\n\nAll Documents and Communications with any company or entity affiliated with Bruno Wu, including but not limited to Ideanomics, Inc., Red Rock Global Capital, Ltd., Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc., and the National Committee for China-US Relations.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss.\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request. PAX further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks to discover information allegedly relevant to or re-litigate the merits of the New York Action.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3:\n\nAll Documents and Communications with any agent or representative of the CCP or PRC.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to\n\nDismiss. PAX further objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4:\n\nAll Documents and Communications related to Debtor and any Family Members.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking discovery in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. PAX further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work-product doctrine.\n\nSubject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, PAX identifies documents bearing Bates ranges GSNY000001-000852, GSNY002829-002834; HKI–0001-0020; HR000001-000047; JANOVER000001-000110; LAMP000001-000052; SN0001-0442; and YW000001-000098; documents produced by Debtor's real estate broker; documents produced to Debtor in connection with the pending action filed by PAX against Debtor in the British Virgin Islands; and transcripts of deposition and in-court testimony given by Mei Guo, Yvette Wang, and Daniel Podhaskie.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5:\n\nAll Documents and Communications related to GSNY.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking discovery in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. PAX further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work-product doctrine. PAX further objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.\n\nSubject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and after making reasonable inquiries, PAX states that it has no non-privileged, non-public information other than what it has received in discovery to which the Debtor is a party.\n\nPAX further identifies documents bearing Bates ranges GSNY000001-000852, GSNY002829-002834, and YW000001-000098; documents produced by financial institutions, including without limitation Capital One, N.A.; Citibank, N.A.; Hancock Whitney Bank; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Bates range SCH000001(a)- 000086(a)); and Standard Chartered Bank (Bates range: IR6219-SCBNY000001-000018); and the transcripts of (i) the depositions of GSNY's corporate designee, and (ii) the testimony of Mei Guo in the New York Action.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6:\n\nAll Documents and Communications related to companies which PAX believes or has reason to believe are associated with the Debtor or any of his Family Members.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of the term \"believes\" and phrase \"associated with the Debtor or any of his Family Members.\" PAX interprets this request as seeking documents and communications related to companies PAX, on information and belief, has identified as potentially being owned or controlled by Debtor or his Family Members, or in which Debtor has a beneficial interest. PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control, including those provided from PAX's files in prior productions. PAX further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work-product doctrine. PAX further objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.\n\nSubject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and after making reasonable inquiries, PAX states that it has no non-privileged, non-public information other than what it has received in discovery to which the Debtor is a party.\n\nPAX further identifies documents (i) bearing Bates ranges HKI–0001-0020, LAMP000001-000052, SN0001-0442; (ii) produced by Debtor's real estate broker; and (iii) produced by financial institutions, including without limitation Capital One, N.A.; Citibank, N.A.; Hancock Whitney Bank; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Bates range SCH000001(a)-000086(a)); and Standard Chartered Bank (Bates range: IR6219-SCBNY000001-000018).\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7:\n\nAll Documents and Communications related to Debtor's public commentary concerning the PRC or CCP.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work-product doctrine. PAX further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase \"public commentary\".\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8:\n\nAll Documents and Communications related to PAX's efforts to collect on the 2011 Loan Facility or any predecessor loan which the Debtor is alleged to have executed a personal guarantee in connection with from parties other than the Debtor.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase \"predecessor loan.\" PAX further objects to this Request as irrelevant because\n\nit seeks documents and communications related solely to the merits of the underlying New York Action, which merits have been fully litigated.\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\n## DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9:\n\nAll Documents and Communications related to PAX's accounting of amounts received under the 2011 Loan Facility and any other loans that it alleges that the Debtor executed a personal guarantee in connection with.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Request as irrelevant because it seeks documents and communications related solely to the merits of the underlying New York Action, which merits have been fully litigated.\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10:\n\nAll Documents and Communications with any third party regarding the 2011 Loan Facility or the alleged 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Request as irrelevant because it seeks documents and\n\ncommunications related solely to the merits of the underlying New York Action, which merits have been fully litigated.\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11:\n\nAll Documents and Communications with any bank or financial institution concerning any account owned or controlled by, or believed to be owned or controlled by, Debtor, GSNY, or any Family Member.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking discovery in the possession, custody, or control of third parties.\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\nWithout waiving the foregoing objections, PAX refers to the documents identified in the Responses above.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:\n\nAll Documents and Communications concerning PAX's efforts to collect on the Judgment, including but not limited to all underlying discovery taken by PAX pre-Petition.\n\n## RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to\n\nDismiss. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control, for example, the order of the Supreme Court of New York, in which Justice Ostrager acknowledged that \"PAX [has] encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle.\" (New York Action, Dkt. No. 1181 at 1). PAX further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorneywork-product doctrine.\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13:\n\nAll Documents and Communications concerning PAX's efforts to enforce its rights in connection with the 2011 Loan Facility against any of the assets alleged to be owned by the Debtor seized by the PRC.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase \"assets alleged to be owned.\" PAX further objects to this Request as irrelevant because it seeks documents and communications related solely to the merits of the underlying New York Action, which merits have been fully litigated. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control.\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14:\n\nAll Documents and Communications sufficient to show all amounts disbursed and received by PAX concerning the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Personal Guarantee and any predecessor loans in which it is alleged the Debtor executed a personal guarantee.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase \"predecessor loans.\" PAX further objects to this Request as irrelevant because it seeks documents and communications related solely to the merits of the underlying New York Action, which merits have been fully litigated.\n\nBased on the foregoing, PAX will not search for or produce documents in response to this Request.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15:\n\nAll Documents and Communications related to the valuation of the Lady May and Sherry Residence.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request as seeking documents already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control,\n\nincluding without limitation email correspondence between and among PAX, Debtor, Melanie L. Cyganowski (mcyganowski@otterbourg.com), and Sotheby's International Realty (including Serena Boardman, serena.boardman@sothebys.realty). PAX further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work-product doctrine.\n\nWithout waiving the foregoing objections, PAX states that it has no documents responsive to this Request beyond those referenced in the above paragraph.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16:\n\nAll Documents and Communications related to the valuation of other litigation and/or claims held, or believed to be held, by parties other than PAX against the Debtor.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work-product doctrine. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents available in the public record. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control.\n\nWithout waiving the foregoing objections, PAX states that it has no documents responsive to this Request beyond those referenced in the following paragraph.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17:\n\nAll Documents and Communications concerning all assets identified by PAX as actually owned by Debtor.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of the term \"assets\" and the phrase \"actually owned by Debtor.\" PAX interprets this request as seeking documents and communications relating to property, real property, corporate entities, and accounts, which, on information and belief, PAX has identified as potentially owned, controlled, or held for the benefit of Debtor. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control. PAX further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-workproduct doctrine. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents available in the public record. PAX further objects to this Request as seeking documents in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. PAX further objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.\n\nSubject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and after making reasonable inquiries, PAX states that it has no non-privileged, non-public information other than what it has received in discovery to which the Debtor is a party.\n\nWithout waiving the foregoing objections, PAX identifies the assets listed in PAX's Responses and Objections to Debtor's First Set of Interrogatories, Response to Interrogatory No. 1. PAX further refers to the documents identified in Response to Document Request No. 6.\n\n## DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18:\n\nAll Communications concerning the Plan, except privileged communications with counsel.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18:\n\nPAX objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work-product doctrine. PAX further objects to this Request as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.\n\nWithout waiving the foregoing objections, PAX agrees to meet and confer with Debtor regarding this Request.\n\n#### DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19:\n\nAll Communications concerning this Chapter 11 Case, except privileged communications with counsel.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney-work-product doctrine. PAX further objects to this Request as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.\n\nWithout waiving the foregoing objections, PAX agrees to meet and confer with Debtor regarding this Request.\n\nDated: May 9, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut */s/ Patrick M. Birney*\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nROBINSON & COLE LLP Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n- and -\n\n## O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) Times Square Tower Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n*Attorneys for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on May 9, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was served via email on the following parties:\n\nCounsel to Kwok Ho Wan William Baldiga BROWN RUDNICK LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 209-4800 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n*/s/ Patrick M. Birney*\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nPatrick M. Birney\n\n## **EXHIBIT**\n\n## IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n## PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEBTOR'S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION\n\nPursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable by Rule 7030 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), hereby objects to the April 29, 2022 Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) served by Debtor in the above-captioned bankruptcy case.\n\n# GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS\n\n1. PAX objects to the date and location specified for the deposition. Subject to the General and Specific Objections contained herein, PAX will offer a 30(b)(6) deponent or deponents at a mutually agreeable time(s), date(s) and location(s).\n\n2. PAX's responses and objections are made without intending to waive or waiving, but, on the contrary, expressly preserve and preserving:\n\na. The right to raise in any subsequent proceeding in or the hearing of this or any other action all questions of authenticity, foundation, relevancy, materiality, privilege or evidentiary admissibility of any testimony provided in response to the Deposition Notice;\n\nb. The right to object on any ground to the use or introduction into evidence of any testimony or document in any subsequent proceeding in or the hearing of this or any other action on any ground; and\n\nc. The right to object on any ground at any time to other depositions or requests for production or other discovery involving any of the subjects identified in the Deposition Notice or related to the subject matter thereof.\n\n3. These responses and objections are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is subject to all objections as to confidence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility, and all other objections on grounds that would require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the subject matter of the Deposition Notice was involved in the questioning of a witness present and testifying in court, or of any statement contained herein if the answers were given by said witness. All such objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at any future time, including time of trial.\n\n4. PAX objects to each and every proposed subject of testimony in the Deposition Notice to the extent they call for information protected from disclosure by a claim of privilege, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense and common interest privilege and information subject to work product protection. Any inadvertent disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection from disclosure is not intended to constitute, and should not be construed as, a waiver of such privilege or protection.\n\n5. PAX objects to each and every proposed subject of testimony in the Deposition Notice calling for (i) information within Debtor's knowledge, possession, custody, or control, or to which Debtor has equal or superior access; (ii) information which is readily available to\n\n- 2 -\n\nDebtor from public records; or (iii) the identification of information that Debtor already has in its possession, custody or control. Such proposed subjects of testimony exceed the appropriate scope of discovery as set forth in applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and law.\n\n6. PAX objects to each and every proposed subject of testimony in the Deposition Notice calling for information protected from disclosure by constitutional or legal rights to privacy, or that are otherwise protected or privileged by applicable laws or statutes.\n\n7. PAX objects to each and every proposed subject of testimony to the extent they call for the disclosure of trade secret, proprietary, and other confidential information; commercially sensitive information; or privileged financial and tax information.\n\n8. PAX objects to each and every proposed subject of testimony in the Deposition Notice to the extent that contractual or legal duties preclude disclosure of such information.\n\n9. PAX objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent the categories of proposed examination are not described with any particularity or specificity.\n\n#### SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS\n\n## TOPIC NO. 1:\n\nAll efforts by PAX to collect on any purported loans (including but not limited to the purported 2011 Loan Facility) for which the Debtor allegedly executed a personal guarantee.\n\n### RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 1:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Topic as seeking information that is irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case or, in the Alternative, Partial Joinder to United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (\"Motion to Dismiss\").\n\nFor these reasons, PAX will not produce a witness for this Topic.\n\n### TOPIC NO. 2:\n\nAll connections between PAX and Bruno Wu, the CCP, the PRC, and any agent or of the foregoing.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 2:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Topic as seeking information that is irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss.\n\nFor these reasons, PAX will not produce a witness for this Topic.\n\nWithout waiving any of the foregoing objections, PAX identifies the deposition transcripts of the following PAX employees: Jon Lewis (Tr. at 176-78), Ian Zheng (Tr. at 147- 51), Derek Crane (Tr. at 77, 274-80), and Catherine Yang (Tr. 153-54).\n\n#### TOPIC NO. 3:\n\nAll assets PAX asserts are owned [sic] by the Debtor and the basis for such belief.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 3:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX hereby incorporates (i) Response to Document Request No. 17 in its May 9, 2022 Responses and Objections to Debtor's First Request for the Production of Documents and (ii) Response to Interrogatory No. 1 in its May 9, 2022 Responses and Objections to Debtor's First Set of Interrogatories. PAX further objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks discovery of information covered by attorney-client privilege. PAX further objects to this Topic as seeking discovery of information already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control. PAX further objects to this Topic as seeking discovery of information in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. PAX further states that it has no non-privileged information relating to this Topic.\n\nFor these reasons, PAX will not produce a witness for this Topic.\n\n- 4 -\n\n## TOPIC NO. 4:\n\nAll claims asserted against the Debtor by parties other than PAX and the value of such claims.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 4:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Topic as seeking information that is irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks discovery of information covered by the attorney-client privilege. PAX further objects to this Topic as seeking discovery of information available in the public record. PAX further objects to this Topic as seeking discovery of information already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control. PAX further objects to this Topic as seeking discovery of information in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. PAX further states that it has no non-privileged information relating to this Topic.\n\nFor these reasons, PAX will not produce a witness for this Topic.\n\n#### TOPIC NO. 5:\n\nAll factual assertions and allegations made by PAX in the Motion to Dismiss.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 5:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Topic as seeking documents and communications that are irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks discovery of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work-product doctrine. PAX further objects to this Topic as seeking discovery of information already in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control. PAX further objects to this Topic as seeking discovery of information available in the public record. PAX further objects to this Topic as seeking\n\ndiscovery of information in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. PAX further states that it has no non-privileged information relating to this Topic.\n\nFor these reasons, PAX will not produce a witness for this Topic.\n\n## TOPIC NO. 6:\n\nAll Documents produced by PAX to the Debtor.\n\n#### RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 6:\n\nSubject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, PAX objects to this Topic as seeking discovery that is irrelevant to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. PAX further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks discovery of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work-product doctrine.\n\nFor these reasons, PAX will not produce a witness for this Topic.\n\nWithout waiving any of the foregoing objections, PAX identifies the deposition transcripts of the following PAX employees: Jon Lewis, Derek Crane, Ian Zhang, and Catherine Yang.\n\nDated: May 9, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut */s/ Patrick M. Birney*\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nROBINSON & COLE LLP Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n- and -\n\n## O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) Times Square Tower Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n*Attorneys for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on May 9, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was served via email on the following parties:\n\nCounsel to Kwok Ho Wan William Baldiga BROWN RUDNICK LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 209-4800 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n*/s/ Patrick M. Birney*\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nPatrick M. Birney\n\n## **EXHIBIT**\n\n| From:    | Aulet, Kenneth                                                                                                                                                    |\n|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| To:      | \"Kaplan, Jonathan A.\"; Aaron A. Romney                                                                                                                            |\n| Cc:      | Stephen Kindseth; Baldiga, William R.; Goldman, Irve J.; Miltenberger, Timothy D.; Axelrod, Tristan G.; Jonas,<br>Jeffrey L.; Silverberg, Bennett S.; Rosen,Scott |\n| Subject: | RE: Kwok-follow-up from Friday                                                                                                                                    |\n| Date:    | Sunday, May 15, 2022 1:53:58 PM                                                                                                                                   |\n\nJonathan,\n\nPlease advise on what factual issues, if any, are in dispute between the Committee (and the Committee members that objected individually) and PAX with regard to the Motion to Dismiss. Absent any such factual issues in dispute (and we have not identified any), it is unclear what evidence is being sought by this discovery that is relevant to the Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule 26(b)(1), which limits discovery to \"matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense\" and why any discovery should proceed.\n\nBest,\n\n-Ken\n\n**Kenneth J. Aulet** Partner Brown Rudnick LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 T: 212-209-4950 F: 212-938-2950 kaulet@brownrudnick.com\n\nwww.brownrudnick.com\n\nGood afternoon Aaron: I am following up on our hearing before Judge Manning today, where she implored the parties to try to address the issues in HK Delaware's Motion for Protective Order. I am not sure if you reached out to PAX to address any of the other issues, but pleas Good afternoon Aaron:\n\n**From:** Kaplan, Jonathan A. <JKaplan@PULLCOM.COM>\n\n**Sent:** Sunday, May 15, 2022 12:41 PM\n\n**To:** Aaron A. Romney <aromney@zeislaw.com>\n\n**Cc:** Stephen Kindseth <SKindseth@zeislaw.com>; Baldiga, William R.\n\n<WBaldiga@brownrudnick.com>; Goldman, Irve J. <igoldman@pullcom.com>; Miltenberger, Timothy D. <tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com>; Aulet, Kenneth <KAulet@brownrudnick.com>; Axelrod, Tristan G. <TAxelrod@brownrudnick.com>; Jonas, Jeffrey L. <JJonas@brownrudnick.com>; Silverberg, Bennett S. <BSilverberg@brownrudnick.com>; Rosen,Scott <SRosen@cbshealaw.com> **Subject:** Kwok-follow-up from Friday\n\n**CAUTION: External E-mail. Use caution accessing links or attachments.**\n\nI am following up on our hearing before Judge Manning today, where she implored the parties to try to address the issues in HK Delaware's Motion for Protective Order. I am not sure if you reached out to PAX to address any of the other issues, but please let me know if you did.\n\nWith regard to the additional concern of the Committee as raised in its response, one way we think we could resolve it is if counsel for HK USA and GSNY would agree to accept service on behalf certain individuals, including in their individual capacity. This would include Qiang Guo, Yvette Wang and Mei Guo (I believe your firm has already done this, but would like confirmation again). We would also need confirmation from Greenwich Land, LLC and/or Hing Chi Ngok to accept service on her behalf (if they have separate counsel, please let me know).\n\nPlease let me know your thoughts. I've copied GSNY and Debtor's counsel as well.\n\nThank you\n\n**Jonathan A. Kaplan** Attorney\n\n**Pullman & Comley LLC** 90 State House Square Hartford, CT 06103-3702 T 860 424 4379 • F 860 424 4370 jkaplan@pullcom.com • www.pullcom.com\n\n#### **V-card** • **Bio** • **Directions**\n\n![](_page_46_Picture_8.jpeg)\n\nBRIDGEPORT HARTFORD SPRINGFIELD STAMFORD WATERBURY WESTPORT WHITE PLAINS\n\n#### **Please consider the environment before printing this message.**\n\nTHIS MESSAGE AND ANY OF ITS ATTACHMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, OR THE RECIPIENT'S DESIGNEE, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE (1) IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY PULLMAN & COMLEY ABOUT THE RECEIPT BY TELEPHONING (203) 330-2000; (2) DELETE ALL COPIES OF THE MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS; AND (3) DO NOT DISSEMINATE OR MAKE ANY USE OF ANY OF THEIR CONTENTS.","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格州联邦地区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：　：　第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　：　案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n：　日期：\n债务人。1　：　时间：\n\n债务人申请保护令的动议\n\n根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)，并经 Fed. R. Bankr. P.（“破产规则”）9014 和 9016 适用于本程序，上述标题第 11 章案件中的债务人兼占有中的债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“Kwok 先生”或“债务人”）通过其下列签名律师，特此提出本动议（“本动议”），请求作出裁定，撤销针对债务人的证据开示，因该等证据开示与待决的《驳回第 11 章案件动议，或备选地，部分加入美国受托人关于作出指令任命第 11 章受托人的动议》（“驳回动议”）无关。为进一步支持本动议，Kwok 先生陈述如下：\n\n请求的救济\n\n1. 债务人通过本动议，根据经破产规则 9014 和 9016 适用于本案的 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26，请求作出裁定，撤销针对债务人的文件请求及证言录取通知，因为该等请求寻求的信息与任何一方就驳回动议提出的任何主张或抗辩均无关。\n\n1 债务人还使用以下姓名：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n2. 本院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334 以及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）作出的移送常设命令（经修订），对审理本动议具有管辖权。本程序属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 规定的核心程序。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本第 11 章案件及本动议的审判地在本地区适当。\n\n背景\n\n3. 2022 年 2 月 15 日（“申请日”），债务人通过提交依据《破产法典》第 11 编第 11 章寻求救济的自愿申请，启动本第 11 章案件。\n\n4. 债务人根据《破产法典》第 1107(a) 和 1108 条，为占有中的债务人。\n\n5. 本第 11 章案件中尚未任命受托人或审查员。2022 年 3 月 21 日，Office of the United States Trustee for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州地区美国受托人办公室）（“美国受托人”）根据《破产法典》第 1102 条任命了无担保债权人官方委员会。\n\n6. 2022 年 3 月 22 日，债务人提交了《关于作出临时及最终 DIP 命令的动议：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的申请后融资，(II) 安排临时和最终听证会，以及 (III) 给予相关救济》（“DIP 动议”，案卷编号 117）。DIP 动议请求（经修订）批准 Golden Spring (New York) Limited（“Golden Spring”）提供的一笔 $9 million 无担保贷款，该贷款次于所有申请前债权人，其中 $8 million 将用于本案费用（包括审查员费用），$1 million 可用于支付无担保债权。\n\n7. 2022 年 4 月 6 日，Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.（“PAX”）提交驳回动议，请求基于众多理由驳回本第 11 章案件。为支持驳回动议，PAX 已向第三方送达众多传票以进行证言录取，并请求该等第三方出示文件。2022 年 4 月 22 日，PAX 还向债务人送达了债务人证言录取通知（“债务人证言录取通知”）和文件请求（“债务人文件请求”），并向债务人的律师 Brown Rudnick LLP（“Brown Rudnick”）送达文件请求（“Brown Rudnick 文件请求”）。\n\n8. 债务人文件请求主要针对支持 PAX 指控的证据，即债务人家庭成员拥有的各家公司和资产事实上属于债务人。十四项请求中有十项针对该等实体的初始出资及该等实体作出的付款。所请求的其他文件包括与 DIP 贷款、拟议重组计划以及就 Lady May 问题达成的合意解决方案有关的文件；根据该解决方案，HKI 提供了 $37 million 托管资金，并同意将 Lady May 归还至康涅狄格州的管辖范围。Brown Rudnick 文件请求寻求关于 Brown Rudnick 的聘用、该计划以及就 Lady May 问题达成的合意解决方案的信息。\n\n9. 债务人向 PAX 送达文件请求（“债务人的文件请求”），寻求与驳回动议有关的信息。针对债务人的文件请求，1 PAX：\n\nx 拒绝对 11 项文件请求进行任何检索或出示任何文件，包括直接涉及 PAX 在驳回动议中主张的请求，例如其执行其判决书的努力。\n\n1 该等答复附于 Kenneth J. Aulet（肯尼斯·J·奥莱特）的声明（“Aulet 声明”），并作为附件 A 随附于此。\n\nx 仅指认由其他方出示的文件，或笼统提及在其他诉讼中出示的文件（未指认该等文件）；对于要求提供“与债务人及任何家庭成员有关的所有文件和通讯”的文件请求，PAX 未表明其已进行任何相关文件检索，尽管应当存在近期的内部通讯。\n\nx 就 5 项文件请求称，除第三方出示的文件外，不存在任何回应性文件，包括应当存在近期内部通讯的文件请求（例如，债务人关于与 Golden Spring 有关的文件和通讯，或与 PAX 认为或有理由相信与债务人或其任何家庭成员有关联的公司有关的文件和通讯）。\n\nx 在等待十日后才答复债务人的文件请求，称就 2 项文件请求，PAX 仅会同意就该等请求“会面并协商”，未表明 PAX 曾为检索回应性文件作出任何努力。该答复未说明 PAX 要求就何事会面并协商，方会进行回应性文件检索。\n\n10. 总而言之，PAX 表明，对于 19 项文件请求中的 17 项，其不会出示一张纸（除已由第三方或在先前诉讼中出示的文件外），并试图延迟就其余两项文件请求作出的任何出示。\n\n11. 债务人向 PAX 送达了一份 30(b)(6) 传票，其中包括 6 个主题，并通知对 PAX 的三名高级职员进行证言录取。针对六个 30(b)(6) 主题，PAX 拒绝就每一个主题提供证人——包括其在驳回动议中提出的事实主张和指控这样显然相关的主题。PAX 还提出异议称，其高级职员（其 CEO、董事会主席及总法律顾问）不能仅凭通知接受证言录取，但无论如何其均不会让证人出席，因为其主张“所寻求的证据开示与 PAX 的[驳回动议]无关。”尽管被指名个人的证言录取并不列明询问主题，且因此不清楚 PAX 据何主张他们不可能拥有任何相关信息，PAX 仍作出了该主张。\n\n12. 然而，PAX 确实答复了债务人提出的两项书面质询——这是 PAX 认为与驳回动议有关并愿意提供的唯一信息。这些书面质询答复仅澄清了 PAX 关于其主张或相信实际上由债务人拥有的财产，以及其寻求法院认定由债务人拥有的财产的主张。\n\n13. 在 PAX 和美国受托人办公室对 DIP 动议提出异议后，本院表示其无意批准 DIP 动议。随后，Golden Spring 撤回了其拟议贷款。因此，本破产财产不再有任何资金来源可用于支付本破产案件的管理费用。结果，2022 年 5 月 11 日，债务人同意作出驳回本破产案件的裁定，因为已不再有资金来源可支付破产财产的管理费用。见 Dkt. No. 344（“同意驳回动议”）。\n\n14. 尽管同意驳回动议，该驳回动议仍遭到委员会和某些债权人反对，后者已表示反对驳回动议所请求的救济。然而，Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（“委员会”）和某些个人债权人（“提出异议的债权人”，与委员会合称“异议方”）提交了对驳回动议的异议。尽管异议方主张驳回动议所请求的救济不适当，但其加入了 PAX 提出的事实指控。\n\n15. 委员会在其异议（案卷编号 346，“委员会异议”）中，并未质疑 PAX 关于债务人财务状况、据称隐匿资产的申请前行为，或哪些资产可能属于债务人的各种主张。见委员会异议第 ¶ 46 段。事实上，委员会主张其相信，“债务人在实际上被迫申请第 11 章救济之前，无疑从事了藐视性的行为和财务欺诈行为[。]”同上，第 ¶ 4 段。委员会只是认为，应当在破产程序内而非破产程序外，追究基于该等指控的诉因。\n\n16. 提出异议的债权人在其异议（案卷编号 347，“个人债权人异议”）中，同样并不反对——事实上明确表示其并不争议——PAX 关于债务人就其债权人实施不当行为的指控。见个人债权人异议第 ¶ 24 段（“债权人不争议 PAX 的主张，即债务人实施了不当行为，包括通过将其大量个人资产置于一系列公司、受信任的亲信和家庭成员名下，隐匿其在迷宫般公司实体和家庭成员名下的资产，并就 Lady May 策划一场障眼法……从而企图规避和欺骗其债权人，正如 Ostrager 法官在 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令中所认定。债权人也不争议 Ostrager 法官已经认定 Kwok 对 Lady May 所拥有的远不止受益权益。Kwok 不仅控制该游艇，看起来他提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人，且这些问题不应在本案中于本院重新诉讼。此外，无争议的是，债务人启动本案的原因之一，是因为其因违反 Ostrager 法官的命令而面临即将被监禁的风险。”）（省略内部引注和引文）。\n\n17. 异议方反而主张，PAX 所指控且异议方不争议的事实（以及债务人自由承认的某些事实，例如因其无力支付 Ostrager 法官征收的罚金而为避免被监禁而提交本案）并不构成驳回的理由，并指控 PAX 寻求驳回另有动机。见，例如，个人债权人异议第 ¶ 2 段；委员会异议第 ¶¶ 1-4 段。不幸的是，异议方依赖于本案可获得 DIP 融资这一假设，但该融资现已不可获得。某些异议方表示，其可能基于其他理由继续反对驳回。\n\n救济依据\n\n18. 根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第26(b)(1)条，证据开示仅限于“与任何一方当事人的请求或抗辩有关，且与案件需要相称的事项；在判断时，应考虑诉讼中所涉争议的重要性、争议金额、当事人获取相关信息的相对便利程度、当事人的资源、证据开示对于解决争议的重要性，以及拟议证据开示的负担或费用是否超过其可能带来的益处。”\n\n19. 在本案中，PAX 向债务人或 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）送达的任何文件请求，均与 PAX 提出且遭异议方质疑的任何请求或抗辩无关。债务人已声明无意就驳回动议相关的 PAX 事实主张提出异议，并明确同意给予驳回案件的救济。参见 Favale v. Roman Cath. Diocese of Bridgeport, 233 F.R.D. 243, 246 (D. Conn. 2005)（一方寻求与任何一方当事人请求或抗辩无关的文件和证据开示时，法院发布保护令）；Shannon v. Liberty Mut. Grp. Inc., No. 3:20-CV-1192 (RNC), 2021 WL 2644742, at \\*9 (D. Conn. June 28, 2021)（因律师费信息与诉讼当前阶段无关而驳回强制披露动议）。\n\n20. 此外，于 May 15, 2022，债务人的律师要求委员会明确指出实际存在争议的事实问题，以便债务人确定是否适宜进行任何证据开示。截至提交本动议时，尚未确认任何此类事实问题。\n\n21. 此外，基于 PAX 对债务人提出的证据开示所持立场，尚不清楚 PAX 所寻求的任何信息如何能够符合 PAX 所主张的相关性标准。例如，若 PAX 为执行其判决书所作的任何努力与驳回动议无关，则 PAX 所称债务人在 PAX 执行判决书过程中造成的任何困难显然亦无关。若 PAX 的事实主张不足以相关到令 PAX 就该等主张指定一名 30(b)(6) 证人，则 PAX 试图获取的文件证据和证言证据同样不相关。\n\n22. 此外，如任何异议方寻求通过请求替代性救济（如转换程序）来反对驳回，则该等论点所涉的事实问题不需要债务人提供信息——更不用说 PAX 所寻求的信息。相反，该等论点很可能将侧重于何者最符合债权人和破产财产的利益，而 PAX 所寻求的证据开示（以及债务人占有的信息）与该等问题无关。\n\n23. PAX 提出的任何证据开示也均与其替代性救济形式，即任命一名 Chapter 11 受托人，无关。PAX 所寻求的证据开示聚焦于申请破产前的活动（与任命受托人无关）、已就其进行证据开示的已解决事项（DIP 融资及聘用 Brown Rudnick），或经 PAX 同意解决的事项（返还 Lady May）。\n\n24. 最后，如任何一方认为债务人的宣誓证言具有相关性（而债务人认为并非如此），债务人将于 May 20, 2022 参加其第三次 341 听证会。届时，任何债权人（包括 PAX 和异议方）均可在宣誓后向债务人提出任何此类问题。\n\n25. 由于（部分由于）PAX 自身的努力，本案不存在资金。未针对驳回动议中任何实际存在争议事项的证据开示，除不获《联邦规则》允许外，亦是对资源的浪费。应撤销该等证据开示，以使驳回动议提出的法律问题得以解决，而不会令破产财产承担进一步证据开示所造成的不必要且无法支付的费用。\n\n结论\n\n因此，债务人谨请求法院作出保护令，\n\n撤销 PAX 所寻求的证据开示。\n\n日期：May 16, 2022\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n185 Asylum Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq.\n电话：(860) 509-6500\n传真：(860) 509-6653\n电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq.（pro hac vice）\n收件人：Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq.（pro hac vice）\n收件人：Bennet S. Silverberg, Esq.（pro hac vice）\n收件人：Kenneth J. Aulet, Esq.（pro hac vice）\n电话：(212) 209-4800\n传真：(212) 209-4801\n电子邮件：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\njjonas@brownrudnick.com\nbsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\nkaulet@brownrudnick.com\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债务人。1\n\n关于：：Chapter 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）：Case No. 22-50073\n送达证明\n\n：\n\n本人 Kenneth J. Aulet（肯尼斯·J·奥莱特）特此证明，于 May 16, 2022，债务人的保护令动议已通过法院电子提交系统，以电子邮件方式送达所有已出庭当事人。\n\n日期：May 16, 2022\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Kenneth J. Aulet\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n185 Asylum Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq.\n电话：(860) 509-6500\n传真：(860) 509-6653\n电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq.（pro hac vice）\n收件人：Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq.（pro hac vice）\n收件人：Bennet S. Silverberg, Esq.（pro hac vice）\n\n1 债务人还以如下姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n附件 A\n\nAulet 声明\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债务人。1\n\n关于：：Chapter 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）：Case No. 22-50073\nKENNETH J. AULET 为支持债务人保护令动议所作声明\n\n本人 Kenneth J. Aulet，根据伪证处罚规定声明如下：\n\n：\n\n1. 本人是一名获准在纽约州执业的律师，并为 Brown Rudnick LLP 的合伙人，该所系债务人的律师。本人谨提交本声明，以支持债务人的保护令动议。\n\n2. 随附于此并标为附件 1 的是 Eli Grossman（伊莱·格罗斯曼）于 May 9, 2022 发给债务人律师的电子邮件。\n\n3. 随附于此并标为附件 2 的是 PAX 对债务人第一次文件出示请求的答复和异议。\n\n4. 随附于此并标为附件 3 的是 PAX 对债务人向 PAX 发出的 30(b)(6) 通知的答复和异议。\n\n5. 随附于此并标为附件 4 的是 Kenneth J. Aulet 于 May 15, 2022 发给委员会律师 Jonathan A. Kaplan（乔纳森·A·卡普兰）的电子邮件。截至提交本声明时，尚未收到对该电子邮件的回复。\n\n1 债务人还以如下姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n本人根据伪证处罚规定声明，就本人所知、所获信息及所信，前述内容真实且正确。\n\n日期：May 16, 2022\n\n/s/ Kenneth J. Aulet\nKenneth J. Aulet\n\n64708581 v3\n\n附件\n\n发件人：Grossman, Eli\n\n收件人：Aulet, Kenneth；Baldiga, William R.；Silverberg, Bennett S.；Axelrod, Tristan G.；Jonas, Jeffrey L.；Pinelo, Uriel\n抄送：Sarnoff, Stuart M.；Friedman, Peter；Harbach, David；Gonzalez, Mia N.；Warren, Steve；Aronsson, Laura S.\n主题：RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073\n日期：Monday, May 9, 2022 10:33:55 PM\n附件：2022_05_09 PAX\"s Responses and Objections to Kwok\"s First Set of Document Requests.pdf\n2022_05_09 PAX\"s Responses and Objections to Kwok\"s First Set of Interrogatories.pdf\n2022_05_09 PAX\"s Responses and Objections to Kwok\"s 30b6 Notice to PAX.pdf\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。访问链接或附件时请谨慎。\n\n各位律师：\n\n请参阅随附文件，作为送达。\n\n另请告知贵方何时有空就针对 PAX 的证据开示进行会谈协商。我们于星期三下午有空。\n\n目前，我们不接受向 Lewis、Shan 或 Gradel 发出的证言传票之送达。若贵方认为送达已被适当完成且无需我方同意，PAX 表示其不打算安排任何证人接受证言录取，原因之一是所寻求的证据开示与 PAX 的驳回 Chapter 11 案件动议，或作为替代方案部分加入 United States Trustee（美国受托人）要求作出命令指示任命 Chapter 11 受托人的动议，无关。\n\n致意，Eli Grossman\n\nEli A. Grossman\nO：+1-212-728-5923\negrossman@omm.com\n\n发件人：Aulet, Kenneth <KAulet@brownrudnick.com>\n\n发送时间：Friday, April 29, 2022 5:27 PM\n\n收件人：Murray, Aisling <amurray@omm.com>；Friedman, Peter <pfriedman@omm.com>；Harbach, David <dharbach@omm.com>；Aronsson, Laura S. <laronsson@omm.com>；Russo, Makenzie B. <mrusso@omm.com>\n\n抄送：Baldiga, William R. <WBaldiga@brownrudnick.com>；Silverberg, Bennett S.\n<BSilverberg@brownrudnick.com>；Aulet, Kenneth <KAulet@brownrudnick.com>；Axelrod, Tristan G. <TAxelrod@brownrudnick.com>；Jonas, Jeffrey L. <JJonas@brownrudnick.com>；Pinelo, Uriel <UPinelo@brownrudnick.com>\n\n主题：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073\n\n[外部信息]\n\n各位：\n\n请参阅所附与驳回动议有关、向 PAX 提出的证据开示请求。\n\n此致，\n\n-Ken\n\nKenneth J. Aulet\n合伙人\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：212-209-4950\n传真：212-938-2950\nkaulet@brownrudnick.com\nwww.brownrudnick.com\n\n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*\n\n本电子信息所含信息可能依法享有法律特权并属保密信息，仅供上述指定个人或实体使用。如本信息的接收人并非上述指定接收人，特此通知，严禁以任何方式传播、复制或披露本通信内容。如您误收本通信，请通知 Brown Rudnick LLP，电话：(617) 856-8200（如从美国境外拨打，001-(617)-856-8200），并立即删除本通信，且不得复制或分发。\n\n如 Brown Rudnick 就您在本通信及我们之间其他通信中向我们提供的“个人数据”而言属于“控制者”（各术语定义见《欧洲通用数据保护条例》(EU/2016/679) 或英国《2018 年数据保护法》），请参阅我们的隐私声明及此处摘要，其中载明控制者详情、我们收集的个人数据、我们使用该等数据的目的（包括我们所依赖的任何合法利益）、我们可能向其转移数据的人员，以及我们拟于何时及如何将数据转移至欧洲经济区以外。\n\n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*\n\n附件\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE 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：\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）对债务人第一次文件出示请求的答复和异议\n\n依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（以下简称“联邦规则”）第 26 条和第 34 条，并根据《联邦破产程序规则》（以下简称“破产规则”）第 7026、7034 及 9014 条适用于本程序，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）通过其下列签署律师，就债务人于 April 29, 2022 向 PAX 提出的第一次文件出示请求（以下简称“请求”），作出如下答复并提出异议：\n\n一般性异议\n\nPAX 提出以下一般性异议，该等异议适用于每一项具体请求，并通过引用纳入下文每项答复，如同在其中完整列明。PAX 对具体请求的答复均受该等一般性异议约束，且不放弃该等一般性异议；未在下文重申某项一般性异议，并不构成对该异议或任何其他异议的放弃。\n\n1. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于其要求 PAX 履行超出《联邦规则》、《破产规则》或其他适用法律所要求之范围的部分。\n\n2. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于其（i）暗示存在并不存在或曾不存在的事实或情形，或（ii）陈述或假定法律或事实结论的部分。PAX 提出该等异议和答复，并不承认任何请求所依据的事实或法律前提。\n\n3. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于其寻求受律师—客户特权、会计师—客户特权、工作成果原则、共同辩护特权、共同利益特权、预期诉讼原则或任何其他法律认可的特权、豁免、除外或证据开示保护所保护而不得披露的信息或文件的部分。因答复该等请求而提供任何此类文件均属无意，且并非旨在构成、亦不应构成对该等特权、原则、豁免或其他保护的全部或部分放弃。\n\n4. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于其寻求构成或反映 PAX 商业秘密或机密性、商业性、经营性或其他专有信息的部分。\n\n5. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于其寻求披露将违反任何要求其对信息保密的法院命令、合同或协议，或违反任何隐私权或其他法定或司法认可保护的信息或文件的部分。\n\n- 2 -\n\n6. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于其寻求的文件或信息属累积性或重复性；属于公开记录事项；已由债务人占有、保管或控制；或可从其他来源或通过其他更便利、更高效、更切实可行、负担更轻或费用更低的证据开示方式取得的部分。\n\n7. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于其意图要求 PAX 提供就某一特定主题的“全部”文件的部分。该要求范围过宽、负担过重，且并非合理地可能促成发现可采纳证据，因为这将要求 PAX 搜索并非集中保管的文件、并不认为含有与本案争议事项相关信息的档案，或由并无合理理由认为曾实质参与争议交易或事件的人员保管的档案。\n\n8. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于所请求文件或证据开示的证明价值（如有）被 PAX 提供该等文件和信息所需承担的成本和负担所超过的部分。\n\n9. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于其表述含糊且存在歧义的部分。\n\n10. PAX 就每一项定义、指示和请求提出异议，限于其寻求与本程序中的请求和抗辩无关，或并非合理地可能促成发现可采纳证据的信息的部分。\n\n11. 在遵循且不放弃本文所列其他一般和具体异议的前提下，PAX 将基于审查合理预期能够发现答复性文件的档案，或由合理认为对本诉讼争议事件有实质参与的保管人所占有的档案，尽合理勤勉取得其占有、保管或控制之下的答复性信息。PAX 就具体请求提供的文件或信息不应被解释为表示其占有、保管或控制之下的每一份文件均已被审查。审查 PAX 占有的每一份文件以确定其是否可能答复某一请求并不切实可行。在决定何处查找答复性文件时，将分别审议每一项请求。\n\n- 3 -\n\n12. PAX 保留以下权利：（i）在获得更多信息或文件时，修改、修正、更正、补充或澄清其答复和异议；（ii）在今后进行的任何程序中提供、提出或依赖额外或嗣后取得的文件或信息；以及（iii）提出并依赖其在证据开示过程中获知的任何其他异议。\n\n具体答复和异议\n\n文件请求第 1 项：\n\n与 Bruno Wu（吴征）有关或与其进行的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第 1 项的答复：\n\n在遵循且不放弃前述任何一般异议的前提下，PAX 对该请求提出异议，理由是其寻求与 PAX 的《驳回第 11 章案件动议，或备选地部分加入美国受托人要求作出指派第 11 章受托人命令的动议》（“PAX 的驳回动议”）无关的文件和通信。PAX 进一步就该请求提出异议，限于其试图发现据称与基础诉讼 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)（“纽约诉讼”）相关的信息，或重新审理该基础诉讼实体问题的部分。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 不会就该请求搜索或提供文件。\n\n在不放弃前述任何异议的前提下，PAX 指明以下 PAX 员工的证言笔录：Jon Lewis（Tr. at 176-78）、Ian Zheng（Tr. at 147-51）、Derek Crane（Tr. at 77, 274-80）以及 Catherine Yang（Tr. 153-54）。\n\n文件请求第 2 项：\n\n与 Bruno Wu（吴征）关联的任何公司或实体进行的或与其有关的所有文件和通信，包括但不限于 Ideanomics, Inc.（爱迪诺米克斯公司）、Red Rock Global Capital, Ltd.（红石全球资本有限公司）、Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc.（七星云集团股份有限公司）以及 National Committee for China-US Relations（美中关系全国委员会）。\n\n对文件请求第 2 项的答复：\n\n在遵循且不放弃前述任何一般异议的前提下，PAX 对该请求提出异议，理由是其寻求与 PAX 的驳回动议无关的文件和通信。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 不会就该请求搜索或提供文件。PAX 进一步就该请求提出异议，限于其试图发现据称与纽约诉讼相关的信息，或重新审理纽约诉讼实体问题的部分。\n\n文件请求第 3 项：\n\n与 CCP（中国共产党）或 PRC（中华人民共和国）的任何代理人或代表进行的或与其有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第 3 项的答复：\n\n在遵循且不放弃前述任何一般异议的前提下，PAX 对该请求提出异议，理由是其寻求与 PAX 的驳回动议无关的文件和通信。PAX 进一步对该请求提出异议，理由是其范围过宽、负担过重，且并非旨在促成发现可采纳证据。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 不会就该请求搜索或提供文件。\n\n文件请求第 4 项：\n\n与债务人及任何家庭成员有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第 4 项的答复：\n\n在遵循且不放弃前述任何一般异议的前提下，PAX 对该请求提出异议，理由是其寻求与 PAX 的驳回动议无关的文件和通信。PAX 进一步对该请求提出异议，限于其寻求已由债务人占有、保管或控制的文件的部分。PAX 进一步对该请求提出异议，理由是其寻求由第三方占有、保管或控制的证据开示材料。PAX 进一步对该请求提出异议，限于其寻求受律师—客户特权和/或律师工作成果原则保护的通信的部分。\n\n在遵循且不放弃前述异议的前提下，PAX 指明带有以下 Bates 编号范围的文件：GSNY000001-000852、GSNY002829-002834；HKI–0001-0020；HR000001-000047；JANOVER000001-000110；LAMP000001-000052；SN0001-0442；以及 YW000001-000098；由债务人的房地产经纪人提供的文件；在 PAX 于英属维尔京群岛对债务人提起的待决诉讼中向债务人提供的文件；以及 Mei Guo（郭梅）、Yvette Wang（王雁）和 Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基）所作证言及庭审证言的笔录。\n\n文件请求第 5 项：\n\n与 GSNY 有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第 5 项的答复：\n\n在遵循且不放弃前述任何一般异议的前提下，PAX 对该请求提出异议，理由是其寻求已由债务人占有、保管或控制的文件。PAX 进一步对该请求提出异议，理由是其寻求由第三方占有、保管或控制的证据开示材料。PAX 进一步对该请求提出异议，限于其寻求受律师—客户特权和/或律师工作成果原则保护的通信的部分。PAX 进一步对该请求提出异议，理由是其范围过宽、负担过重，且与本案需要不成比例。\n\n在遵循且不放弃前述异议的前提下，经作出合理查询后，PAX 表示，除其在债务人作为当事人的证据开示中收到的信息外，其并无其他不受特权保护的非公开信息。\n\nPAX 进一步指明带有以下 Bates 编号范围的文件：GSNY000001-000852、GSNY002829-002834 和 YW000001-000098；由金融机构提供的文件，包括但不限于 Capital One, N.A.、Citibank, N.A.、Hancock Whitney Bank、HSBC Bank USA, N.A.、JPMorgan Chase、Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.（Bates 编号范围 SCH000001(a)-000086(a)）以及 Standard Chartered Bank（Bates 编号范围：IR6219-SCBNY000001-000018）；以及（i）GSNY 的公司指定代表的证言笔录，和（ii）Mei Guo（郭梅）在纽约诉讼中所作证言的笔录。\n\n文件请求第 6 项：\n\n与 PAX 认为或有理由认为与债务人或其任何家庭成员有关联的公司有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第 6 项的答复：\n\n在遵循且不放弃前述任何一般异议的前提下，PAX 对该请求提出异议，理由是其使用“认为”一词及“与债务人或其任何家庭成员有关联”一语，含糊且存在歧义。PAX 将该请求理解为寻求与 PAX 基于所获信息及其信念认定可能由债务人或其家庭成员拥有或控制，或债务人对其享有受益权益的公司有关的文件和通信。PAX 对该请求提出异议，理由是其寻求已由债务人占有、保管或控制的文件，包括此前从 PAX 档案中提供的文件。PAX 进一步对该请求提出异议，限于其寻求受律师—客户特权和/或律师工作成果原则保护的通信的部分。PAX 进一步对该请求提出异议，理由是其范围过宽、负担过重，且与本案需要不成比例。\n\n在遵循且不放弃前述异议的前提下，经作出合理查询后，PAX 表示，除其在债务人作为当事人的证据开示中收到的信息外，其并无其他不受特权保护的非公开信息。\n\nPAX 进一步指明以下文件：（i）带有 Bates 编号范围 HKI–0001-0020、LAMP000001-000052、SN0001-0442 的文件；（ii）由债务人的房地产经纪人提供的文件；以及（iii）由金融机构提供的文件，包括但不限于 Capital One, N.A.、Citibank, N.A.、Hancock Whitney Bank、HSBC Bank USA, N.A.、JPMorgan Chase、Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.（Bates 编号范围 SCH000001(a)-000086(a)）以及 Standard Chartered Bank（Bates 编号范围：IR6219-SCBNY000001-000018）。\n\n文件请求第 7 项：\n\n与债务人就 PRC（中华人民共和国）或 CCP（中国共产党）所作公开评论有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第 7 项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其寻求的文件和通信与PAX的驳回动议无关。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其在寻求受律师—当事人特权和/或律师工作成果原则保护的通信。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其使用的“public commentary（公开评论）”一语含糊不清且存在歧义。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX不会为回应此项请求而检索或提供文件。\n\n文件请求第8项：\n\n与PAX向债务人以外的各方追收2011 Loan Facility，或追收任何据称债务人曾就此签署个人担保的前身贷款有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第8项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其寻求的文件和通信与PAX的驳回动议无关。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其使用的“predecessor loan（前身贷款）”一语含糊不清且存在歧义。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其与本案所涉New York Action（纽约诉讼）的实体争议有关，而该等实体争议已获充分审理，故与本案无关。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX不会为回应此项请求而检索或提供文件。\n\n文件请求第9项：\n\n与PAX对其根据2011 Loan Facility及任何其他其声称债务人曾就此签署个人担保的贷款所收款项进行核算有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第9项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其寻求的文件和通信与PAX的驳回动议无关。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其仅寻求与本案所涉纽约诉讼的实体争议有关的文件和通信，而该等实体争议已获充分审理，故与本案无关。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX不会为回应此项请求而检索或提供文件。\n\n文件请求第10项：\n\n与任何第三方就2011 Loan Facility或所称2011 Personal Guarantee（2011年个人担保）进行的所有通信。\n\n对文件请求第10项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其寻求的文件和通信与PAX的驳回动议无关。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其仅寻求与本案所涉纽约诉讼的实体争议有关的文件和通信，而该等实体争议已获充分审理，故与本案无关。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX不会为回应此项请求而检索或提供文件。\n\n文件请求第11项：\n\n与任何银行或金融机构就债务人、GSNY或任何家庭成员所有、控制，或被认为由其所有、控制的任何账户进行的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第11项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其寻求的文件已由债务人占有、保管或控制。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其寻求由第三方占有、保管或控制的证据开示材料。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX不会为回应此项请求而检索或提供文件。\n\n在不放弃前述异议的前提下，PAX援引上文答复中列明的文件。\n\n文件请求第12项：\n\n与PAX执行该判决书的努力有关的所有文件和通信，包括但不限于PAX在提交破产申请前取得的所有基础证据开示材料。\n\n对文件请求第12项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其寻求的文件和通信与PAX的驳回动议无关。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其寻求由第三方占有、保管或控制的文件。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其寻求已由债务人占有、保管或控制的文件，例如New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的命令，其中Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）确认：“PAX [has] encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle.”（“由于Kwok（郭文贵）这名自称为数十亿美元富豪的人将其资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体之中并交由家庭成员持有，PAX在识别Kwok行使控制权的资产时遇到了困难。该安排使Kwok得以在生活奢华的情况下声称自己没有资产。”）（New York Action, Dkt. No. 1181 at 1）。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其在寻求受律师—当事人特权和/或律师工作成果原则保护的通信。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX不会为回应此项请求而检索或提供文件。\n\n文件请求第13项：\n\n与PAX针对中华人民共和国扣押的、据称由债务人所有的任何资产，就2011 Loan Facility行使其权利的努力有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第13项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其寻求的文件和通信与PAX的驳回动议无关。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其使用的“assets alleged to be owned（据称为所有的资产）”一语含糊不清且存在歧义。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其仅寻求与本案所涉纽约诉讼的实体争议有关的文件和通信，而该等实体争议已获充分审理，故与本案无关。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其寻求由第三方占有、保管或控制的文件。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其寻求已由债务人占有、保管或控制的文件。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX不会为回应此项请求而检索或提供文件。\n\n文件请求第14项：\n\n足以显示PAX就2011 Loan Facility、2011 Personal Guarantee以及任何据称债务人曾就此签署个人担保的前身贷款所支付和收取的全部款项的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第14项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其寻求的文件和通信与PAX的驳回动议无关。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其使用的“predecessor loans（前身贷款）”一语含糊不清且存在歧义。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其仅寻求与本案所涉纽约诉讼的实体争议有关的文件和通信，而该等实体争议已获充分审理，故与本案无关。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX不会为回应此项请求而检索或提供文件。\n\n文件请求第15项：\n\n与Lady May and Sherry Residence（Lady May和Sherry住宅）的估值有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第15项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其寻求已由债务人占有、保管或控制的文件，包括但不限于PAX、债务人、Melanie L. Cyganowski（梅拉妮·L.·赛加诺夫斯基，mcyganowski@otterbourg.com）及Sotheby's International Realty（苏富比国际地产，包括Serena Boardman，serena.boardman@sothebys.realty）之间的电子邮件通信。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其在寻求受律师—当事人特权和/或律师工作成果原则保护的通信。\n\n在不放弃前述异议的前提下，PAX称，除上段所提及的文件外，其没有其他回应此项请求的文件。\n\n文件请求第16项：\n\n与PAX以外各方对债务人持有或被认为持有的其他诉讼和/或请求权的估值有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第16项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，但限于其寻求受律师—当事人特权和/或律师工作成果原则保护的通信的范围。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其寻求的文件和通信与PAX的驳回动议无关。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其寻求可在公共记录中获得的文件。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其寻求已由债务人占有、保管或控制的文件。\n\n在不放弃前述异议的前提下，PAX称，除下段所提及的文件外，其没有其他回应此项请求的文件。\n\n文件请求第17项：\n\n与PAX认定为实际由债务人所有的全部资产有关的所有文件和通信。\n\n对文件请求第17项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，理由是其使用的“assets（资产）”一词及“actually owned by Debtor（实际由债务人所有）”一语含糊不清且存在歧义。PAX将该请求理解为寻求与财产、不动产、公司实体和账户有关的文件和通信；根据信息和信念，PAX已将该等财产、不动产、公司实体和账户认定为可能由债务人所有、控制或为债务人的利益而持有。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其寻求已由债务人占有、保管或控制的文件。PAX进一步反对此项请求，但限于其寻求受律师—当事人特权和/或律师工作成果原则保护的通信的范围。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其寻求可在公共记录中获得的文件。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其寻求由第三方占有、保管或控制的文件。PAX还反对此项请求，理由是其范围过宽、负担过重，且与案件需要不成比例。\n\n在不放弃前述异议的前提下，并经合理查询后，PAX称，除其在债务人作为当事方的证据开示中收到的信息外，其没有非特权、非公开信息。\n\n在不放弃前述异议的前提下，PAX列明PAX对债务人第一组书面质询的答复及异议中、对第1号书面质询的答复所列的资产。PAX还援引对文件请求第6项的答复中列明的文件。\n\n文件请求第18项：\n\n与该计划有关的所有通信，但与律师之间享有特权的通信除外。\n\n对文件请求第18项的答复：\n\nPAX反对此项请求，但限于其寻求受律师—当事人特权和/或律师工作成果原则保护的通信的范围。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其含糊不清、范围过宽、负担过重，且无法合理预期将导致发现可采纳证据。\n\n在不放弃前述异议的前提下，PAX同意就此项请求与债务人会面协商。\n\n文件请求第19项：\n\n与本Chapter 11 Case（第11章案件）有关的所有通信，但与律师之间享有特权的通信除外。\n\n对文件请求第19项的答复：\n\n在不放弃且不影响前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX反对此项请求，但限于其寻求受律师工作成果原则保护的通信的范围。PAX进一步反对此项请求，理由是其含糊不清、范围过宽、负担过重，且无法合理预期将导致发现可采纳证据。\n\n在不放弃前述异议的前提下，PAX同意就此项请求与债务人会面协商。\n\n日期：May 9, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut /s/ Patrick M. Birney____________\n\nROBINSON & COLE LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所） Patrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M·伯尼）（CT No. 19875） Annecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H·史密斯）（CT No. 31148） 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 电话：(860) 275-8275 传真：(860) 275-8299 电子邮箱：pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n以及\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥睿律师事务所）\n\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）（获准临时出庭） Stuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）（获准临时出庭） Times Square Tower Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 电话：(212) 326-2000 传真：(212) 326-2061 电子邮箱：pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 May 9, 2022，已通过电子邮件向下列各方送达上述文件副本：\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）的代理律师 William Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加） BROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所） 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 电话：(212) 209-4800 电子邮箱：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿\n\nPatrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M·伯尼）\n附件\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 对债务人依《联邦民事诉讼规则》30(B)(6)发出的证言录取通知所作的答复及异议\n\n根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第30条，并根据《联邦破产程序规则》第7030条适用，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）特此对债务人在上述标题所示破产案件中于 April 29, 2022 送达的、依《联邦民事诉讼规则》30(b)(6)提出的证言录取通知提出异议。\n\n一般性异议及权利保留\n\n1. PAX 对证言录取所指定的日期和地点提出异议。在不放弃本文件所载一般性异议及具体异议的前提下，PAX 将在双方一致同意的时间、日期和地点提供一名或多名30(b)(6)证人。\n\n2. PAX 作出本答复及异议时，无意且并不放弃任何权利；相反，PAX 明确保留并正在保留：\n\na. 在本案或任何其他诉讼的任何后续程序或听证中，就为答复该证言录取通知而提供的任何证言，提出真实性、基础、相关性、实质性、特权或证据可采性等一切问题的权利；\n\nb. 在本案或任何其他诉讼的任何后续程序或听证中，以任何理由反对使用或作为证据提交任何证言或文件的权利；以及\n\nc. 在任何时间，以任何理由反对涉及证言录取通知中确定的任何事项或与其标的事项相关的其他证言录取、文件出示请求或其他证据开示的权利。\n\n3. 本答复及异议仅为本案之目的而作出。各项答复均受制于关于保密性、相关性、实质性、适当性、可采性的一切异议，以及在证言录取通知的标的事项涉及对出庭作证证人的询问时，或在该证人作出本文件所载答复时，将要求排除本文件所载任何陈述的所有其他异议。所有该等异议及理由均予以保留，并可在今后任何时间提出，包括在审判时提出。\n\n4. PAX 对证言录取通知中的每一项拟议证言事项提出异议，凡该等事项要求提供受特权主张保护而不得披露的信息，包括但不限于律师—当事人特权、共同抗辩及共同利益特权，以及受工作成果保护的信息。任何受律师—当事人特权、工作成果原则或任何其他适用特权或披露保护所保护的信息被无意披露，均无意构成且不应被解释为对该等特权或保护的放弃。\n\n5. PAX 对证言录取通知中的每一项拟议证言事项提出异议，凡该等事项要求提供：(i) 债务人知悉、占有、保管或控制的信息，或者债务人具有同等或更优获取渠道的信息；(ii) 债务人可从公共记录中轻易获得的信息；或者 (iii) 债务人已占有、保管或控制的信息之识别。该等拟议证言事项超出了适用《联邦民事诉讼规则》及法律所规定的适当证据开示范围。\n\n- 2 -\n\n6. PAX 对证言录取通知中的每一项拟议证言事项提出异议，凡该等事项要求提供受宪法或法律隐私权保护而不得披露的信息，或以其他方式受适用法律或法令保护或享有特权的信息。\n\n7. PAX 对每一项拟议证言事项提出异议，凡该等事项要求披露商业秘密、专有信息及其他保密信息；商业敏感信息；或享有特权的财务及税务信息。\n\n8. PAX 对证言录取通知中的每一项拟议证言事项提出异议，凡合同或法律义务禁止披露该等信息。\n\n9. PAX 对该证言录取通知提出异议，理由是拟议询问类别未以任何具体性或明确性加以说明。\n\n具体异议\n事项第1项：\n\nPAX 为追收债务人据称已就其作出个人保证的任何所谓贷款（包括但不限于所谓的2011 Loan Facility）所作出的一切努力。\n\n对事项第1项的答复：\n\n在不放弃前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX 对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求与 PAX 的驳回 Chapter 11 案件动议，或备选地，部分加入 United States Trustee（美国受托人）请求作出命令指示任命 Chapter 11 受托人的动议（“驳回动议”）无关的信息。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 不会就该事项提供证人。\n\n事项第2项：\n\nPAX 与 Bruno Wu（吴征）、CCP（中国共产党）、PRC（中华人民共和国）以及前述任何主体的任何代理人之间的一切关联。\n\n对事项第2项的答复：\n\n在不放弃前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX 对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求与 PAX 的驳回动议无关的信息。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 不会就该事项提供证人。\n\n在不放弃前述任何异议的前提下，PAX 指明以下 PAX 雇员的证言录取笔录：Jon Lewis（乔恩·刘易斯）（Tr. at 176-78）、Ian Zheng（郑岩）（Tr. at 147-51）、Derek Crane（德里克·克兰）（Tr. at 77, 274-80）以及 Catherine Yang（凯瑟琳·杨）（Tr. 153-54）。\n\n事项第3项：\n\nPAX 主张由债务人拥有的所有资产〔原文如此〕及该等主张的依据。\n\n对事项第3项的答复：\n\n在不放弃前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX 特此纳入：(i) 其 May 9, 2022 对债务人第一份文件出示请求所作答复及异议中的文件请求第17项答复；以及 (ii) 其 May 9, 2022 对债务人第一组书面质询所作答复及异议中的书面质询第1项答复。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，凡其寻求开示受律师—当事人特权保护的信息。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求开示已由债务人占有、保管或控制的信息。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求开示由第三方占有、保管或控制的信息。PAX 进一步声明，其不拥有与该事项相关的非特权信息。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 不会就该事项提供证人。\n\n- 4 -\n\n事项第4项：\n\n除 PAX 以外的各方针对债务人主张的所有债权及该等债权的价值。\n\n对事项第4项的答复：\n\n在不放弃前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX 对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求与 PAX 的驳回动议无关的信息。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，凡其寻求开示受律师—当事人特权保护的信息。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求开示公共记录中可获得的信息。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求开示已由债务人占有、保管或控制的信息。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求开示由第三方占有、保管或控制的信息。PAX 进一步声明，其不拥有与该事项相关的非特权信息。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 不会就该事项提供证人。\n\n事项第5项：\n\nPAX 在驳回动议中作出的所有事实主张及指控。\n\n对事项第5项的答复：\n\n在不放弃前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX 对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求与 PAX 的驳回动议无关的文件和通信。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，凡其寻求开示受律师—当事人特权和／或律师工作成果原则保护的信息。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求开示已由债务人占有、保管或控制的信息。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求开示公共记录中可获得的信息。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求开示由第三方占有、保管或控制的信息。PAX 进一步声明，其不拥有与该事项相关的非特权信息。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 不会就该事项提供证人。\n\n事项第6项：\n\nPAX 向债务人出示的所有文件。\n\n对事项第6项的答复：\n\n在不放弃前述任何一般性异议的前提下，PAX 对该事项提出异议，理由是其寻求与 PAX 的驳回动议无关的证据开示。PAX 进一步对该事项提出异议，凡其寻求开示受律师—当事人特权和／或律师工作成果原则保护的信息。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 不会就该事项提供证人。\n\n在不放弃前述任何异议的前提下，PAX 指明以下 PAX 雇员的证言录取笔录：Jon Lewis、Derek Crane、Ian Zhang（张岩）及 Catherine Yang。\n\n日期：May 9, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut /s/ Patrick M. Birney＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿\n\nROBINSON & COLE LLP Patrick M. Birney（帕特里克·M·伯尼）（CT No. 19875） Annecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H·史密斯）（CT No. 31148） 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 电话：(860) 275-8275 传真：(860) 275-8299 电子邮箱：pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n以及\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\nPeter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）（获准临时出庭） Stuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）（获准临时出庭） Times Square Tower Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 电话：(212) 326-2000 传真：(212) 326-2061 电子邮箱：pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 May 9, 2022，已通过电子邮件向下列各方送达上述文件副本：\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）的代理律师 William Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加） BROWN RUDNICK LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 电话：(212) 209-4800 电子邮箱：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n/s/ Patrick M. Birney＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿\n\nPatrick M. Birney\n附件\n\n发件人：Aulet, Kenneth（肯尼斯·奥莱特）\n\n收件人：“Kaplan, Jonathan A.”（乔纳森·A·卡普兰）；Aaron A. Romney（阿伦·A·罗姆尼）\n抄送：Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞斯）；Baldiga, William R.（威廉·R·巴尔迪加）；Goldman, Irve J.（欧文·J·戈德曼）；Miltenberger, Timothy D.（蒂莫西·D·米尔滕伯格）；Axelrod, Tristan G.（特里斯坦·G·阿克塞尔罗德）；Jonas, Jeffrey L.（杰弗里·L·乔纳斯）；Silverberg, Bennett S.（贝内特·S·西尔弗伯格）；Rosen, Scott（斯科特·罗森）\n主题：回复：Kwok——周五的后续事项\n日期：Sunday, May 15, 2022 1:53:58 PM\n\nJonathan（乔纳森），\n\n请告知，就驳回动议而言，委员会（及个别提出异议的委员会成员）与 PAX 之间存在哪些事实争议（如有）。在不存在任何此类事实争议的情况下（且我们未发现任何争议），尚不清楚根据 Federal Rule 26(b)(1)，该取证所寻求的、与驳回动议相关的证据为何；该规则将取证限于“与任何一方当事人的请求或抗辩相关的事项”，亦不清楚为何任何取证均应继续进行。\n\n致意，\n\n-肯\n\nKenneth J. Aulet（肯尼斯·J·奥莱特） 合伙人 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所） Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 电话：212-209-4950 传真：212-938-2950 kaulet@brownrudnick.com\n\nwww.brownrudnick.com\n\nAaron，下午好：我就今天在 Manning 法官（Judge Manning）面前举行的听证会跟进联系；她敦促各方尝试解决 HK Delaware 就保护令动议提出的问题。我不确定您是否已联系 PAX 以解决其他任何问题，但请 Aaron，下午好：\n\n发件人：Kaplan, Jonathan A. <JKaplan@PULLCOM.COM>\n\n发送时间：Sunday, May 15, 2022 12:41 PM\n\n收件人：Aaron A. Romney <aromney@zeislaw.com>\n\n抄送：Stephen Kindseth <SKindseth@zeislaw.com>; Baldiga, William R.\n\n<WBaldiga@brownrudnick.com>; Goldman, Irve J. <igoldman@pullcom.com>; Miltenberger, Timothy D. <tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com>; Aulet, Kenneth <KAulet@brownrudnick.com>; Axelrod, Tristan G. <TAxelrod@brownrudnick.com>; Jonas, Jeffrey L. <JJonas@brownrudnick.com>; Silverberg, Bennett S. <BSilverberg@brownrudnick.com>; Rosen,Scott <SRosen@cbshealaw.com> 主题：Kwok——周五事项跟进\n\n注意：外部电子邮件。访问链接或附件时请谨慎。\n\n我就今天在 Manning 法官面前举行的听证会跟进联系；她敦促各方尝试解决 HK Delaware 就保护令动议提出的问题。我不确定您是否已联系 PAX 以解决其他任何问题，但如已联系，请告知我。\n\n关于委员会在其答复中提出的额外关切，我们认为一种可能的解决方式是，若 HK USA 和 GSNY 的律师同意代表某些个人接受送达，包括以其个人身份接受送达。这将包括 Qiang Guo（郭强）、Yvette Wang（王雁南）和 Mei Guo（郭美）（我相信贵所已经这样做过，但希望再次得到确认）。我们还需要 Greenwich Land, LLC 和/或 Hing Chi Ngok（邢智诺）确认同意代表她接受送达（如其另有律师，请告知我）。\n\n请告知您的想法。我也已抄送 GSNY 及债务人律师。\n\n谢谢\n\nJonathan A. Kaplan（乔纳森·A·卡普兰） 律师\n\nPullman & Comley LLC（普尔曼与康利有限责任律师事务所） 90 State House Square Hartford, CT 06103-3702 电话：860 424 4379 • 传真：860 424 4370 jkaplan@pullcom.com • www.pullcom.com\nV-card • 简介 • 路线\n\nBRIDGEPORT HARTFORD SPRINGFIELD STAMFORD WATERBURY WESTPORT WHITE PLAINS\n打印本信息前请考虑环境。\n\n本信息及其任何附件仅供指定收件人或该收件人的指定代理人使用，且可能包含保密或享有特权的信息。如您并非预定收件人，请：(1) 立即致电 (203) 330-2000，通知 Pullman & Comley 您已收到该信息；(2) 删除该信息及任何附件的所有副本；以及 (3) 不得传播或以任何方式使用其任何内容。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","CCP","Murray","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":344,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9892,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:08:52"}