{"id":"court_ctb_3752_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3752,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2024-10-09","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIN RE:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al.,\n\nChapter 11\n\n*Debtors*. [1](#page-0-0)  Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Jointly Administered) October 28, 2024\n\n# **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC'S MOTION TO QUASH AND OBJECTION TO THE TRUSTEE'S RULE 2004 EXAMINATION SUBPOENA**\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, as made applicable pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7045 and 9016, G Club Operations LLC (\"G Club\") hereby submits the following memorandum of law in support of its motion to quash and objection to the subpoena dated October 9, 2024 (the \"Subpoena\") that was served by Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") of the above-captioned debtors (collectively, the \"Debtors\") and issued pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b), Rule 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), Bankruptcy Rule 2004, and Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1. A copy of the Subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n# **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\nThe Subpoena should be quashed because it impermissibly: (a) seeks to take a deposition of a Puerto Rico entity in New York; (b) fails to provide G Club with adequate time to prepare for\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in the main Chapter 11 case are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok.\n\nany deposition; (c) violates the \"Pending Action Doctrine,\" as G Club has been sued in at least three (3) adversary proceedings (as described below) and is implicated in dozens of others; (d) the specific deposition topics exceed the scope of a permissible discovery even under the broad elements of Rule 2004, in that many of the topics are overbroad or vague; and (e) doesn't comply with D. Conn. L. R. Bankr. P. (the \"Local Rule\") 2004-1 regarding the scheduling of a 2004 examination. Therefore, the Court should quash the Subpoena.\n\n# **II. FACTS AND BACKGROUND**[2](#page-1-0)\n\n## **A. Factual Background**\n\nOn February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), Debtor Ho Won Kwok (\"Debtor\") filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Trustee filed more than 275 adversary proceedings related to the above-captioned case. Three of these adversary proceedings are against G Club: *Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC et al.*, Adv. Pro. 5:24-ap-05275 (the \"Omnibus Fraudulent Transfer AP\"); *Despins v. NGOK et al.*, Adv. Pro. 5:24-ap-05273 (the \"Civil RICO AP\"); and *Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd. et al.*, Adv. Pro. 5:24-ap-05249 (the \"Omnibus Alter Ego AP\") (collectively, the \"Adversary Proceedings\"). The Omnibus Fraudulent Transfer AP is stayed pending further order of the court. ECF No[.](#page-1-1)<sup>3</sup> 3163, ¶ 2(e)(i). On October 9, 2024, the Trustee moved to stay discover in all avoidance actions, which would include the Omnibus Fraudulent Transfer AP, until the court rules on a joint brief submitted by several other defendants. ECF No. 3659. Further, G Club has filed motions to dismiss that remain pending in the other two adversary proceedings, and discovery is not currently stayed in those two adversary proceedings. Civil RICO AP, ECF No. 80-81; Omnibus Alter Ego AP, ECF No. 82-83.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> G Club only sets forth facts specifically relevant to its Objection to the Subpoena.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> \"ECF No.\\_\\_\" shall reference the main bankruptcy case unless otherwise specified.\n\n# **B. The Present Discovery Dispute**\n\nOn October 9, 2024, the Trustee served G Club, a Puerto Rico limited liability company that has its principal place of business in Puerto Rico, with the Subpoena, seeking to take a Rule 2004 examination of G Club in Paul Hastings' office in New York, New York, on October 18, 2024.\n\nOn October 10, 2024, counsel for the parties communicated to attempt to resolve issues concerning the Subpoena. During this initial call, the undersigned advised counsel for the Trustee that G Club's representative, Andrew Childe, was unavailable to speak until October 17th. Thus, following the initial call, the Trustee agreed to extend the date of the deposition to October 25th . Additional discussions were had on October 21st and the parties have been engaged in efforts to reach a compromise concerning the Subpoena and the compliance date was further extended, as set forth below. Therefore, while the parties' efforts to resolve this dispute remain ongoing, counsel for the Trustee has requested this matter be resolved as soon as possible. However, given various scheduling issues G Club proposes the following schedule for adjudication, should they be unable to resolve this matter:\n\n- The Trustee shall file his opposition to the Motion on or before November 1, 2024;\n- A hearing on the Motion shall be held on November 6, 2024,[4](#page-2-0) or as the Court may so otherwise order; and\n- If the Motion is denied, a representative(s) of G Club shall be deposed on November 20, 2024.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> The undersigned is unavailable for a hearing on November 5, 2024, as he will be in a mediation with the Honorable James Siciilan in the matter of *Fiano v. 425 Hartford Turnpike Associates, LLP, Case No. TTD-CV24- 6029505-S* (J.D. of Tolland at Rockville).\n\n# **III. LAW AND ARGUMENT**\n\n## **A. Rule 2004 Examinations Generally**\n\nThe scope of an examination permitted by Rule 2004 \"may relate only to the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the bankruptcy estate, or to the debtor's right to a discharge.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b); *In re Enron Corp.*, 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002). \"On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3)(a). \"The party seeking to conduct a 2004 examination has the burden of showing good cause for the examination which it seeks.\" *In re Millennium Lab Holdings, LLC*, 562 B.R. 614, 627 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016).\n\nFurther, \"Rule 2004 examinations… may not be used for the purposes of abuse or harassment, and cannot stray into matters not relevant to the basic inquiry.\" *In re Orion Healthcorp, Inc.*, 596 B.R. 228, 235 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019)) (quotations omitted).Moreover, courts consistently acknowledge that \"[i]t is clear that Rule 2004 may not be used as a device to launch into a wholesale investigation of a non-debtor's private business affairs.\" *In re Kearney*, 590 B.R. 913, 921 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2018), *quoting Matter of Wilcher*, 56 B.R. 428, 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985) (collecting cases).\n\n# **B. The Subpoena is Facially Improper as it Seeks a Deposition in New York and G Club is Domiciled in Puerto Rico**\n\n\"A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or (B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person (i) is a party or a party's officer; or (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (c)(1), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(c) and 9016; *see also Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. KBC Bank N.V.,* 337 F. Supp. 3d 274, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (acknowledging that entities that reside in Belgium or other foreign jurisdictions \"fall outside of this Court's subpoena power and thus cannot be compelled to give evidence in this case\"). \"[T]he test for determining 'residence' . . . turns on 'whether [the individual] has a significant connection with some locality in the State as a result of living there for some length of time during the course of the year.'\" *In re Yukos Hydrocarbons Invs. Ltd.*, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121268, at \\*14 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009), *quoting Antone v. General Motors Corp.*, 64 N.Y.2d 20, 30, 473 N.E.2d 742, 484 N.Y.S.2d 514 (1984).\n\nHere, the Subpoena calls for a G Club designee to attend an in-person deposition in New York City. G Club is a Puerto Rico LLC that has its principal place of business in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and its agents reside outside the United States. G Club has no offices or places of business in New York and does not reside or regularly transact business in person within New York, much less within 100 miles of Paul Hastings' office in New York City. Compelling G Club to attend a Rule 2004 deposition in New York would require a representative of G Club to undertake the substantial time, expense, and burden of traveling overseas to New York, which is the precise burden that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (c)(1) is designed to prevent. Having elected to issue a facially defective Subpoena, the Court should quash it.\n\n# **C. The Pending Proceeding Doctrine Prohibits this 2004 Examination**\n\n\"The well recognized rule is that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced, discovery is made pursuant to the Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 et seq., rather than by a Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 examination.\" *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996); *see also In re 2435 Plainfield Ave., Inc.,* 223 B.R. 440, 455 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1998) (\"The majority of courts that have addressed this issue have prohibited a Rule 2004 exam of parties involved in or affected by an adversary proceeding while it is pending.\") (collecting cases). [5](#page-5-0) This rule is rooted in the courts' \"concern that Rule 2004 examinations not be used as a tactic to circumvent the safeguards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\" *In re Enron Corp.*, 281 B.R. at 841.\n\nHere, the Subpoena seeks information directly related to the Adversary Proceedings against G Club. The Adversary Proceedings allege that G Club is an alter ego of Debtor and part of a Debtor's complex \"shell game.\" Omnibus Fraudulent Transfer AP, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3, 42; Civil RICO AP, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 8, 143; Omnibus Alter Ego AP, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 51, 74. The Omnibus Alter Ego AP alleges that G Club's financial and legal affairs were delegated to Debtor's New York based employees. Omnibus Alter Ego AP, ECF No. 1, ¶ 90. The information sought in the Subpoena—related to the management and governance of G Club, the business it has engaged in, the source of its legal funds, and those with the ability to direct its litigation—is directly related to the topics that are at issue in the Adversary Proceedings. As such, the Trustee cannot use a Rule 2004 examination to get around the procedural safeguards of discovery in those Adversary\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> This rule is often referred to as the pending proceeding rule. *See, e.g.*, 9 Collier on Bankruptcy P 2004.01 (16th 2024) (\"The courts have developed an exception to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, the 'pending proceeding rule.' If an adversary proceeding or a contested matter is pending, then the parties to that proceeding or matter may no longer utilize the liberal provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 2004\") (footnotes omitted); *In re MF Glob. Inc.*, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 129, at \\*4-5 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2013) (\"[T]he so-called 'pending proceeding rule' does not permit Rule 2004 examinations when proceedings are pending in another forum.\").\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 7 of 18\n\nProceedings. *See In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 29-30 (holding 2004 examination \"would unavoidably and unintentionally create a back door through which the Trustee could circumvent the limitations of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 et seq.\" in part because it was difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether and to what extent information obtained from a Rule 2004 examination would not be related to the subject matter of the adversary proceeding when the adversary proceeding alleged a \"financial superweb\").\n\nThe application of the pending proceeding doctrine is particularly appropriate here where G Club has moved to dismiss the Adversary Proceedings directly against it, and discovery should be stayed in any claim related to G Club. Here, the Trustee is trying to get discovery on the very issue before the Court in those matters—whether G Club is somehow an alter ego of Mr. Kwok without using the proper discovery methods or abiding by Rule 26. The Subpoena should, thus, be quashed.\n\n## **D. The Subpoena Seeks Information Beyond the Scope of Rule 2004**\n\nThough Rule 2004 examinations are broad, they are not limitless. They cannot be used to perform a wholesale forensic investigation into a non-debtor's affairs. Indeed, they must be proportional and appropriately tailored. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(c); *see also* Local Rule 2004-1(a) (\"Proportionality considerations apply to a request for the production of documents or electronically stored information in connection with a FRBP 2004 examination.\").\n\nThe designated topics are overbroad, vague, and disproportionate to any reasonable discovery. As such, the court should quash the subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3)(a)(i). Indeed, Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) mandates that G Club's representative be afforded sufficient time to prepare for any deposition. As the examination was noticed to a representative of G Club, it is incumbent on that representative to prepare for the examination. Given the broad\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 8 of 18\n\nscope of the Subpoena, such compliance is impossible. Thus, the requirements of Rule 30(b)(6) apply concerning designation of a corporate official to testify. Rule 30(b)(6) is designed to prevent organizations from \"sandbagging\" opponents at trial by making a \"half-hearted inquiry\" into matters before depositions \"but a thorough and vigorous one before trial.\" *Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Tyco Int'l Ltd.*, 253 F.R.D. 524, 526 (C.D. Cal. 2008). It permits a party to notice a company's deposition without specifically naming the individual to be deposed; instead setting forth with \"reasonable particularity\" the matters on which the examination is requested so the company can designate one or more individuals to testify. *Id.* \"With regard to choosing a deponent to speak on behalf of [the company], [the company] \"ha[s]a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to prepare them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter.\" *Sprint Commc'n Co., L.P. v. Theglobe.com.,* 236 F.R.D. 524, 527 (D. Kan. 2006). Thus, [e]ven if the . . . review of [voluminous] documents would be burdensome, the deponents are still required to review them in order to prepare themselves to be deposed.\" *Leland Stanford,* 253 F.R.D. at 526.\n\nThe standard for assessing the propriety of a topic designation is whether the designating party will be confused by the topics, which should not be an \"overlong or ambiguously worded lists of matters.\" 2020 Advisory Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Plaintiff's obligation, therefore, is to set forth topics with \"reasonable particularity.\" *Janko Enterprises* v. *Long John Silver's, Inc.*, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185334, at \\*28 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 2, 2014) (rejecting \"painstaking specificity\" standard for topic designation and analyzing cases nationally).[6](#page-7-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> \"To require a party to designate Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics with 'painstaking specificity' under these circumstances would be entirely unrealistic. The requirement for 'reasonable particularity,' as well as being expressly set forth in the Rule, fully takes into account such litigation obstacles. It would be highly ironic for the Court, given the history of this lawsuit, to impose the *McBride* standard of painstaking specificity on Janko given its ongoing efforts\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 9 of 18\n\n\"Rule 30(b)(6) requires that parties confer about the topics for examination either before the notice of deposition is sent or promptly after it is sent. This requirement was added effective December 1, 2020 'to avoid 'overlong or ambiguously worded lists of matters for examination and inadequately prepared witnesses.'\" *Handley v. Werner Enters., Inc.*, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17585, at \\*6-7, (M.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2022), *quoting Nevilles v. Waffle House*, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147957, at \\*4 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 5, 2021), *quoting* Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and 2020 Amendment Advisory Committee Notes. Rule 30(b)(6), and the Advisory Committee Notes, require the meet and confer to occur \"promptly.\"\n\nHere, G Club has met this burden to collaborate with the Trustee's counsel to address the Subpoena and topics included. The parties' counsel spoke initially on October 11, 2024, within days of the subpoena being issued and the undersigned counsel for G Club, Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esq., advised counsel for the Trustee of the issues set forth within this memorandum *and* that G Club's agent, Adrew Childe, was on vacation returning October 17, 2024. Further, on October 21, 2024, after conferring with his client's representative, the undersigned emailed counsel for the Trustee further explaining G Club's opposition to the Subpoena and setting forth certain alternatives. A further conversation between the undersigned and the Trustee's counsel occurred later on October 21st and some progress was made toward a compromise, however, no agreement was reached. The parties have continued discussing this matter, by telephone and email, in the interim and will continue to do so.\n\nRegardless, the topics set forth in the Subpoena are extraordinarily broad and will require extensive preparation by Mr. Childe, the only person who can testify on behalf of G Club. That preparation requires more than one week, let alone a few days. The deposition topics are overly\n\nto obtain full and complete discovery from a party that Janko might well argue is painstakingly resisting such discovery efforts.\" *Id.*\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 10 of 18\n\nbroad, vague, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and far exceed the scope of Rule 2004. They are not limited to seeking information about the Debtors in a reasonable and proportional manner. *See* Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a); *see also* Local Rule 2004-1(a).\n\nBy way of specific objections to the designated topics G Club submits:\n\n1. *\"Corporate governance of G Club Operations LLC (including any parent of affiliated entities with respect thereto, 'G Club').\"* Exhibit A, ¶ 1. This topic is not limited by any time frame and seeks information on the governance of any entity so much as affiliated with G Club, which has nothing to do with Debtors or the administration of the bankruptcy estate. It is not limited to time and the term \"affiliate\" is not defined. As such, this topic is overbroad and irrelevant. For example, is the Trustee seeking information on Mr. Childe's tenure at G Club or with respect to the entire history of corporate governance of G Club? If the latter, more research and time would clearly be needed.\n\n2. *\"The identities of any individuals and entities involved in the management, oversight, and governance of G Club, now or in the past, directly or indirectly, and the sources of their authority. To the extent that any such individuals and entities have ceased such involvement, the reasons that such involvement ceased.\"* Exhibit A, ¶ 2. This topic is not confined to any timeframe and is overbroad and vague because it requests information on anyone that might have ever indirectly had an effect on G Club's management, oversight, or governance. Additionally, G Club's governance does not concern Debtors or the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Further, this topic requests the sources of any such authority, and thus, is a disguised document request that is not appropriate for a 2004 examination. Lastly, the concept of \"indirect\" corporate governance is unclear, and the research required to prepare for this topic has no proportional relationship to any use by the Trustee.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 11 of 18\n\n3. *\"The identities of any individuals who have directed or who have the ability or authority to direct litigation, including, without limitation, G Club's participation in the Debtor's chapter 11 case and related adversary proceedings and its compliance with court orders.\"* Exhibit A, ¶ 3. This topic is not limited by any timeframe and is overbroad, vague, and irrelevant. It does not seek information regarding the Debtors or the administration of the bankruptcy estate, but seeks information related to the Adversary Proceedings and is barred by the pending action doctrine. The person who ran the operations of G Club in the past goes directly to the heart of the issue of alter ego. Further, such information relates to attorney-client matters that are privileged and beyond the scope of the Rule 2004 examination.\n\n4. *\"The sources of any funds used to pay G Club's legal fees and expenses.\"* Exhibit A, ¶ 4. This information is not general knowledge and, moreover, is not relevant to Debtors or to any matter which may affect the administration of the bankruptcy estate. *See* Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b). This topic does not relate to the bankruptcy proceedings, but directly relates to the Adversary Proceedings against G Club to the extent that the Trustee is attempting to ascertain whether Mr. Kwok is somehow underwriting G Club, despite sitting in a jail cell.\n\n5. *\"Information sufficient to understand G Club's current operational status, including, without limitation, any business it has engaged in during the last year.\"* Exhibit A, ¶ 5. This topic does not specify a timeframe or clarify how much information would be sufficient. As such, this topic essentially seeks all information related to all of G Club's operations and business engagements ever. As such, this request is overly broad, vague, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome and not capable of preparation.\n\n# **E. The Trustee Has Not Complied with Local Rule 2004-1**\n\nLocal Rule 2004-1 requires that a process be following *before* issuing a Rule 2004 examination subpoena. Local Rule 2004-1(b). Here, the Trustee served the Subpoena without following Local Rule 2004-1.[7](#page-11-0) Therefore, the Subpoena should be quashed.\n\n# **IV. CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL**\n\nOn October 18 and 21, 2024, and by email thereafter, the undersigned communicated with the Trustee's counsel to attempt to resolve this matter but was unable to do so. On October 18, 2024, the Trustee's counsel agreed to extend the date of compliance with the Subpoena to October 25, 2024, and on October 23, 2024, the Trustee's counsel agreed to extend compliance to November 20, 2024. Given the efforts of counsel to confer in good faith, G Club believes this matter is properly before the Court.\n\n# **V. CONCLUSION**\n\nFor foregoing reasons, G Club respectfully requests that the court sustain its objection, quash the Subpoena, and grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.\n\n> Respectfully submitted, G CLUB OPERATIONS, LLC\n\nBy: /s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky GREEN & SKLARZ LLC One Audubon St, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Tel: 203-285-8545 jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>7</sup> The Trustee may argue that he obtained Court permission to take a 2004 examination of G Club some time ago. However, that motion was filed months ago and requested the production of documents. Further, all matters related to that motion and subpoena have been addressed either by voluntary compliance or by compliance after Court order. Local Rule 2004-1 does not contemplate a perpetual right of a Trustee to issue 2004 examination subpoenas.\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served by CMECF on the partiesin-interest set forth on the service list. Parties-in-interest may access this document by way of CMECF.\n\nDate: October 28, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz\n\n# EXHIBIT A\n\n#### B2540 (Form 2540 – Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination) (12/15) Case 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 15 of\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 18\n\n**District of Connecticut**\n\nIn re HO WAN KWOK, *et al*.[,](#page-14-0)\n\n<sup>1</sup> Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor Chapter 11\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nDATE AND TIME\n\n**October 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.**\n\n# **SUBPOENA FOR RULE 2004 EXAMINATION**\n\nTo: **G Club Operations LLC**\n\n(*Name of person to whom the subpoena is directed*)\n\n*Testimony:* **YOU ARE COMMANDED** to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at an examination under Rule 2004, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. A copy of the court order authorizing the examination is attached.\n\nPLACE Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n### **Please see attached Schedule A pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)**\n\nThe examination will be recorded by this method: Court reporter/Stenographer\n\n*Production:* You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the examination the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:\n\nThe following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and 45(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.\n\nDate: **October 9, 2024**\n\nCLERK OF COURT\n\nOR\n\n*Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney's signature*\n\nThe name, address, email address, and telephone number of the attorney representing Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:\n\n**Patrick R. Linsey, Esq.; Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.; 195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, Connecticut 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com; (203) 781-2847**\n\n### **Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena**\n\nIf this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or the inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of this subpoena must be served on each party before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).\n\n<span id=\"page-14-0\"></span>Software Copyright (c) 1996-2022 Best Case, LLC - www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3752-1<br>Filed 10/28/24<br>Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35<br>Page 16 of<br>B2540 (Form 2540 – Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination) (12/15) (Page 2)                                                            |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 18<br>PROOF OF SERVICE<br>(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)                                                                                                             |\n| I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any):<br>on (date)                                                                                                                                              |\n| I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:                                                                                                                                                     |\n| on (date)<br>; or                                                                                                                                                                                                              |\n| I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:                                                                                                                                                                                    |\n| Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness the fees for<br>one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of \\$ |\n| My fees are \\$<br>for travel and \\$<br>for services, for a total of \\$                                                                                                                                                         |\n| I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true and correct.<br>Date:                                                                                                                                         |\n| Server's signature                                                                                                                                                                                                             |\n| Printed name and title                                                                                                                                                                                                         |\n\n*Server's address*\n\nAdditional information concerning attempted service, etc.:\n\n## **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Rule 9016, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure)**\n\n#### **(c) Place of compliance.**\n\n*(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition.* A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:\n\n(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or\n\n(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person\n\n(i) is a party or a party's officer; or\n\n(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.\n\n*(2) For Other Discovery.* A subpoena may command:\n\n(A) production of documents, or electronically stored information, or things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and\n\n(B) inspection of premises, at the premises to be inspected.\n\n#### **(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.**\n\n*(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.* A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\n\n#### *(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.*\n\n*(A) Appearance Not Required.* A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.\n\n*(B) Objections.* A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:\n\n(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.\n\n(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.\n\n#### *(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.*\n\n*(A) When Required.* On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:\n\n(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;\n\n(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);\n\n(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or\n\n(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.\n\n*(B) When Permitted.* To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:\n\n(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or\n\n(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.\n\n(C) *Specifying Conditions as an Alternative.* In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:\n\n(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and\n\n(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.\n\n#### **(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.**\n\n*(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.* These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:\n\n*(A) Documents.* A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.\n\n*(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.* If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.\n\n*(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form.* The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.\n\n*(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information.* The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.\n\n#### *(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.*\n\n*(A) Information Withheld.* A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:\n\n(i) expressly make the claim; and\n\n(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.\n\n*(B) Information Produced.* If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.\n\n**(g) Contempt.** The court for the district where compliance is required – and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court – may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.\n\nFor access to subpoena materials, see Fed.R.Civ.P.45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n…\n\n## **SCHEDULE A**\n\nPursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Chapter 11 Trustee hereby designates the topics set forth below for Your deposition and You shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on Your behalf, who shall testify about information known or reasonably available to You. You shall confer in good faith with the Chapter 11 Trustee prior to Your deposition about these matters.\n\n# **Definitions and Rules of Construction**\n\nThis Subpoena adopts the Definitions and Rules of Construction appended to the Rule 2004 Subpoena served on You dated December 6, 2022.\n\n# **Deposition Topics**\n\n1. Corporate governance of G Club Operations LLC (including any parent or affiliated entities with respect thereto, \"G Club\").\n\n2. The identities of any individuals and entities involved in the management, oversight, and governance of G Club, now or in the past, directly or indirectly, and the sources of their authority. To the extent that any such individuals and entities have ceased such involvement, the reasons that such involvement ceased.\n\n3. The identities of any individuals who have directed or who have the ability or authority to direct litigation, including, without limitation, G Club's participation in the Debtor's chapter 11 case and related adversary proceedings and its compliance with court orders.\n\n4. The sources of any funds used to pay G Club's legal fees and expenses.\n\n5. Information sufficient to understand G Club's current operational status, including, without limitation, any business it has engaged in during the last year.","body_zh":"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\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n第 11 章\n\n债务人。[1]  案号 22-50073 (JAM)（合并管理）2024 年 10 月 28 日\nG CLUB OPERATIONS LLC（G Club Operations 有限责任公司）支持其撤销动议及反对受托人依据规则 2004 提出的审查传票的法律备忘录\n\n依据经由 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7045 和 9016 适用的 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45，G Club Operations LLC（“G Club”）谨提交以下法律备忘录，以支持其撤销动议及反对日期为 2024 年 10 月 9 日的传票（“传票”）。该传票由 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯潘斯）以本案标题所载债务人（统称“债务人”）第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）的身份送达，并依据 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b)、《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第 9016 条、破产规则第 2004 条及当地破产规则第 2004-1 条签发。传票副本作为附件 A 附于本备忘录之后。\n\nI. 引言\n\n该传票应予撤销，因为其不当：(a) 试图在纽约对一家波多黎各实体进行证言录取；(b) 未给予 G Club 充足时间准备\n\n1 主第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团受托人。\n\n任何证言录取；(c) 违反“未决诉讼原则”，因为 G Club 已在至少三（3）项对抗程序（如下所述）中被起诉，并牵涉于数十项其他程序；(d) 即使依照规则 2004 的宽泛要素，具体证言录取事项亦超出可允许取证的范围，因为许多事项范围过宽或含糊不清；以及 (e) 不符合 D. Conn. L. R. Bankr. P.（“当地规则”）第 2004-1 条关于安排 2004 审查的规定。因此，法院应撤销该传票。\n\nII. 事实与背景[2]\n\nA. 事实背景\n\n2022 年 2 月 15 日（“申请日”），债务人 Ho Won Kwok（“债务人”）根据《破产法》第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请。受托人就本案标题所载案件提起了逾 275 项对抗程序。其中三项对抗程序针对 G Club：Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC et al., Adv. Pro. 5:24-ap-05275（“综合欺诈性转让对抗程序”）；Despins v. NGOK et al., Adv. Pro. 5:24-ap-05273（“民事 RICO 对抗程序”）；以及 Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd. et al., Adv. Pro. 5:24-ap-05249（“综合另我对抗程序”）（统称“对抗程序”）。综合欺诈性转让对抗程序已中止，等待法院进一步命令。ECF No[.]3 3163, ¶ 2(e)(i)。2024 年 10 月 9 日，受托人申请中止所有撤销诉讼中的取证，该等诉讼将包括综合欺诈性转让对抗程序，直至法院就数名其他被告提交的联合书面陈述作出裁定。ECF No. 3659。此外，G Club 已在另外两项对抗程序中提出尚待裁决的驳回动议，目前该两项对抗程序中的取证未被中止。Civil RICO AP, ECF No. 80-81; Omnibus Alter Ego AP, ECF No. 82-83。\n\n2 G Club 仅陈述与其反对传票相关的事实。\n\n3 除非另有说明，“ECF No.____”系指主破产案件。\n\nB. 当前取证争议\n\n2024 年 10 月 9 日，受托人向 G Club 送达传票。G Club 是一家主要营业地位于波多黎各的波多黎各有限责任公司。传票要求于 2024 年 10 月 18 日在位于纽约州纽约市的 Paul Hastings 办公室对 G Club 进行规则 2004 审查。\n\n2024 年 10 月 10 日，双方律师进行了沟通，试图解决有关传票的问题。在此次初步通话中，以下签署人告知受托人律师，G Club 的代表 Andrew Childe（安德鲁·柴尔德）在 10 月 17 日之前无法交谈。因此，在初步通话后，受托人同意将证言录取日期延至 10 月 25 日。双方于 10 月 21 日进行了进一步讨论，并一直努力就传票达成妥协；如下所述，履行日期亦被进一步延长。因此，尽管双方解决该争议的努力仍在进行中，受托人律师已要求尽快解决该事项。然而，鉴于各种日程安排问题，若双方无法解决该事项，G Club 提出如下裁决时间表：\n\n受托人应于 2024 年 11 月 1 日或之前提交对该动议的反对意见；\n\n应于 2024 年 11 月 6 日举行该动议的听证会，[4] 或由法院另行命令；以及\n\n如该动议被驳回，应于 2024 年 11 月 20 日对 G Club 的一名或多名代表进行证言录取。\n\n4 以下签署人无法于 2024 年 11 月 5 日参加听证会，因为其将与 Honorable James Siciilan（尊敬的詹姆斯·西西兰法官）就 Fiano v. 425 Hartford Turnpike Associates, LLP, Case No. TTD-CV24- 6029505-S (J.D. of Tolland at Rockville) 一案进行调解。\n\nIII. 法律与论证\n\nA. 一般而言，规则 2004 审查\n\n规则 2004 所允许的审查范围“仅可涉及债务人的行为、举止或财产，或者债务人的负债及财务状况，或者可能影响破产财团管理的任何事项，或者债务人获得免责的权利。”Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b); In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)。“经及时动议，要求履行的地区之法院必须撤销或修改符合以下情形的传票：(i) 未给予合理的履行时间；(ii) 要求某人在规则 45(c) 规定的地理界限之外履行；(iii) 要求披露享有特权或以其他方式受保护的事项，且不存在适用的例外或放弃；或 (iv) 使某人承受不当负担。”Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3)(a)。“寻求进行 2004 审查的一方负有证明其所寻求审查具有正当理由的责任。”In re Millennium Lab Holdings, LLC, 562 B.R. 614, 627 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)。\n\n此外，“规则 2004 审查……不得用于滥用或骚扰之目的，也不得偏离与基本调查无关的事项。”In re Orion Healthcorp, Inc., 596 B.R. 228, 235 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019))（引文略）。而且，法院一贯承认，“显然，不得将规则 2004 用作对非债务人私人商业事务展开全面调查的工具。”In re Kearney, 590 B.R. 913, 921 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2018), quoting Matter of Wilcher, 56 B.R. 428, 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985)（汇集案例）。\n\nB. 该传票表面不当，因其寻求在纽约进行证言录取，而 G Club 的住所地在波多黎各\n\n“传票仅可按如下方式命令某人出席审判、听证会或证言录取：(A) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自从事业务之地点 100 英里以内；或 (B) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自从事业务之州内，前提是该人 (i) 是当事人或当事人的高级职员；或 (ii) 被命令出席审判且不会产生重大费用。”Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (c)(1), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(c) and 9016; see also Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. KBC Bank N.V., 337 F. Supp. 3d 274, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)（承认居住在比利时或其他外国司法管辖区的实体“超出本法院传票权力范围，因而不能被强制在本案中提供证据”）。“确定‘住所’的检验……取决于‘[该个人]是否因在一年期间居住于该州内某地一段时间，而与该州内某一地点具有重大联系。’”In re Yukos Hydrocarbons Invs. Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121268, at \\*14 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009), quoting Antone v. General Motors Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 20, 30, 473 N.E.2d 742, 484 N.Y.S.2d 514 (1984)。\n\n在本案中，传票要求一名 G Club 指定代表在纽约市亲自参加证言录取。G Club 是一家波多黎各有限责任公司，其主要营业地位于波多黎各圣胡安，其代理人居住于美国境外。G Club 在纽约没有办公室或营业场所，亦不在纽约州内居住或经常亲自从事业务，更不用说在纽约市 Paul Hastings 办公室 100 英里以内。强制 G Club 在纽约参加规则 2004 证言录取，将要求 G Club 的代表承受赴纽约进行海外旅行所需的大量时间、费用及负担，而这正是 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (c)(1) 旨在防止的负担。受托人既已选择签发一份表面有瑕疵的传票，法院应将其撤销。\n\nC. 未决程序原则禁止本次 2004 审查\n\n“广为认可的规则是，一旦对抗程序或争议事项已经启动，取证应依照 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 et seq. 进行，而非通过 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 审查进行。”In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996); see also In re 2435 Plainfield Ave., Inc., 223 B.R. 440, 455 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1998)（“处理过此问题的大多数法院，在对抗程序尚待审理期间，禁止对参与或受该对抗程序影响的当事人进行规则 2004 审查。”）（汇集案例）。[5] 该规则根植于法院的“担忧，即不得将规则 2004 审查用作规避《联邦民事诉讼规则》保障措施的策略。”In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. at 841。\n\n在本案中，传票寻求与针对 G Club 的对抗程序直接相关的信息。对抗程序指称，G Club 是债务人的另我，并且是债务人复杂“空壳游戏”的一部分。Omnibus Fraudulent Transfer AP, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3, 42; Civil RICO AP, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 8, 143; Omnibus Alter Ego AP, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 51, 74。综合另我对抗程序指称，G Club 的财务及法律事务被委托给债务人设于纽约的雇员。Omnibus Alter Ego AP, ECF No. 1, ¶ 90。传票所寻求的信息——涉及 G Club 的管理和治理、其从事的业务、其合法资金的来源，以及有能力指挥其诉讼的人员——与对抗程序中争议的事项直接相关。因此，受托人不得利用规则 2004 审查来规避该等对抗程序中取证的程序保障。\n\n5 该规则通常称为未决程序规则。See, e.g., 9 Collier on Bankruptcy P 2004.01 (16th 2024)（“法院已发展出对破产规则 2004 的一项例外，即‘未决程序规则’。如对抗程序或争议事项尚待审理，则该程序或事项的当事人不再能够利用破产规则 2004 的宽松规定”）（脚注略）；In re MF Glob. Inc., 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 129, at \\*4-5 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2013)（“所谓‘未决程序规则’不允许在另一审理机构有程序尚待审理时进行规则 2004 审查。”）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 7 of 18\n\n程序。参见 In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.（贝内特融资集团公司案）, 203 B.R. 24, 29-30（认定 2004 审查“将不可避免且非故意地形成一条后门，使受托人得以借此规避 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 et seq. 的限制”），部分原因在于，当对抗程序指称存在一个“金融超级网络”时，难以（即使并非不可能）确定根据 Rule 2004 审查所取得的信息是否以及在何种程度上与该对抗程序的争议事项无关。\n\n在此处适用待决程序原则尤为适当，因为 G Club 已动议驳回直接针对其的对抗程序，且与 G Club 相关的任何请求中的证据开示均应中止。在本案中，受托人正试图在未采用适当的证据开示方法或遵守 Rule 26 的情况下，就该等事项中提交法院审理的核心问题取得证据开示——即 G Club 是否以某种方式成为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生的另我。因此，应撤销该传票。\n\nD. 该传票所要求的信息超出 Rule 2004 的范围\n\n尽管 Rule 2004 审查范围广泛，但并非毫无限制。其不得被用于对非债务人的事务进行全面的法务调查。事实上，其必须符合比例原则并作出适当限定。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(c); 另见 Local Rule 2004-1(a)（“与 FRBP 2004 审查相关的文件或电子存储信息提交请求，适用比例原则考量。”）。\n\n指定的主题范围过宽、含糊不清，并且与任何合理的证据开示不成比例。因此，法院应根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3)(a)(i) 撤销该传票。事实上，Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 要求给予 G Club 的代表充分时间准备任何证言录取。由于该审查的通知是向 G Club 的一名代表发出的，因此该代表负有准备该审查的责任。鉴于该传票的宽泛\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 8 of 18\n\n范围，遵守该要求是不可能的。因此，Rule 30(b)(6) 中关于指定公司官员作证的要求适用。Rule 30(b)(6) 的设计目的，是防止组织在审判时通过在证言录取前对相关事项进行“敷衍调查”，而在审判前进行“彻底且积极的调查”，从而对对手“突然袭击”。Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Tyco Int'l Ltd., 253 F.R.D. 524, 526 (C.D. Cal. 2008)。该规则允许一方通知对公司进行证言录取，而无需具体指明被讯问的个人；相反，只需以“合理的具体性”列明请求审查的事项，以便公司指定一名或多名个人作证。Id. “关于选择代表[公司]作证的证人，[公司]‘有义务作出认真、善意的努力，指定了解情况的人员参加 Rule 30(b)(6) 证言录取，并使其做好准备，以充分且不回避地回答有关指定主题的问题。’” Sprint Commc'n Co., L.P. v. Theglobe.com., 236 F.R.D. 524, 527 (D. Kan. 2006)。因此，“即使审阅[大量]文件会造成负担，证人仍须审阅这些文件，以便为接受证言录取作准备。” Leland Stanford, 253 F.R.D. at 526。\n\n评估主题指定是否适当的标准，是指定方是否会因该等主题而感到困惑；该等主题不应构成“过长或措辞含糊的审查事项清单”。2020 Advisory Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30。因此，原告的义务是以“合理的具体性”列明主题。Janko Enterprises v. Long John Silver's, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185334, at *28 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 2, 2014)（驳回主题指定的“煞费苦心的具体性”标准，并对全国案例进行分析）。[6]\n\n6 “在此等情形下，要求一方以‘煞费苦心的具体性’指定 Rule 30(b)(6) 证言录取主题，将完全不切实际。‘合理的具体性’要求不仅在该规则中有明确规定，而且充分考虑到了此类诉讼障碍。鉴于本案的诉讼历史，若法院将 McBride 的煞费苦心具体性标准施加于 Janko 身上，将极具讽刺意味，因为 Janko 正在持续努力\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 9 of 18\n\n“Rule 30(b)(6) 要求各方在发送证言录取通知之前，或在发送后立即，就审查主题进行协商。该要求自 2020 年 12 月 1 日起生效，旨在避免‘过长或措辞含糊的审查事项清单以及准备不充分的证人。’” Handley v. Werner Enters., Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17585, at *6-7, (M.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2022), quoting Nevilles v. Waffle House, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147957, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 5, 2021), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and 2020 Amendment Advisory Committee Notes。Rule 30(b)(6) 及咨询委员会说明要求协商“立即”进行。\n\n在本案中，G Club 已履行与受托人律师合作处理该传票及所列主题的义务。双方律师于 2024 年 10 月 11 日初步交谈，即在传票签发后的数日内；G Club 的下列签署律师 Jeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）律师告知受托人律师本备忘录所载问题，并告知 G Club 的代理人 Adrew Childe（安德鲁·柴尔德）正在休假，将于 2024 年 10 月 17 日返回。此外，2024 年 10 月 21 日，在与其客户代表协商后，下列签署律师向受托人律师发送电子邮件，进一步说明 G Club 对该传票的反对意见，并提出若干替代方案。下列签署律师与受托人律师于 10 月 21 日晚些时候进一步交谈，并在达成妥协方面取得了一些进展，但未达成协议。双方在此期间持续通过电话和电子邮件讨论此事，并将继续如此。\n\n无论如何，传票所列主题范围极为宽泛，将要求 Childe 先生——唯一能够代表 G Club 作证的人——进行大量准备。该准备需要的不仅是一周时间，更不用说数日时间。证言录取主题过于\n\n为从一方当事人取得完整、全面的证据开示，而 Janko 很可能会主张该方正煞费苦心地抵制此类证据开示努力。” Id.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 10 of 18\n\n宽泛、含糊、无关、造成不当负担，并且远远超出 Rule 2004 的范围。其并未以合理且符合比例原则的方式限于寻求有关债务人的信息。参见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a); 另见 Local Rule 2004-1(a)。\n\n就指定主题提出的具体异议，G Club 陈述如下：\n\n1. “G Club Operations LLC（G Club Operations有限责任公司）（包括就此而言的任何母公司或关联实体，‘G Club’）的公司治理。” Exhibit A, ¶ 1。该主题不受任何时间范围限制，并寻求有关任何与 G Club 具有关联关系实体的治理信息，该等信息与债务人或破产财产管理毫无关系。其未受时间限制，且“关联方”一词未作定义。因此，该主题范围过宽且无关。例如，受托人是在寻求有关 Childe 先生在 G Club 任职期间的信息，还是有关 G Club 公司治理全部历史的信息？若为后者，显然需要更多研究和时间。\n\n2. “目前或过去直接或间接参与 G Club 管理、监督和治理的任何个人及实体的身份，以及其权限来源。在任何该等个人及实体已不再参与的范围内，其停止参与的原因。” Exhibit A, ¶ 2。该主题未限定任何时间范围，并且范围过宽、含糊不清，因为其要求提供任何曾可能间接影响 G Club 管理、监督或治理之人的信息。此外，G Club 的治理与债务人或破产财产管理无关。进一步而言，该主题要求提供任何该等权限的来源，因此是一项伪装成 2004 审查要求的不适当文件请求。最后，“间接”公司治理的概念并不明确，为准备该主题所需的研究与受托人的任何使用之间不存在符合比例原则的关系。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3752-1 Filed 10/28/24 Entered 10/28/24 11:42:35 Page 11 of 18\n\n3. “曾指挥或有能力或权限指挥诉讼的任何个人的身份，包括但不限于 G Club 参与债务人 chapter 11 案件及相关对抗程序，以及其遵守法院命令的情况。” Exhibit A, ¶ 3。该主题不受任何时间范围限制，且范围过宽、含糊且无关。其并非寻求有关债务人或破产财产管理的信息，而是寻求与对抗程序有关的信息，并受待决诉讼原则所禁止。过去负责 G Club 运营的人直接触及另我问题的核心。此外，该等信息涉及受特权保护的律师—客户事项，并超出 Rule 2004 审查的范围。\n\n4. “用于支付 G Club 法律费用和开支的任何资金来源。” Exhibit A, ¶ 4。该信息并非普遍知悉的信息，而且与债务人或任何可能影响破产财产管理的事项无关。参见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)。该主题与破产程序无关，而是直接涉及针对 G Club 的对抗程序，因为受托人试图查明 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生是否以某种方式为 G Club 提供资金支持，尽管其身处监狱牢房。\n\n5. “足以了解 G Club 当前运营状况的信息，包括但不限于其在过去一年中从事的任何业务。” Exhibit A, ¶ 5。该主题未具体说明时间范围，也未澄清何种程度的信息才属充分。因此，该主题实质上寻求与 G Club 曾经开展的全部运营和业务活动有关的所有信息。因此，该请求范围过宽、含糊、无关、造成不当负担，且无法作出准备。\n\nE. 受托人未遵守 Local Rule 2004-1\n\nLocal Rule 2004-1 要求在签发 Rule 2004 审查传票前遵循一项程序。Local Rule 2004-1(b)。本案中，受托人未遵循 Local Rule 2004-1 即送达了该传票。[7] 因此，应撤销该传票。\n\nIV. 律师证明\n\n2024 年 10 月 18 日及 21 日，以及其后通过电子邮件，下列签署律师与受托人律师沟通，试图解决此事，但未能解决。2024 年 10 月 18 日，受托人律师同意将该传票的遵从日期延长至 2024 年 10 月 25 日；2024 年 10 月 23 日，受托人律师同意将遵从日期延长至 2024 年 11 月 20 日。鉴于律师为善意协商所作的努力，G Club 认为此事已适当地提交法院审理。\n\nV. 结论\n\n基于前述理由，G Club 谨请求法院支持其异议，撤销该传票，并给予法院认为适当的其他救济。\n\n谨此提交，G CLUB OPERATIONS, LLC（G Club Operations有限责任公司）\n\n签署人：/s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz\nJeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）\nKellianne Baranowsky（凯莉安娜·巴拉诺夫斯基）\nGREEN & SKLARZ LLC\nOne Audubon St, 3rd Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n电话：203-285-8545\njsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com\nkbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n7 受托人可能会主张，其于一段时间以前已获得法院许可，对 G Club 进行第 2004 条审查。然而，该动议数月前提出，并请求提交文件。此外，与该动议及传票有关的所有事项，均已通过自愿遵从或根据法院命令遵从而得到处理。当地规则 2004-1 并未设想受托人享有发出第 2004 条审查传票的永久性权利。\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，前述文件副本已通过 CMECF 向送达清单中列明的利害关系方送达。利害关系方可通过 CMECF 查阅本文件。\n\n日期：October 28, 2024                                     /s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）\n\n附件 A\n\nB2540（表格 2540——第 2004 条审查传票）（12/15）案号 22-50073 文件 3752-1 于 10/28/24 提交 于 10/28/24 11:42:35 登记 第 15 页，共\n\n美国破产法院\n\n康涅狄格州地区\n\n关于 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n1 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人                                         第 11 章\n\n（合并管理）\n\n日期和时间\n\nOctober 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.\n\n第 2004 条审查传票\n\n致：G Club Operations LLC（G Club 运营有限责任公司）\n\n（传票所指向人员的姓名）\n\n证言：兹命令你在下文规定的时间、日期和地点出席，并依《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条接受审查并作证。随附准许该审查的法院命令副本。\n\n地点：Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n请参见根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 附上的附件 A。\n\n审查将通过以下方式记录：法庭记录员/速记员\n\n提交：你或你的代表还必须在审查时携带下列文件、电子存储信息或物品，并必须准许对该等材料进行查验、复制、测试或抽样：\n\n下列 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 的规定，依 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016 适用于破产案件，现随附于后——关于履行地点的第 45(c) 条；关于对作为传票对象之人员的保护的第 45(d) 条；以及关于你对本传票的答复义务及未履行该义务可能后果的第 45(e) 条和第 45(g) 条。\n\n日期：October 9, 2024\n\n法院书记员\n\n或\n\n书记员或副书记员签名                         律师签名\n\n代表第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）发出或请求发出本传票的律师之姓名、地址、电子邮件地址及电话号码如下：\n\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.（帕特里克·R·林赛，律师）；Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思专业公司）；195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, Connecticut 06510；plinsey@npmlaw.com；(203) 781-2847\n\n致发出或请求发出本传票之人员的通知\n\n如本传票命令在审判前提交文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或查验场所，则必须在向传票所指向人员送达之前，向各方送达通知及本传票副本。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4)。\n\n软件版权 (c) 1996-2022 Best Case, LLC（最佳案例有限责任公司）- www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy 1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰内弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰内弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n案号 22-50073\n\n文件 3752-1\n\n于 10/28/24 提交\n\n于 10/28/24 11:42:35 登记\n\n第 16 页，共\n\nB2540（表格 2540——第 2004 条审查传票）（12/15）（第 2 页）\n\n送达证明\n\n（除非 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 要求，否则本部分不应向法院提交。）\n\n本人于（日期）收到向（个人姓名及职务，如有）发出的本传票：\n\n本人已按如下方式向被指名人员送达传票副本：\n\n于（日期）\n\n；或\n\n本人未执行送达即退回传票，原因如下：\n\n除非本传票系代表美国或其官员或代理人发出，本人还已向证人支付一天出席费用及法律允许的里程费，金额为 \\$\n\n本人的费用为 \\$\n\n旅行费用为 \\$，服务费用为 \\$，合计为 \\$\n\n本人根据伪证处罚规定声明，该等信息真实且正确。\n\n日期：\n\n送达人签名\n\n正楷姓名及职务\n\n送达人地址\n\n有关尝试送达等事项的补充信息：\n\n《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45(c)、(d)、(e) 及 (g) 条（Effective 12/1/13）（依《联邦破产程序规则》第 9016 条适用于破产案件）\n\n(c) 履行地点。\n\n(1) 审判、听证或证言录取。传票仅可按以下方式命令人员出席审判、听证或证言录取：\n\n(A) 在该人员居住、受雇或经常亲自从事商业活动地点 100 英里范围内；或\n\n(B) 在该人员居住、受雇或经常亲自从事商业活动所在州内，如该人员\n\n(i) 为当事人或当事人的高级人员；或\n\n(ii) 被命令出席审判，且不会产生重大费用。\n\n(2) 其他证据开示。传票可以命令：\n\n(A) 在该人员居住、受雇或经常亲自从事商业活动地点 100 英里范围内的地点提交文件、电子存储信息或物品；以及\n\n(B) 在待查验场所对该场所进行查验。\n\n(d) 对作为传票对象之人员的保护；执行。\n\n(1) 避免不当负担或费用；制裁。负责发出及送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，避免对作为传票对象之人员施加不当负担或费用。要求履行的地区法院必须执行该义务，并对未遵守者，即当事人或律师，施加适当制裁，包括损失的收入及合理的律师费。\n\n(2) 命令提交材料或准许查验。\n\n(A) 无须出席。被命令提交文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或准许查验场所的人员，无须亲自前往提交或查验地点，除非其同时被命令出席证言录取、听证或审判。\n\n(B) 异议。被命令提交文件或有形物品，或准许查验的人员，可以向传票中指定的当事人或律师送达书面异议，反对查验、复制、测试或抽样任何或全部材料，反对查验场所，或者反对以所要求的一种或多种形式提交电子存储信息。异议必须在规定履行时间届满前或传票送达后 14 日内（二者以较早者为准）送达。如提出异议，适用下列规则：\n\n(i) 送达方可随时在通知被命令人员后，向要求履行的地区法院提出动议，请求作出强制提交或查验的命令。\n\n(ii) 仅可依命令指示要求实施该等行为，且该命令必须保护并非当事人或当事人高级人员的人员，使其免于承担因履行而产生的重大费用。\n\n(3) 撤销或修改传票。\n\n(A) 必须撤销或修改的情形。经及时提出动议，要求履行的地区法院必须撤销或修改具有下列情形的传票：\n\n(i) 未给予合理履行时间；\n\n(ii) 要求人员在第 45(c) 条规定的地域限制以外履行；\n\n(iii) 在不存在适用例外或豁免的情况下，要求披露享有特权或受其他保护的事项；或\n\n(iv) 对人员施加不当负担。\n\n(B) 可以撤销或修改的情形。为保护作为传票对象或受传票影响的人员，要求履行的地区法院可以依动议撤销或修改要求下列事项的传票：\n\n(i) 披露商业秘密或其他保密的研究、开发或商业信息；或\n\n(ii) 披露未受聘专家的意见或信息，该等意见或信息未描述争议中的具体事件，且源于并非应当事人请求进行的专家研究。\n\n(C) 以规定条件作为替代方案。在第 45(d)(3)(B) 条所述情形下，如送达方：\n\n(i) 证明其对证言或材料具有实质性需要，且若不承受不当困难即无法以其他方式满足该需要；并且\n\n(ii) 确保被传唤人员将获得合理补偿，\n\n法院可以不撤销或修改传票，而命令在规定条件下出席或提交。\n\n(e) 答复传票的义务。\n\n(1) 提交文件或电子存储信息。下列程序适用于提交文件或电子存储信息：\n\n(A) 文件。答复要求提交文件的传票的人员，必须按照文件在日常业务过程中保存的方式提交，或必须整理并标示文件，使其与请求中所列类别相对应。\n\n(B) 未规定电子存储信息的提交形式。如传票未规定提交电子存储信息的形式，答复人员必须以其通常保存的一种或多种形式，或以合理可用的一种或多种形式提交。\n\n(C) 电子存储信息仅须以一种形式提交。答复人员无须以多于一种形式提交相同的电子存储信息。\n\n(D) 无法访问的电子存储信息。对于答复人员认定因不当负担或费用而无法合理访问的来源中的电子存储信息，答复人员无须提供证据开示。在提出强制证据开示动议或保护令动议时，答复人员必须证明该信息因不当负担或费用而无法合理访问。如作出该证明，法院仍可在请求方考虑到第 26(b)(2)(C) 条的限制而证明具有正当理由时，命令对该等来源进行证据开示。法院可以为该证据开示规定条件。\n\n(2) 主张特权或保护。\n\n(A) 扣留的信息。以信息享有特权或作为审判准备材料受保护为由扣留被传唤信息的人员必须：\n\n(i) 明确提出该主张；以及\n\n(ii) 以在不披露本身享有特权或受保护的信息的情况下，足以使各方评估该主张的方式，描述被扣留的文件、通信或有形物品的性质。\n\n(B) 已提交的信息。如为答复传票而提交的信息被主张享有特权或作为审判准备材料受保护，提出主张的人员可以将该主张及其依据通知收到该信息的任何当事人。收到通知后，当事人必须立即返还、隔离或销毁所指定的信息及其持有的任何副本；在该主张得到解决前不得使用或披露该信息；如该当事人在收到通知前已披露该信息，必须采取合理措施追回该信息；并可立即将该信息密封提交至要求履行的地区法院，以裁定该主张。提交该信息的人员必须在该主张得到解决前保存该信息。\n\n(g) 藐视法庭。要求履行的地区法院——以及在动议移送后，发出传票的法院——可以对已被送达但无充分理由不遵守传票或与之相关命令的人员，以藐视法庭论处。\n\n有关获取传票材料的信息，参见 Fed.R.Civ.P.45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n……\n\n附件 A\n\n英语\n\n根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 30(b)(6) 条，第 11 章受托人特此指定下列事项供贵方接受证言录取，且贵方应指定一名或多名高级职员、董事或管理代理人，或指定其他同意代表贵方作证的人员，就贵方已知或经合理查明可获得的信息作证。贵方应在接受证言录取前，就这些事项与第 11 章受托人进行善意协商。\n\n定义和解释规则\n\n本传票采用随附于日期为 December 6, 2022、向贵方送达的 Rule 2004 传票的《定义和解释规则》。\n\n证言录取事项\n\n1. G Club Operations LLC（G Club Operations 有限责任公司）（包括就此而言的任何母公司或关联实体，统称为“G Club”）的公司治理。\n\n2. 目前或过去直接或间接参与 G Club 管理、监督和治理的任何个人及实体的身份，以及其权限来源。在任何该等个人及实体已不再参与该等事项的范围内，其停止参与的原因。\n\n3. 曾指示或具有能力或权限指示诉讼的任何个人的身份，包括但不限于 G Club 参与债务人第 11 章案件及相关对抗程序，以及其遵守法院命令的事项。\n\n4. 用于支付 G Club 律师费及开支的任何资金的来源。\n\n5. 足以了解 G Club 当前运营状况的信息，包括但不限于其在过去一年中从事的任何业务。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","RICO","Despins","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":80,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":82,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3659,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":6079,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-10-09 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-10-09","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:25:28"}