{"id":"court_ctb_4006_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4006,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-01-24","title":"LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP Michael T. Conway, Esq. 747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (9","summary_zh":"调查取证异议书 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #4006（2025-01-24立案）。Wang's Realty Management Service Inc. 与 River Valley Operations LLC 提交异议，反对受托人依据《破产程序规则》第 2004 条开展调查取证的第十八次补充综合动议。异议方主张受托人已对其提起对抗性诉讼且诉讼已被中止，不得借第 2004 条规避联邦民事诉讼规则的取证限制。","summary_en":"Objection — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / Ho Wan Kwok), CTB 22-50073 ECF #4006 (filed 2025-01-24). Wang's Realty Management Service Inc. and River Valley Operations LLC filed an objection to the Trustee's 18th Supplemental Omnibus Motion for Rule 2004 Discovery. The movants argue that because the Trustee has already commenced an adversary proceeding against them which is currently stayed, Rule 2004 cannot be used to circumvent standard civil discovery rules.","body_en":"LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP Michael T. Conway, Esq. 747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (917) 242-1597 [mconway@lpgmlaw.com](mailto:mconway@lpgmlaw.com)\n\n*Counsel for Wang's Realty Management Service Inc. And River Valley Operations LLC*\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n## IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT\n\nIn re: Chapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor. (Jointly Administered)\n\n# **OBJECTION TO EIGHTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 AND LOCAL RULE 2004-1 AUTHORIZING DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL RELEVANT BANKS, ADDITIONAL ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH DEBTOR, AND PAYROLL PROCESSING ENTITY**\n\nWang's Realty Management Service Inc. (\"WRMS\") River Valley Operations LLC (\"RVO\") (collectively, \"Movants\"), by and through the undersigned counsel, object to the Trustee's *EIGHTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 AND LOCAL RULE 2004-1 AUTHORIZING DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL RELEVANT BANKS, ADDITIONAL ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH DEBTOR, AND PAYROLL PROCESSING ENTITY* (the \"Motion\")*.* In support of their Objection, the Movants respectfully allege as follows:\n\n#### **Background**\n\n1. On February 15, 2024, the Trustee commenced an Adversary Proceeding against Movants, bearing Adv. Pro. No. 243-05248 (JAM), seeking avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers, and post-petition transfers and related relief pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 544, 548, 549 and 550 and New York debtor and creditor law sections 273, 274, and 276 (the \"Adversary Proceeding\").\n\n2. Pursuant to Orders entered by this Court, discovery in the Adversary Proceeding has been stayed.\n\n#### **Basis for Objection**\n\n3. As indicated in the Motion, the Trustee now seeks to serve 2004 Subpoenas on multiple parties, including WPMC, as well as the principal of WPMC and related entities, seeking discovery related to transfers to or from RVO. As this Court is aware, this sort of parallel discovery is highly inappropriate in the Second Circuit (and in all other circuits).\n\n4. Indeed, there is a well-recognized rule that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter is commenced, discovery should be pursued under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not Rule 2004. *See e.g., In re Cambridge Analytica LLC*, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019); *In re Bennett Funding*, 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996).\n\n5. The Court should not authorize the Trustee to conduct Rule 2004 discovery from or concerning the parties to the Adversary, as that would allow her a \"back door\" through which he could circumvent the oversight and procedural protections he is otherwise afforded in the Adversary. *See In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 203 B.R. at 30.\n\n6. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004(a) allows the court, upon motion of any party in interest or upon an ex-parte basis, to order the examination of any entity. The examination \"may relate only\n\n2\n\nto the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any other matter which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate, or to the debtor's right to discharge.\" Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004(b). Third parties are also subject to examination under this rule if they possess knowledge of the debtor's acts, conduct or financial affairs which relate to the bankruptcy proceeding. *In re Dinubilo*, 177 B.R. 932, 940 (E.D.Cal.1993); *In re Ecam Publications, Inc.,* 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1991). The scope of this examination is admittedly \"unfettered and broad\" (*see In re GHR Energy Corp*., 33 B.R. 451, 453 (Bankr.D.Mass.1983)), and indeed is commonly recognized as more in the nature of a \"fishing expedition.\" *In re Wilcher*, 56 B.R. 428, 433 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1985). The purpose of such a broad discovery tool is to assist the trustee in revealing the nature and extent of the estate, and to discover assets of the debtor which may have been intentionally or unintentionally concealed. *In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.*, 123 B.R. 702, 708 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1991. It is properly used as a pre-litigation device to determine whether there are grounds to bring an action to determine a debtor's right to discharge or the dischargeability of a particular debt. *Sweetland v. Szadkowski (In re Szadkowski)*, 198 B.R. 140, 141 (Bankr.D.Md.1996).\n\n7. While Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004 is the basic discovery device used in bankruptcy cases (*see In re French*, 145 B.R. 991, 992 (Bankr.D.S.D.1992)), its application is not without bounds. As Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004 is meant to give the inquiring party broad power to investigate the estate, it does not provide the procedural safeguards offered by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026. *In re Bakalis*, 199 B.R. 443, 447–48 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1996); *Dinubilo*, 177 B.R. at 939. For example, under a Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004 examination, a witness has no general right to representation by counsel, and the right to object to immaterial or improper questions is limited. *Dinubilo*, 177 B.R. at 939–40; *French*, 145 B.R. at 992; *see also GHR Energy*, 33 B.R. at 454.\n\n8. 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. *Intercontinental Enters., Inc. v. Keller (In re Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc.)*, 127 B.R. 267, 274 (D.Colo.1991); *see also In re Bakalis*, 199 B.R. 443, 447–48 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1996) (same). In addition, courts are wary of attempts to utilize Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004 to avoid the restrictions of the Fed.R.Civ.P. in the context of adversary proceedings. *Blinder, Robinson*, 127 B.R. at 274.\n\n9. Discovery of evidence related to the pending proceeding must be accomplished in accord with more restrictive provisions of Fed.R.Bankr.P. *See Szadkowski*, 198 B.R. at 142.\n\n10. Given that the discovery sought as a consequence of the Motion is directly related to the issues in the Adversary Proceeding, including a request that at least one of the defendants to the Adversary Proceeding be the subject of a 2004 Subpoena, it should be denied.\n\nDated: January 24, 2025 New York, New York\n\n## LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP\n\nBy: /s/ Michael T. Conway Michael T. Conway Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP 747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (917) 242-1597 [mconway@lpgmlaw.com](mailto:mconway@lpgmlaw.com)\n\n*Counsel for Wang's Realty Management Service Inc. and River Valley Operations LLC*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4006 Filed 01/24/25 Entered 01/24/25 17:51:20 Page 5 of 5\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned certifies that on January 24, 2025, a copy of the foregoing document was served on all parties of record via CM/ECF.\n\nDated: January 24, 2025\n\nBy: //s/ Michael T. Conway Michael T. Conway","body_zh":"LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP（拉扎尔·波特·贾科瓦斯与莫伊尔有限责任合伙律师事务所） Michael T. Conway（迈克尔·T·康威）律师 747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 电话：(917) 242-1597 [mconway@lpgmlaw.com]\n\nWang's Realty Management Service Inc.（王氏房地产管理服务公司）及 River Valley Operations LLC（河谷运营有限责任公司）之代理律师\n\n________________________________________\n\n________________________________________\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。（合并审理）\n对第 11 章破产受托人根据《破产程序规则》第 2004 条及《本地规则》第 2004-1 条申请作出命令准予就其他相关银行、与债务人相关的其他实体和个人以及薪酬处理实体开展证据开示之第十八次补充综合动议的异议\n\nWang's Realty Management Service Inc.（“WRMS”）与 River Valley Operations LLC（“RVO”）（合称“异议申请人”）通过下述签字律师，对受托人的《第 11 章破产受托人根据〈破产程序规则〉第 2004 条及〈本地规则〉第 2004-1 条申请作出命令准予就其他相关银行、与债务人相关的其他实体和个人以及薪酬处理实体开展证据开示之第十八次补充综合动议》（简称“该动议”）提出异议。为支持其异议，异议申请人谨陈述如下：\n背景\n\n1. 2024年2月15日，受托人针对异议申请人提起了对抗性诉讼，案号为 Adv. Pro. No. 243-05248 (JAM)，依据《破产法典》第 544、548、549 和 550 条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273、274 和 276 条寻求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及破产申请后转让，并寻求相关救济（简称“该对抗性诉讼”）。\n\n2. 根据本法院作出的各项命令，该对抗性诉讼中的证据开示已被中止。\n异议理由\n\n3. 如该动议所述，受托人现寻求向多方当事人送达 2004 传票，包括 WPMC，以及 WPMC 及其关联实体的主要负责人，以寻求与进出 RVO 的转让相关的证据开示。正如本法院所知，此类平行证据开示在 Second Circuit（第二巡回区）（以及在所有其他巡回区）是极不适当的。\n\n4. 事实上，存在一项公认的规则：一旦对抗性诉讼或争议事项已经启动，证据开示应当依据适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行，而非依据第 2004 条规则。参见如 In re Cambridge Analytica LLC, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019); In re Bennett Funding, 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)。\n\n5. 法院不应准许受托人依据第 2004 条规则从该对抗性诉讼的当事方获取或就该等当事方开展证据开示，因为这将为其提供一个“后门”，使其得以规避本应在该对抗性诉讼中享有的监督和程序性保护。参见 In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. at 30。\n\n6. Fed.R.Bankr.P.（《联邦破产程序规则》）第 2004(a) 条允许法院根据任何利害关系方的动议或单方申请，命令对任何实体进行询问。该询问“仅可涉及债务人的作为、行为或财产，或涉及债务人的债务和财务状况，或涉及可能影响债务人财产管理之任何其他事项，或涉及债务人获得免责之权利”。Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004(b)。如果第三方知晓与破产程序相关的债务人的作为、行为或财务状况，其依据本条规则同样须接受询问。In re Dinubilo, 177 B.R. 932, 940 (E.D.Cal.1993); In re Ecam Publications, Inc., 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1991)。无可否认，该询问的范围是“不受约束且广泛的”（参见 In re GHR Energy Corp., 33 B.R. 451, 453 (Bankr.D.Mass.1983)），并且事实上通常被公认为更具有“摸底侦查”的性质。In re Wilcher, 56 B.R. 428, 433 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1985)。这种广泛的证据开示工具的目的是协助受托人查明破产财产的性质与范围，并发现可能被故意或非故意隐匿的债务人资产。In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 123 B.R. 702, 708 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1991)。其作为诉前手段，被正当地用于确定是否存在提起诉讼以裁定债务人免责权利或特定债务可免责性的理由。Sweetland v. Szadkowski (In re Szadkowski), 198 B.R. 140, 141 (Bankr.D.Md.1996)。\n\n7. 虽然 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004 是破产案件中使用的基本证据开示工具（参见 In re French, 145 B.R. 991, 992 (Bankr.D.S.D.1992)），但其适用并非毫无边界。由于 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004 旨在赋予调查方调查破产财产的广泛权力，它并未提供 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 所提供的程序性保障。In re Bakalis, 199 B.R. 443, 447–48 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1996); Dinubilo, 177 B.R. at 939。例如，在依据 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004 进行的询问中，证人一般无权获得律师代理，且对不相关或不当问题提出异议的权利受到限制。Dinubilo, 177 B.R. at 939–40; French, 145 B.R. at 992; 亦见 GHR Energy, 33 B.R. at 454。\n\n8. 公认的规则是，一旦对抗性诉讼或争议事项已经启动，证据开示应依据 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 等规则进行，而非通过 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004 询问进行。Intercontinental Enters., Inc. v. Keller (In re Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc.), 127 B.R. 267, 274 (D.Colo.1991); 亦见 In re Bakalis, 199 B.R. 443, 447–48 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1996)（同旨）。此外，法院对在对抗性诉讼背景下企图利用 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2004 规避 Fed.R.Civ.P.（《联邦民事诉讼规则》）限制的行为保持警惕。Blinder, Robinson, 127 B.R. at 274。\n\n9. 与未决诉讼相关的证据开示必须依据限制更为严格的 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 规定完成。参见 Szadkowski, 198 B.R. at 142。\n\n10. 鉴于因该动议所寻求的证据开示与该对抗性诉讼中的争议焦点直接相关，包括要求将该对抗性诉讼的至少一名被告列为 2004 传票的对象，该动议应当予以驳回。\n\n日期：2025年1月24日 纽约州纽约市\nLAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ Michael T. Conway Michael T. Conway Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP 747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 电话：(917) 242-1597 [mconway@lpgmlaw.com]\n\nWang's Realty Management Service Inc. 及 River Valley Operations LLC 之代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4006 Filed 01/24/25 Entered 01/24/25 17:51:20 Page 5 of 5\n送达证书\n\n下述签字人特此证明，于2025年1月24日，已通过 CM/ECF 系统向所有在案记录的当事方送达了前述文件的一份副本。\n\n日期：2025年1月24日\n\n签署人：//s/ Michael T. Conway Michael T. Conway","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1073,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-01-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-01-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:44:17"}