{"id":"court_ctb_404_19","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":404,"sub_number":19,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 19 April 30, 2021 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 837","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 19**\n\nApril 30, 2021 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 837\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: TRIAL TERM PART 61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff, INDEX NO. - against - 652077/17 KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK Ho, aka GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 60 Centre Street New York, New York April 30, 2021 MICROSOFT TEAMS BEFORE: HONORABLE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, Justice APPEARANCES: O'MELVENEY & MYERS LLP Attorneys for the Plaintiff 7 Times Square New York, New York 10046 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. STUART ARANOFF, ESQ. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Miles Kwok 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ.\n\n> Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter PAX-19\n\n| 1 | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | YANKWITT
LLP |\n| 3 | Attorneys
for
Movant
Yvette
Wang
140
Grand
Street
-
Suite
705
White
Plains,
New
York
10601 |\n| 4 | BY:
DANIEL
S.
ATLER,
ESQ. |\n| 5 | LAWALL
&
MITCHELL
LLC |\n| 6 | Attorneys
for
Defendant
Genever
162
East
64th
Street |\n| 7 | New
York,
New
York
10065
BY:
AARON
A.
MITCHELL,
ESQ. |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | Bonnie
Piccirillo
Official
Court
Reporter |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | Bonnie
Piccirillo
-
Official
Court
Reporter |\n\n3\n\nProceedings\n\n1\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. We have Ms. Wang's motion to quash the judgment creditor's subpoena. So, let me hear the movant. MR. ALTER: Thank you, your Honor. May it please the Court, my name is Daniel Alter of the Yankwitt Firm and I'm representing Ms. Wang, as you noted. I'd like to start if I may first with a preliminary matter.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Apparently, in opposition to our motion, PAX, the judgment creditor, has filed documents under seal and this would appear to be in violation of your Honor's Rule 31. We have not had access to those documents. I can't access them off the docket. I haven't seen those documents, and we object to their filing, so I would ask that the Court strike them from the record of this motion and that's my preliminary request.\n\n18 19 20 Your Honor, if I may continue, I would like to get directly to the nub of the argument because I think this boils down to some very straightforward principles.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter The cases are very protective of non-parties' financial information that are sought in connection with judgment enforcement subpoenas. You have the Carlyle and the Stern cases in the First Department that make that clear. But, it's not even enough that a person is close to\n\n4\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 5 of\n\n26\n\n## Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 the judgment creditor to get passed that wall. The Spruce Interiors case, which was decided by the Supreme Court, New York County, reiterated that principal that being close to the judgment debtor is not enough of a rationale to require response to a subpoena; but, nevertheless, required the recipient of the subpoena, the third parties, to produce financial documents because the subpoenaing party had established a factual basis that superseded the general rule.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 And the factual basis there was that the creditor had established that the third party had actually received transfers from the debtor into its personal bank accounts; and on that basis, they allowed -- the court allowed the subpoenas to stand.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 Your Honor, the question here is whether PAX has established sufficient grounds to allow it to access Ms. Wang's personal financial and other information through a very broad-sweeping subpoena that it served upon banks, law firms and I understand perhaps accounting firms and other individuals. We don't know the scope.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter The problem of course here is that apart from the blizzard of information that they have put into the record that is not relevant to the question at issue and apart from the very personal attacks that they have made against Ms. Wang, they have provided not a shred of evidence to\n\n5\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 6 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 suggest that her personal financial accounts that are held, maintained by third parties, would provide matter that is relevant to the satisfaction of this judgment.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 They at length make extensive accusations. They characterize Ms. Wang in very unflattering ways and point to other proceedings, but they have not shown as Spruce Interiors had in its record a single shred of actual evidence that she received any kind of transfer, was in possession of any of the debtors's personal property, nothing.\n\n11 12 13 So, it's not appropriate without that basis for PAX to be really just dredging for Ms. Wang's personal financial information.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 Now, this could have been done correctly. This is unfortunate that PAX has decided to really pursue a kind of scorched-earth policy because this could have been done correctly and in accordance with a defined process that could have resulted in a reasoned resolution if PAX had just subpoenaed Ms. Wang herself.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 She would have had whatever defenses she could have put up. She could have negotiated with regard to an appropriate scope or what documents she could provide, but we wouldn't be here fighting against an un-tolled number of subpoenas seeking for information about her that has nothing to do with the debtor or the debtor's property.\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n6\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 7 of\n\n26\n\n## Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It just seeks a blunderbuss request for all information relating to her own bank accounts, any kind of securities accounts and it goes on and on. Her private information that were connected to the bank and doing know-your-client background information and it goes on and on. It is just inappropriate and it is all together unnecessary.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 So we request, your Honor, that you grant the relief that Ms. Wang seeks which is to quash any requests insofar as it seeks information about Ms. Wang and direct PAX to withdraw those requests from the numerous subpoenas that we're unaware of the identity.\n\n13 14 15 If the Court has any questions, I rest for the rest of my argument on the briefs that we've submitted, but I'd be happy to answer any questions.\n\n16 17 THE COURT: Okay. There is a test under CPLR 5223 that PAX has to satisfy.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 MR. ALTER: Correct, but I would say the test under 5223, as I understand it, is directed towards recipients, direct recipients of subpoenas and I'm not sure that it applies to PAX when it's going after third parties and the information of third parties.\n\n23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter Section 5240 is a very broad protective measure to protect parties and the courts from overreaching behavior. This is not a circumstance where it is a subpoena\n\n7\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 8 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 to a party or even directly to a third party, but rather it is one of these very broad-sweeping things that seeks to catch up Ms. Wang in a subpoena looking for information about 64 independent entities.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 So, even if you were to look to the standard that's -- that your Honor identified, I don't think PAX can satisfy it. Because, again, in the cases that I've cited, the only way the courts would allow a creditor to subpoena a third party for its personal financial records would be upon a predicate showing that it was justified like a showing that Ms. Wang had received actual transfers as in the Spruce case. They made no such showing. This is all on speculation and accusation.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: You agree that 5223 allows for broad discovery in support of enforcing a judgment, including taking discovery from third parties other than the judgment debtor so long as it is relevant to the judgment debtor's income or property?\n\n19 20 21 MR. ALTER: I agree that that's the standard certainly stated, but I agree the cases decided under 5240 mold that standard as I've just described.\n\n22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter I don't think it's sufficient in a very broad-sweeping way to say that something is potentially relevant and thereby go into the personal information of third parties. I don't believe the cases -- respectfully,\n\n8\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter your Honor, I don't believe the cases support that. THE COURT: So, PAX would have to meet the burden of showing that its subpoenas seek information relevant to Mr. Kwok's income and/or property; correct? MR. ALTER: Yeah, I believe that they would have to show in order to justify the subpoena that they have issued, that Ms. Wang has received some kind of transfer that is indicative of her having information and they haven't done that. THE COURT: Well, that's what I'm going to hear from Mr. Moss about. MR. ALTER: Very well your Honor, thank you. MR. MOSS: Thank you, your Honor. Edward Moss for PAX. First on the sealing point, we actually raised the sealing with Mr. Siegal and Ms. Carvalho because we were going to be mentioning some information in Mr. Kwok's document production and a tax return. We actually just put a number in and we conferred with Mr. Siegal. We redacted number, and we filed public versions with only that number redacted. And so, Mr. Alter, I apologize if you don't have the papers, but we filed everything publicly except for that number. MR. ALTER: Your Honor, that's where there's a\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 10 of\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings 9 problem here. I represent Ms. Kwok. Mr. Siegal does not represent Ms. Kwok. He represents -- MR. MOSS: Mr. Kwok -- MR. ALTER: I'm sorry, you're right. Mr. Siegal represents Mr. Kwok. I represent Ms. Wang. I have an interest, Ms. Wang has an interest in the development of the record. Notwithstanding the fact that you may have conferred with Mr. Siegal whose motion this is not, you did not confer with me and you did not seek by order to show cause to have this document admitted, and we were not given the opportunity to object to what is clearly extraneous information to this particular motion. So I think there's a good reason why the Court has a rule that requires a motion by order to show cause so that the interested parties have the ability to respond. MR. MOSS: It was one number, Judge. It was Mr. Kwok's confidential information so we asked Mr. Kwok if he wanted to seal it. We wouldn't have sealed it, but he wanted us to so we did. We can move on from that and let me get to the merits here. And before I get to the specifics of the application and the financial information, I think we do need to start with some context here about what's going on, the big picture about why we're here which Mr. Alter\n\n9 of 25\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n10\n\nProceedings\n\n1 studiously avoided.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Kwok has a \\$116-million judgment against him. He has not posted an appeal bond. He has not paid. We always knew he wasn't going to pay, which is why we asked the Court for an attachment of the apartment at the beginning of these proceedings.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 But, your Honor, it's so much worse than we thought, right? Now he's saying he won't pay because the lawyers on our side, my partner, Mr. Sarnoff, and me, the lawyers on his side, David Boies he points to, and you, Judge; we're all in cahoots with the communist party, the Chinese communist party and that's why this case was entered against him.\n\n14 15 16 17 He's not going to pay us a dime. And whether Mr. Kwok really believes this or not, he's fighting like crazy to make sure that we never get a dime, that my client never gets a dime. He is throwing up roadblocks everywhere.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 Mr. Kwok says he has no assets. He's now taken the Fifth Amendment. We subpoena one of his entities and a new lawyer, Mr. Alter is one of them, and there are others, they all show up everyday and say, Hey, it's not me. I don't represent Mr. Kwok. I represent one of the entities.\n\n23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter We subpoenaed the entity that supposedly owns the boat, that his daughter supposedly owns the entity. He writes me a nasty letter saying, What does this have to do\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 12 of\n\n26\n\n11\n\n## Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with me? I just represent Hong Kong International. I mean, and then you have the lawyers who have been here all along. You have Mr. Mitchell representing Genever. He's objecting to a subpoena that I didn't even serve him with. He sends me a note saying, I summarily object to your transparent attempt, blah-blah-blah. He never even received the subpoena.\n\n8 9 10 11 I mean, this is a circus, Judge, and it's pretty rich here that Ms. Wang coming in and accusing my client of abuse of process, miscarriage of justice, whatever other hyperbole is in those papers, right.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The simple fact here, Judge, is we can't get discovery. If we can't get discovery from Mr. Kwok and his closest associates and his entities, then we might as well all go home because the man, himself, has told us that he has no assets. So we will all have wasted four years of our lives. We can all go to our houses, Mr. Kwok can go onto his boat or his mansion and that will be the end of it; right?\n\n20 That can't be the right result here, Judge.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter Turning to Ms. Wang, I actually think that this is quite an easy issue, and I think your Honor hit it on the head with the standard of CPLR 5223. All matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment. It is a broad standard. It is a generous standard, and I think we have it backwards.\n\n12\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 When a party moves to quash, that party bears the burden of conclusively establishing that the subpoena is not seeking relevant information.\n\n4 5 6 That's the standard and so if it were our burden, Judge -- and I'll get to the issue you wanted to address right now.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ms. Wang is Mr. Kwok's closest associate. He brought her here from China and he installed her as the CEO of this fake company, Golden Spring, which is the company that he admits in an affidavit he funded with his own money and which Mr. Siegal and Ms. Carvalho admitted in a letter to me pays all of his relevant legal expenses and other expenses, all his personal expenses. She's the CEO of that entity. We know about that entity so that entity probably doesn't have any money anymore, but we're trying to find out.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 Ms. Wang is Mr. Kwok's spokesperson in court. She testified in this case falsely. She testified in the bankruptcy falsely. She recently testified last week on behalf of another entity Mr. Kwok says you're not going to own called the Eastern Profit.\n\n22 23 24 25 All of the testimony has been false in this case. She's testified under oath there's a pledge of the apartment. Well, we found public documents showing that pledge had been terminated; there was no pledge.\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n13\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 She put in an affidavit telling your Honor Mr. Kwok has an ownership interest in the apartment. She testified a couple months ago in front of the bankruptcy judge that Mr. Kwok doesn't have any ownership interest in the apartment.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 In the Eastern Profit case, Judge Liman found that she has very, very, very serious credibility issues. She's the one who has to make the showing, and there's no way that she can make a showing with a self-serving affidavit, no documentary evidence when she's a known perjurer, Judge.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I mean, we can't make a showing because they've blocked us from all of the assets. Mr. Kwok, I can't depose him because he's taken the Fifth. Last time I deposed him, he started ranting about the communist party. How am I going to make a showing about what he has transferred in her name when they're blocking the financial accounts? They're not speaking. They're not giving us any information; and when they have given information, they have been lying. I mean, it's a joke, Judge. Like if we can't get this information, then it's over.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 So Ms. Wang's accounts are highly relevant to satisfaction of the judgment. The fact that we know that he has these entities and we're now searching for these entities, it's quite logical that he would have put the money in personal account, right?\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n14\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 It is her burden to prove this and a self-serving affidavit is not enough. We are sensitive to the fact that Ms. Wang is an individual person, and this is not the typical subpoena; but it is not the typical case. It is unlike any case I've ever read, unlike any case I've ever litigated.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Look, we'll treat the information as attorneys' eyes only. If there are no huge sums of money in her accounts, fine; we'll rip up the pieces of paper and that will be the end of it. But if there are, then we're entitled to seize the money if it's there. She's a translator. She shouldn't have millions and millions of dollars in her account. We're entitled to seize the money; and if we find more likely what will have happened the money has already been transferred out and there are going to be other accounts that we're going to have to follow up on, and we've been doing that and doing that as these bank responses come in, Judge.\n\n19 20 21 22 It is a game of whack-a-mole. I mean, it really is. There are new shell companies coming up everyday, and Mr. Kwok wants us to play it with both hands tied behind our back.\n\n23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter So I don't know if he's abandoning it or not, but the second request here which Mr. Alter didn't address in his argument is they want to quash the subpoenas totally as\n\n15\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 16 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter to every entity shell company and every associate. Not just Ms. Wang. She, obviously, lacks standing to do that. She can't move to quash a subpoena that doesn't call for her information and that information is relevant for the same reasons that her information is relevant. So, again, Judge, if we cannot get this information, we're done. Let's go home. We know that's what Mr. Kwok wants. You don't have to take my word for it, Judge. You just have to watch his video where he says we're never going to get a dime. THE COURT: Well, you may or may not get a dime. I don't need to hear anything more. I don't believe that the judgment enforcement subpoenas are seeking information unrelated to the judgment debtor's assets. I think the judgment debtor has made a sufficient showing that Ms. Wang couldn't possibly have millions of dollars that belong to her; and if these subpoenas addressed to banks and security firms identify huge sums of money, there's a reasonable inference based on the totality of circumstances that I've been hearing about for the last two years that the money doesn't belong to Ms. Wang and does belong to Mr. Kwok. So, I'm not going to quash the subpoenas; and I rely upon you, Mr. Moss, as an officer of the court to -- as you represented -- just rip up the information that's being\n\n16\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 17 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter provided to you for attorneys' eyes only if that information is consistent with Mr. Alter's representation that none of the money in Ms. Wang's account is traceable to Mr. Kwok. And as far as your other efforts to locate Mr. Kwok's assets, if it's a game of whack-a-mole, you're, unfortunately, required to play it; but I'm not quashing the subpoenas. MR. ATLER: Your Honor, one point of clarification. I understand your Honor's directive. Was the request to Mr. Moss about maintaining it under attorneys' eyes only and destroying such documents afterwards a directive of the court? I just need for the record to know whether that constitutes an order of the court? THE COURT: That is the order of the court. MR. ATLER: Thank you, sir. THE COURT: If the documents that are produced pursuant to the subpoena do not reflect sums of money or securities that would be wildly disproportionate to any assets that Ms. Wang could possibly have by reason of her employment in the United States for the last six years, then Mr. Moss is obligated to destroy the information that's produced for attorneys' eyes only. MR. MOSS: Your Honor, can I make one clarification?\n\n17\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 In the event that we identify transfers in and out from accounts, other entities that Mr. Kwok owns or that we believe he's affiliated with, can we before destroying the documents, can we follow up on those accounts and try to subpoena the banks to get information about those other accounts? That's part of this process.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: Well, you'll come back to the court. I can't prejudge or predict what is going to be produced pursuant to these subpoenas; and it is the case that individuals in Mr. Kwok's orbit may have information or funds that would properly be available for the judgment creditor to seize subject, of course, to court approval upon an appropriate showing.\n\n14 15 16 MR. MOSS: Thank you. Thank you, your Honor. May I raise one other related issue? Do you have one moment?\n\n17 THE COURT: Yes, you have the next hour.\n\n18 MR. MOSS: Oh, I don't think we'll need that,\n\n19 Judge.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 So we had filed a letter seeking to move to compel production of Golden Spring's documents. Mr. Alter is also counsel for Golden Spring, and we have reached an impasse on that. We asked for permission. He then wrote a letter today seeking to cross-move to quash the Golden Spring's subpoena.\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n18\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 I think the issue there is that he wants to be able to have the last word and write a reply brief, you know, maybe because of what happened this time.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 So I'm happy to proceed however the Court wants. If you want three briefs or four briefs, I think we should have the last word because it's our motion to compel because they responded and objected to our subpoena and we sought permission to move first; but I'm happy to proceed on the briefing in whatever way the Court thinks would be most efficient.\n\n11 12 13 THE COURT: I think what would be most efficient would be for you and Mr. Alter to come to some kind of consensual resolution.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 As I understand your preliminary showing in support of your application is that for some period of time Golden Spring was the source of funds to support Mr. Kwok's lavish lifestyle, including payments for the Sherry-Netherland apartment that Mr. Kwok claims not to own and payments to fund the operations of his yacht, which has been removed from United States territorial waters in violation of a court order.\n\n22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter And, if you both want to run up legal fees briefing this as opposed to coming to some reasonable understanding as to this issue, I'll deal with it in the fullness of time just the way we dealt with Ms. Wang's issues without\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 20 of 26\n\n19\n\nProceedings\n\n1 prejudging the outcome.\n\n2 3 4 5 MR. MOSS: Sure, Judge. I just think the issue is that a motion to compel and a motion to quash is going to have six briefs and that seems silly when they're the same issues.\n\n6 7 8 MR. ATLER: Yes, if I actually might be heard on that since I had something to do with it. I agree with the judge entirely that it makes sense for us to discuss it.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 Your assumption, again, that this has to do with who gets the last brief is off the mark, and I'd be happy to discuss with you a rational way for each of us to present our respective arguments. So, I'm not sure how this is productive.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: I don't need six briefs or four briefs. I just need Mr. Moss's best effort to make the case for subpoenaing the records of this entity and for you, Mr. Alter, to make your best case to quash any proposed subpoena on this entity and then we'll have a Microsoft Teams session. I'll hear you, and then I'll decide; or you might save your clients a lot of legal fees and time by coming to some consensual understanding on this issue, but if you can't that's what courts are for.\n\n23 24 All right, have a nice day. Order a copy of the transcript.\n\n25\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n| Case 22-50073
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 | Doc 404-19 | Filed 05/20/22
26 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 21 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 | |\n|--------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | | | | 20 |\n| 1 | | | | |\n| 2 | | | | |\n| 3 | | C
E
R
T
I | F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N | |\n| 4 | | | | |\n| 5
INDEX | NO. | 652077/17 | | |\n| 6 | | | | |\n| 7 | | --- | | |\n| 8 | | | | |\n| 9 | | THIS
TRUE | IS
HEREBY
CERTIFIED
TO
BE
AND
CORRECT
TRANSCRIPT. | A |\n| 10 | | | | |\n| 11 | | | BONNIE
PICCIRILLO | |\n| 12 | | | OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER | |\n| 13 | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | |\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 22 of\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n1\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 23 of\n\n9:9\n\n| 1 |\n|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 10046 [1] - 1:19 |\n| 10065 [1] - 2:7 |\n| 10111 [1] - 1:23 |\n| 10601 [1] - 2:3
116-million [1] - 10:2 |\n| 140 [1] - 2:3 |\n| 162 [1] - 2:6 |\n| 2 |\n| 2021 [1] - 1:12 |\n| 3 |\n| 30 [1] - 1:12 |\n| 31 [1] - 3:12 |\n| 4 |\n| 45 [1] - 1:22 |\n| 5 |\n| 5223 [4] - 6:16, 6:19, |\n| 7:14, 11:23 |\n| 5240 [2] - 6:23, 7:20 |\n| 6 |\n| 60 [1] - 1:11 |\n| 61 [1] - 1:1 |\n| 64 [1] - 7:4
64th [1] - 2:6 |\n| 652077/17 [1] - 1:5 |\n| 7 |\n| 7 [1] - 1:19 |\n| 705 [1] - 2:3 |\n| A |\n| a/k/a [6] - 1:6, 1:7, 1:7 |\n| AARON [1] - 2:7
abandoning [1] - |\n| 14:23 |\n| ability [1] - 9:16 |\n| able [1] - 18:1 |\n| abuse [1] - 11:10 |\n| access [3] - 3:13, 4:16 |\n| accordance [1] - 5:17
account [3] - 13:25, |\n| 14:13, 16:3 |\n| accounting [1] - 4:19 |\n| accounts [11] - 4:12, |\n\n5:1, 6:2, 6:3, 13:16, 13:21, 14:9, 14:16, 17:2, 17:4, 17:6\n\n**accusation** [1] - 7:13 **accusations** [1] - 5:4 **accusing** [1] - 11:9 **actual** [2] - 5:7, 7:11 **address** [2] - 12:5, 14:24 **addressed** [1] - 15:18 **admits** [1] - 12:10 **admitted** [2] - 9:11, 12:11 **affidavit** [4] - 12:10, 13:1, 13:9, 14:2 **affiliated** [1] - 17:3 **afternoon** [1] - 3:2 **afterwards** [1] - 16:12 **ago** [1] - 13:3 **agree** [4] - 7:14, 7:19, 7:20, 19:7 **aka** [1] - 1:6 **ALLIANCE**[1] - 1:3 **allow** [2] - 4:16, 7:8 **allowed** [2] - 4:13 **allows** [1] - 7:14 **ALTER** [7] - 3:5, 6:18, 7:19, 8:5, 8:12, 8:25, 9:4 **alter**[2] - 17:21, 18:12 **Alter**[6] - 3:6, 8:22, 9:25, 10:20, 14:24, 19:17 **alter's** [1] - 16:2 **Amendment**[1] - 10:19 **answer**[1] - 6:15 **apart** [2] - 4:21, 4:23 **apartment** [5] - 10:5, 12:24, 13:2, 13:5, 18:18 **apologize** [1] - 8:22 **appeal** [1] - 10:3 **appear**[1] - 3:12 **APPEARANCES**[1] - 1:17 **application** [2] - 9:23, 18:15 **applies** [1] - 6:21 **appropriate** [3] - 5:11, 5:22, 17:13 **approval** [1] - 17:12 **April** [1] - 1:12 **ARANOFF**[1] - 1:20 **argument** [3] - 3:19, 6:14, 14:25 **arguments** [1] - 19:12 **ASIA** [1] - 1:3 **assets** [6] - 10:18, 11:16, 13:12, 15:15, 16:5, 16:20 **associate** [2] - 12:7,\n\n15:1 **associates** [1] - 11:14 **assumption** [1] - 19:9 **ATLER** [4] - 2:4, 16:8, 16:16, 19:6 **attachment** [1] - 10:5 **attacks** [1] - 4:24 **attempt** [1] - 11:6 **Attorneys**[4] - 1:18, 1:22, 2:2, 2:6 **attorneys'** [4] - 14:7, 16:1, 16:11, 16:23 **available** [1] - 17:11 **avoided** [1] - 10:1\n\n## **B**\n\n**background** [1] - 6:5 **backwards** [1] - 11:25 **BAKER** [1] - 1:21 **bank** [4] - 4:12, 6:2, 6:4, 14:17 **bankruptcy** [2] - 12:19, 13:3 **banks** [3] - 4:18, 15:18, 17:5 **BARRY**[1] - 1:15 **based** [1] - 15:19 **basis** [4] - 4:8, 4:10, 4:13, 5:11 **bears** [1] - 12:1 **BEFORE** [1] - 1:14 **beginning** [1] - 10:6 **behalf** [1] - 12:20 **behavior**[1] - 6:24 **behind** [1] - 14:21 **believes** [1] - 10:15 **belong** [3] - 15:17, 15:21, 15:22 **best** [2] - 19:15, 19:17 **big** [1] - 9:25 **blah** [3] - 11:6 **blah-blah-blah** [1] - 11:6 **blizzard** [1] - 4:22 **blocked** [1] - 13:12 **blocking** [1] - 13:16 **blunderbuss** [1] - 6:1 **boat** [2] - 10:24, 11:18 **Boies** [1] - 10:10 **boils** [1] - 3:20 **bond** [1] - 10:3 **Bonnie** [1] - 2:23 **brief** [2] - 18:2, 19:10 **briefing** [2] - 18:9, 18:22 **briefs** [6] - 6:14, 18:5, 19:4, 19:14 **broad** [6] - 4:18, 6:23,\n\n7:2, 7:14, 7:23, 11:24 **broad-sweeping** [3] - 4:18, 7:2, 7:23 **brought** [1] - 12:8 **burden** [4] - 8:2, 12:2, 12:4, 14:1 **BY** [4] - 1:20, 1:23, 2:4, 2:7\n\n## **C**\n\n**cahoots** [1] - 10:11 **cannot** [1] - 15:6 **Carlyle** [1] - 3:23 **Carvalho** [2] - 8:16, 12:11 **CARVALHO**[1] - 1:24 **case** [12] - 4:2, 7:12, 10:12, 12:18, 12:22, 13:6, 14:4, 14:5, 17:9, 19:15, 19:17 **cases** [6] - 3:21, 3:24, 7:7, 7:20, 7:25, 8:1 **catch** [1] - 7:3 **Centre** [1] - 1:11 **CEO** [2] - 12:8, 12:13 **certainly** [1] - 7:20 **characterize** [1] - 5:5 **China** [1] - 12:8 **Chinese** [1] - 10:12 **circumstance** [1] - 6:25 **circumstances** [1] - 15:20 **circus** [1] - 11:8 **cited** [1] - 7:7 **claims** [1] - 18:18 **clarification** [2] - 16:8, 16:25 **clear**[1] - 3:25 **clearly** [1] - 9:12 **client** [3] - 6:5, 10:16, 11:9 **clients** [1] - 19:20 **close** [2] - 3:25, 4:3 **closest** [2] - 11:14, 12:7 **coming** [4] - 11:9, 14:20, 18:23, 19:21 **communist** [3] - 10:11, 10:12, 13:14 **companies** [1] - 14:20 **company** [3] - 12:9, 15:1 **compel** [3] - 17:20, 18:6, 19:3 **conclusively** [1] - 12:2 **confer**[1] - 9:10 **conferred** [2] - 8:19,\n\n**confidential** [1] - 9:18 **connected** [1] - 6:4 **connection** [1] - 3:22 **consensual** [2] - 18:13, 19:21 **consistent** [1] - 16:2 **constitutes** [1] - 16:13 **context** [1] - 9:24 **continue** [1] - 3:18 **copy** [1] - 19:23 **CORPORATION** [1] - 1:8 **correct** [2] - 6:18, 8:4 **correctly** [2] - 5:14, 5:17 **counsel** [1] - 17:22 **County** [1] - 4:3 **COUNTY** [1] - 1:1 **couple** [1] - 13:3 **course** [2] - 4:21, 17:12 **Court** [9] - 2:23, 3:6, 3:15, 4:2, 6:13, 9:14, 10:5, 18:4, 18:9 **COURT** [13] - 1:1, 3:2, 6:16, 7:14, 8:2, 8:10, 15:11, 16:15, 16:17, 17:7, 17:17, 18:11, 19:14 **court** [9] - 4:13, 12:17, 15:24, 16:12, 16:14, 16:15, 17:7, 17:12, 18:21 **courts** [3] - 6:24, 7:8, 19:22 **CPLR** [2] - 6:16, 11:23 **crazy** [1] - 10:16 **credibility** [1] - 13:7 **creditor**[5] - 3:11, 4:1, 4:10, 7:8, 17:12 **creditor's** [1] - 3:3 **cross** [1] - 17:24 **cross-move** [1] - 17:24\n\n## **D**\n\n**DANIEL** [1] - 2:4 **Daniel** [1] - 3:6 **daughter**[1] - 10:24 **David** [1] - 10:10 **deal** [1] - 18:24 **dealt** [1] - 18:25 **debtor** [5] - 4:4, 4:12, 5:25, 7:17, 15:15 **debtor's** [3] - 5:25, 7:17, 15:15 **debtors's** [1] - 5:9 **decide** [1] - 19:19\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 24 of\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021\n\n**HONORABLE** [1] -\n\n**HOSTETLER** [1] -\n\n1:15\n\n1:21\n\n2\n\n| decided [3] - 4:2, | |\n|--------------------------|--|\n| 5:15, 7:20 | |\n| Defendant [2] - 1:22, | |\n| 2:6 | |\n| Defendants [1] - 1:9 | |\n| defenses [1] - 5:20 | |\n| defined [1] - 5:17 | |\n| Department [1] - 3:24 | |\n| depose [1] - 13:12 | |\n| deposed [1] - 13:13 | |\n| described [1] - 7:21 | |\n| destroy [1] - 16:22 | |\n| destroying [2] - 16:11, | |\n| 17:3 | |\n| development [1] - 9:6 | |\n| dime [5] - 10:14, | |\n| 10:16, 10:17, 15:10, | |\n| 15:11 | |\n| direct [2] - 6:10, 6:20 | |\n| directed [1] - 6:19 | |\n| | |\n| directive [2] - 16:9, | |\n| 16:12 | |\n| directly [2] - 3:19, 7:1 | |\n| discovery [4] - 7:15, | |\n| 7:16, 11:13 | |\n| discuss [2] - 19:8, | |\n| 19:11 | |\n| disproportionate [1] - | |\n| 16:19 | |\n| docket [1] - 3:14 | |\n| document [2] - 8:18, | |\n| 9:11 | |\n| documentary [1] - | |\n| 13:10 | |\n| documents [10] - | |\n| 3:11, 3:13, 3:14, 4:7, | |\n| 5:22, 12:24, 16:11, | |\n| 16:17, 17:4, 17:21 | |\n| dollars [2] - 14:13, | |\n| 15:17 | |\n| done [4] - 5:14, 5:16, | |\n| 8:8, 15:7 | |\n| down [1] - 3:20 | |\n| dredging [1] - 5:12 | |\n| | |\n| E | |\n| | |\n| earth [1] - 5:16 | |\n| East [1] - 2:6 | |\n| Eastern [2] - 12:21, | |\n| | |\n\n13:6 **easy** [1] - 11:22 **Edward** [1] - 8:13 **EDWARD** [1] - 1:20 **efficient** [2] - 18:10,\n\n18:11 **effort** [1] - 19:15 **efforts** [1] - 16:4 **employment**[1] - 16:21\n\n**end** [2] - 11:18, 14:10 **enforcement** [2] - 3:23, 15:13 **enforcing** [1] - 7:15 **entered** [1] - 10:12 **entirely** [1] - 19:8 **entities** [7] - 7:4, 10:19, 10:22, 11:14, 13:23, 13:24, 17:2 **entitled** [2] - 14:11, 14:13 **entity** [9] - 10:23, 10:24, 12:14, 12:20, 15:1, 19:16, 19:18 **ESQ** [6] - 1:20, 1:20, 1:23, 1:24, 2:4, 2:7 **established** [3] - 4:8, 4:11, 4:16 **establishing** [1] - 12:2 **event** [1] - 17:1 **everyday**[2] - 10:21, 14:20 **everywhere**[1] - 10:17 **evidence** [3] - 4:25, 5:8, 13:10 **except** [1] - 8:23 **expenses** [3] - 12:12, 12:13 **extensive** [1] - 5:4 **extraneous** [1] - 9:12 **eyes** [4] - 14:8, 16:1, 16:11, 16:23 **F fact** [4] - 9:8, 11:12, 13:22, 14:2 **factual** [2] - 4:8, 4:10\n\n**fake** [1] - 12:9 **false** [1] - 12:22 **falsely** [2] - 12:18, 12:19 **far**[1] - 16:4 **fees** [2] - 18:22, 19:20 **Fifth** [2] - 10:19, 13:13 **fighting** [2] - 5:23, 10:15 **filed** [4] - 3:11, 8:20, 8:23, 17:20 **filing** [1] - 3:15 **financial** [8] - 3:22, 4:7, 4:17, 5:1, 5:12, 7:9, 9:23, 13:16 **fine** [1] - 14:9 **Firm** [1] - 3:6 **firms** [3] - 4:19, 15:18 **first** [3] - 3:8, 8:15, 18:8\n\n**First** [1] - 3:24\n\n**follow** [2] - 14:16, 17:4 **four** [3] - 11:16, 18:5, 19:14 **front** [1] - 13:3 **fullness** [1] - 18:24 **FUND** [1] - 1:3 **fund** [1] - 18:19 **funded** [1] - 12:10 **funds** [2] - 17:11, 18:16\n\n## **G**\n\n**game** [2] - 14:19, 16:5 **general** [1] - 4:8 **generous** [1] - 11:25 **GENEVER** [2] - 1:8, 1:8 **Genever**[2] - 2:6, 11:3 **given** [2] - 9:11, 13:18 **Golden** [5] - 12:9, 17:21, 17:22, 17:24, 18:15 **Grand** [1] - 2:3 **grant** [1] - 6:8 **grounds** [1] - 4:16 **GUE** [1] - 1:7 **GUI** [2] - 1:7 **GUO** [3] - 1:7, 1:8 **GWO** [1] - 1:6\n\n## **H**\n\n**hands** [1] - 14:21 **HAOYUN** [2] - 1:7, 1:8 **happy** [4] - 6:15, 18:4, 18:8, 19:10 **head** [1] - 11:23 **hear**[4] - 3:4, 8:10, 15:12, 19:19 **heard** [1] - 19:6 **hearing** [1] - 15:20 **held** [1] - 5:1 **herself** [1] - 5:19 **highly** [1] - 13:21 **himself** [1] - 11:15 **hit** [1] - 11:22 **HO** [1] - 1:6 **Ho** [1] - 1:6 **HOLDINGS** [2] - 1:8, 1:8 **home** [2] - 11:15, 15:7 **Hong** [1] - 11:1 **Honor** [15] - 3:5, 3:18, 4:15, 6:8, 7:6, 8:1, 8:12, 8:13, 8:25, 10:7, 11:22, 13:1, 16:8, 16:24, 17:14 **Honor's** [2] - 3:12, 16:9\n\n**hour** [1] - 17:17 **houses** [1] - 11:17 **huge** [2] - 14:8, 15:19 **hyperbole** [1] - 11:11 **I identified** [1] - 7:6 **identify** [2] - 15:18, 17:1 **identity** [1] - 6:12 **impasse** [1] - 17:22 **inappropriate** [1] - 6:6 **including** [2] - 7:15, 18:17 **income** [2] - 7:18, 8:4 **independent** [1] - 7:4 **INDEX** [1] - 1:5 **indicative** [1] - 8:8 **individual** [1] - 14:3 **individuals** [2] - 4:20, 17:10 **inference** [1] - 15:19 **information** [33] - 3:22, 4:17, 4:22, 5:13, 5:24, 6:2, 6:4, 6:5, 6:10, 6:22, 7:3, 7:24, 8:3, 8:8, 8:17, 9:13, 9:18, 9:23, 12:3, 13:17, 13:18, 13:20, 14:7, 15:4, 15:5, 15:7, 15:14, 15:25, 16:1, 16:22, 17:5, 17:10 **insofar**[1] - 6:10 **installed** [1] - 12:8 **interest** [4] - 9:6, 13:2, 13:4 **interested** [1] - 9:16 **Interiors** [2] - 4:2, 5:7 **International** [1] - 11:1 **issue** [8] - 4:23, 11:22, 12:5, 17:15, 18:1, 18:24, 19:2, 19:21 **issued** [1] - 8:6 **issues** [3] - 13:7, 18:25, 19:5 **J JOHN** [1] - 1:23 **joke** [1] - 13:19\n\n**Judge** [14] - 9:17, 10:11, 11:8, 11:12, 11:20, 12:5, 13:6,\n\n19:2 **judge** [2] - 13:3, 19:8 **judgment** [16] - 3:3, 3:11, 3:23, 4:1, 4:4, 5:3, 7:15, 7:16, 7:17, 10:2, 11:24, 13:22, 15:13, 15:14, 15:15, 17:11 **justice** [1] - 11:10 **Justice** [1] - 1:15 **justified** [1] - 7:10 **justify** [1] - 8:6 **K kind** [5] - 5:8, 5:15, 6:2, 8:7, 18:12 **know-your-client** [1] - 6:5 **known** [1] - 13:10 **Kong** [1] - 11:1 **KWOK** [3] - 1:6, 1:7 **Kwok** [22] - 1:22, 9:1, 9:2, 9:3, 9:5, 9:18, 10:2, 10:15, 10:18, 10:22, 11:13, 11:17, 12:20, 13:1, 13:4, 13:12, 14:21, 15:8, 15:22, 16:3, 17:2, 18:18 **Kwok's** [8] - 8:4, 8:17, 9:18, 12:7, 12:17,\n\n13:10, 13:19, 14:18, 15:6, 15:9, 17:19,\n\n## 16:5, 17:10, 18:16\n\n**L L.P** [1] - 1:3 **lacks** [1] - 15:2 **last** [7] - 12:19, 13:13, 15:21, 16:21, 18:2, 18:6, 19:10 **lavish** [1] - 18:16 **law** [1] - 4:19 **LAWALL** [1] - 2:5 **lawyer**[1] - 10:20 **lawyers** [3] - 10:9, 10:10, 11:2 **legal** [3] - 12:12, 18:22, 19:20 **length** [1] - 5:4 **letter**[4] - 10:25, 12:11, 17:20, 17:23 **lifestyle** [1] - 18:17 **likely** [1] - 14:14 **Liman** [1] - 13:6 **litigated** [1] - 14:6 **lives** [1] - 11:17 **LLC** [2] - 1:8, 2:5\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 25 of\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021\n\n3\n\n**LLP** [3] - 1:18, 1:21, 2:2 **locate** [1] - 16:4 **logical** [1] - 13:24 **look** [2] - 7:5, 14:7 **looking** [1] - 7:3 **lying** [1] - 13:18\n\n## **M**\n\n**maintained** [1] - 5:2 **maintaining** [1] - 16:10 **man** [1] - 11:15 **mansion** [1] - 11:18 **mark** [1] - 19:10 **matter**[3] - 3:9, 5:2, 11:23 **mean** [5] - 11:2, 11:8, 13:11, 13:19, 14:19 **measure** [1] - 6:23 **meet** [1] - 8:2 **MELISSA** [1] - 1:24 **mentioning** [1] - 8:17 **merits** [1] - 9:21 **Microsoft** [1] - 19:18 **MICROSOFT** [1] - 1:12 **might** [3] - 11:14, 19:6, 19:20 **Miles** [1] - 1:22 **MILES** [1] - 1:7 **millions** [3] - 14:12, 15:17 **miscarriage** [1] - 11:10 **MITCHELL** [2] - 2:5, 2:7 **Mitchell** [1] - 11:3 **mold** [1] - 7:21 **mole** [2] - 14:19, 16:5 **moment** [1] - 17:16 **money** [11] - 12:10, 12:15, 13:25, 14:8, 14:11, 14:13, 14:14, 15:19, 15:21, 16:3, 16:18 **months** [1] - 13:3 **MOSS** [8] - 1:20, 8:13, 9:3, 9:17, 16:24, 17:14, 17:18, 19:2 **Moss** [5] - 8:11, 8:13, 15:24, 16:10, 16:22 **Moss's** [1] - 19:15 **most** [2] - 18:9, 18:11 **motion** [9] - 3:3, 3:10, 3:16, 9:9, 9:13, 9:15, 18:6, 19:3 **Movant** [1] - 2:2 **movant** [1] - 3:4\n\n**move** [5] - 9:20, 15:3, 17:20, 17:24, 18:8 **moves** [1] - 12:1 **MR** [17] - 3:5, 6:18, 7:19, 8:5, 8:12, 8:13, 8:25, 9:3, 9:4, 9:17, 16:8, 16:16, 16:24, 17:14, 17:18, 19:2, 19:6 **MYERS** [1] - 1:18 **N name** [2] - 3:6, 13:16 **nasty** [1] - 10:25 **need** [6] - 9:24, 15:12, 16:12, 17:18, 19:14, 19:15 **negotiated** [1] - 5:21 **Netherland** [1] - 18:17 **never**[4] - 10:16, 10:17, 11:6, 15:10 **nevertheless** [1] - 4:5 **NEW** [2] - 1:1, 1:1 **new** [2] - 10:19, 14:20 **New** [10] - 1:11, 1:19, 1:23, 2:3, 2:7, 4:2 **next** [1] - 17:17 **nice** [1] - 19:23 **NO** [1] - 1:5 **non** [1] - 3:21 **non-parties'** [1] - 3:21 **none** [1] - 16:2 **note** [1] - 11:5 **noted** [1] - 3:7 **nothing** [2] - 5:10, 5:24 **notwithstanding** [1] - 9:8 **nub** [1] - 3:19 **number**[6] - 5:23,\n\n## **O**\n\n8:19, 8:20, 8:24,\n\n**numerous** [1] - 6:11\n\n9:17\n\n**O'MELVENEY**[1] - 1:18 **oath** [1] - 12:23 **object** [3] - 3:15, 9:12, 11:5 **objected** [1] - 18:7 **objecting** [1] - 11:4 **obligated** [1] - 16:22 **obviously** [1] - 15:2 **OF** [3] - 1:1, 1:1 **officer**[1] - 15:24 **Official** [1] - 2:23 **one** [10] - 7:2, 9:17,\n\n10:19, 10:20, 10:22, 13:8, 16:8, 16:24, 17:15, 17:16 **operations** [1] - 18:19 **opportunity** [1] - 9:12 **OPPORTUNITY**[1] - 1:3 **opposed** [1] - 18:23 **opposition** [1] - 3:10 **orbit** [1] - 17:10 **order**[7] - 8:6, 9:10, 9:15, 16:13, 16:15, 18:21, 19:23 **OSTRAGER** [1] - 1:15 **outcome** [1] - 19:1 **overreaching** [1] - 6:24 **own** [4] - 6:2, 12:10, 12:21, 18:18 **ownership** [2] - 13:2, 13:4 **owns** [3] - 10:23,\n\n## **P**\n\n10:24, 17:2\n\n**PACIFIC** [1] - 1:3 **paid** [1] - 10:3 **paper**[1] - 14:9 **papers** [2] - 8:23, 11:11 **part** [1] - 17:6 **PART** [1] - 1:1 **particular**[1] - 9:13 **parties** [8] - 4:6, 5:2, 6:21, 6:22, 6:24, 7:16, 7:25, 9:16 **parties'** [1] - 3:21 **partner**[1] - 10:9 **party** [10] - 4:7, 4:11, 7:1, 7:9, 10:11, 10:12, 12:1, 13:14 **passed** [1] - 4:1 **PAX** [11] - 3:10, 4:15, 5:11, 5:15, 5:18, 6:11, 6:17, 6:21, 7:6, 8:2, 8:14 **pay** [3] - 10:4, 10:8, 10:14 **payments** [2] - 18:17, 18:18 **pays** [1] - 12:12 **perhaps** [1] - 4:19 **period** [1] - 18:15 **perjurer**[1] - 13:10 **permission** [2] - 17:23, 18:8 **person** [2] - 3:25, 14:3 **personal** [10] - 4:12, 4:17, 4:24, 5:1, 5:9,\n\n5:12, 7:9, 7:24, 12:13, 13:25 **Piccirillo** [1] - 2:23 **picture** [1] - 9:25 **pieces** [1] - 14:9 **Plains** [1] - 2:3 **Plaintiff** [2] - 1:4, 1:18 **play** [2] - 14:21, 16:6 **Plaza** [1] - 1:22 **pledge** [3] - 12:23, 12:25 **point** [3] - 5:5, 8:15, 16:8 **points** [1] - 10:10 **policy** [1] - 5:16 **possession** [1] - 5:9 **possibly** [2] - 15:16, 16:20 **posted** [1] - 10:3 **potentially** [1] - 7:23 **predicate** [1] - 7:10 **predict** [1] - 17:8 **prejudge** [1] - 17:8 **prejudging** [1] - 19:1 **preliminary** [3] - 3:8, 3:17, 18:14 **present** [1] - 19:11 **pretty** [1] - 11:8 **principal** [1] - 4:3 **principles** [1] - 3:20 **private** [1] - 6:3 **problem** [2] - 4:21, 9:1 **proceed** [2] - 18:4, 18:8 **proceedings** [2] - 5:6, 10:6 **process** [3] - 5:17, 11:10, 17:6 **produce** [1] - 4:6 **produced** [3] - 16:17, 16:23, 17:8 **production** [2] - 8:18, 17:21 **productive** [1] - 19:13 **Profit** [2] - 12:21, 13:6 **properly** [1] - 17:11 **property** [4] - 5:9, 5:25, 7:18, 8:4 **proposed** [1] - 19:17 **protect** [1] - 6:24 **protective** [2] - 3:21, 6:23 **prove** [1] - 14:1 **provide** [2] - 5:2, 5:22 **provided** [2] - 4:25, 16:1 **public** [2] - 8:20, 12:24 **publicly** [1] - 8:23\n\n**pursuant** [2] - 16:18, 17:9 **pursue** [1] - 5:15 **put** [5] - 4:22, 5:21, 8:18, 13:1, 13:24\n\n## **Q**\n\n**quash** [9] - 3:3, 6:9, 12:1, 14:25, 15:3, 15:23, 17:24, 19:3, 19:17 **quashing** [1] - 16:6 **questions** [2] - 6:13, 6:15 **quite** [2] - 11:22, 13:24\n\n## **R**\n\n**raise** [1] - 17:15 **raised** [1] - 8:15 **ranting** [1] - 13:14 **rather**[1] - 7:1 **rational** [1] - 19:11 **rationale** [1] - 4:4 **reached** [1] - 17:22 **read** [1] - 14:5 **really** [4] - 5:12, 5:15, 10:15, 14:19 **reason** [2] - 9:14, 16:20 **reasonable** [2] - 15:19, 18:23 **reasoned** [1] - 5:18 **reasons** [1] - 15:5 **received** [5] - 4:11, 5:8, 7:11, 8:7, 11:6 **recently** [1] - 12:19 **recipient** [1] - 4:6 **recipients** [2] - 6:19, 6:20 **record** [5] - 3:16, 4:22, 5:7, 9:7, 16:13 **records** [2] - 7:9, 19:16 **redacted** [2] - 8:19, 8:21 **reflect** [1] - 16:18 **regard** [1] - 5:21 **reiterated** [1] - 4:3 **related** [1] - 17:15 **relating** [1] - 6:2 **relevant**[11] - 4:23, 5:3, 7:17, 7:24, 8:3, 11:23, 12:3, 12:12, 13:21, 15:4, 15:5 **relief** [1] - 6:9 **rely** [1] - 15:24 **removed** [1] - 18:19\n\nBP\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 26 of\n\n4\n\n**reply** [1] - 18:2 **Reporter**[1] - 2:23 **represent** [6] - 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 10:22, 11:1 **representation** [1] - 16:2 **represented** [1] - 15:25 **representing** [2] - 3:7, 11:3 **represents** [2] - 9:2, 9:5 **request** [5] - 3:17, 6:1, 6:8, 14:24, 16:10 **requests** [2] - 6:9, 6:11 **require** [1] - 4:4 **required** [2] - 4:5, 16:6 **requires** [1] - 9:15 **resolution** [2] - 5:18, 18:13 **respectfully** [1] - 7:25 **respective** [1] - 19:12 **respond** [1] - 9:16 **responded** [1] - 18:7 **response** [1] - 4:5 **responses** [1] - 14:17 **rest** [2] - 6:13 **result** [1] - 11:20 **resulted** [1] - 5:18 **return** [1] - 8:18 **rich** [1] - 11:9 **rip** [2] - 14:9, 15:25 **roadblocks** [1] - 10:17 **Rockefeller**[1] - 1:22 **rule** [2] - 4:9, 9:15 **Rule** [1] - 3:12 **run** [1] - 18:22 **S Sarnoff** [1] - 10:9 **satisfaction** [3] - 5:3, 11:24, 13:22 **satisfy** [2] - 6:17, 7:7 **save** [1] - 19:20 **scope** [2] - 4:20, 5:22 **scorched** [1] - 5:16 **scorched-earth** [1] - 5:16 **seal** [2] - 3:11, 9:19 **sealed** [1] - 9:19 **sealing** [2] - 8:15, 8:16 **searching** [1] - 13:23 **second** [1] - 14:24 **section** [1] - 6:23 **securities** [2] - 6:3, 16:19 **seek** [2] - 8:3, 9:10 **seeking** [5] - 5:24, 12:3, 15:14, 17:20, 17:24 **seeks** [4] - 6:1, 6:9, 6:10, 7:2 **seize** [3] - 14:11, 14:13, 17:12 **self** [2] - 13:9, 14:1 **self-serving** [2] - 13:9, 14:1 **sends** [1] - 11:5 **sense** [1] - 19:8 **sensitive** [1] - 14:2 **serious** [1] - 13:7 **serve** [1] - 11:4 **served** [1] - 4:18 **serving** [2] - 13:9, 14:1 **session** [1] - 19:19 **shell** [2] - 14:20, 15:1 **Sherry** [1] - 18:17 **Sherry-Netherland** [1] - 18:17 **show** [4] - 8:6, 9:10, 9:15, 10:21 **showing** [12] - 7:10, 7:12, 8:3, 12:24, 13:8, 13:9, 13:11, 13:15, 15:16, 17:13, 18:14 **shown** [1] - 5:6 **shred** [2] - 4:25, 5:7 **side** [2] - 10:9, 10:10 **SIEGAL** [1] - 1:23 **Siegal** [6] - 8:16, 8:19, 9:1, 9:4, 9:9, 12:11 **silly** [1] - 19:4 **simple** [1] - 11:12 **single** [1] - 5:7 **six** [3] - 16:21, 19:4, 19:14 **sorry** [1] - 9:4 **sought** [2] - 3:22, 18:7 **source** [1] - 18:16 **speaking** [1] - 13:17 **specifics** [1] - 9:22 **speculation** [1] - 7:13 **spokesperson** [1] - 12:17 **Spring** [3] - 12:9, 17:22, 18:16 **Spring's** [2] - 17:21, 17:24 **Spruce** [3] - 4:1, 5:6,\n\n**security** [1] - 15:18 7:11 **Square** [1] - 1:19 **stand** [1] - 4:14 **standard** [7] - 7:5,\n\n7:19, 7:21, 11:23, 11:24, 11:25, 12:4 **standing** [1] - 15:2 **start** [2] - 3:8, 9:24 **started** [1] - 13:14 **STATE**[1] - 1:1 **States** [2] - 16:21, 18:20 **Stern** [1] - 3:24 **straightforward** [1] - 3:20 **Street** [3] - 1:11, 2:3, 2:6 **strike** [1] - 3:15 **STUART**[1] - 1:20 **studiously** [1] - 10:1 **subject** [1] - 17:12 **submitted** [1] - 6:14 **subpoena** [19] - 3:3, 4:5, 4:6, 4:18, 6:25, 7:3, 7:8, 8:6, 10:19, 11:4, 11:7, 12:2, 14:4, 15:3, 16:18, 17:5, 17:25, 18:7, 19:18 **subpoenaed** [2] - 5:19, 10:23 **subpoenaing** [2] - 4:7, 19:16 **subpoenas** [12] - 3:23, 4:14, 5:24, 6:11, 6:20, 8:3, 14:25, 15:14, 15:18, 15:23, 16:7, 17:9 **sufficient** [3] - 4:16, 7:22, 15:16 **suggest** [1] - 5:1 **Suite** [1] - 2:3 **summarily** [1] - 11:5 **sums** [3] - 14:8, 15:19, 16:18 **superseded** [1] - 4:8 **support** [4] - 7:15, 8:1, 18:14, 18:16 **supposedly** [2] - 10:23, 10:24 **SUPREME** [1] - 1:1 **Supreme** [1] - 4:2 **sweeping** [3] - 4:18, 7:2, 7:23 **T**\n\n**tax** [1] - 8:18 **Teams** [1] - 19:19 **TEAMS**[1] - 1:12 **TERM** [1] - 1:1 **terminated** [1] - 12:25 **territorial** [1] - 18:20 **test** [2] - 6:16, 6:18\n\nBP\n\n**testified** [5] - 12:18, 12:19, 12:23, 13:2 **testimony** [1] - 12:22 **THE** [13] - 1:1, 3:2, 6:16, 7:14, 8:2, 8:10, 15:11, 16:15, 16:17, 17:7, 17:17, 18:11, 19:14 **thereby** [1] - 7:24 **they've** [1] - 13:11 **thinks** [1] - 18:9 **third** [9] - 4:6, 4:11, 5:2, 6:21, 6:22, 7:1, 7:9, 7:16, 7:25 **three** [1] - 18:5 **throwing** [1] - 10:17 **tied** [1] - 14:21 **today** [1] - 17:24 **together**[1] - 6:6 **tolled** [1] - 5:23 **totality** [1] - 15:20 **totally** [1] - 14:25 **towards** [1] - 6:19 **traceable** [1] - 16:3 **transcript** [1] - 19:24 **transfer**[2] - 5:8, 8:7 **transferred** [2] - 13:15, 14:15 **transfers** [3] - 4:12, 7:11, 17:1 **translator**[1] - 14:12 **transparent** [1] - 11:6 **treat** [1] - 14:7 **TRIAL** [1] - 1:1 **try** [1] - 17:4 **trying** [1] - 12:15 **turning** [1] - 11:21 **two** [1] - 15:21 **typical** [2] - 14:4\n\n## **U**\n\n**un-tolled** [1] - 5:23 **unaware** [1] - 6:12 **under** [6] - 3:11, 6:16, 6:18, 7:20, 12:23, 16:11 **unflattering** [1] - 5:5 **unfortunate** [1] - 5:15 **unfortunately** [1] - 16:6 **United** [2] - 16:21, 18:20 **unlike** [2] - 14:5 **unnecessary** [1] - 6:7 **unrelated** [1] - 15:14 **up** [10] - 5:21, 7:3, 10:17, 10:21, 14:9, 14:16, 14:20, 15:25, 17:4, 18:22\n\n## **V versions** [1] - 8:20\n\n**video** [1] - 15:9 **violation** [2] - 3:12, 18:20\n\n## **W**\n\n**wall** [1] - 4:1 **WAN** [2] - 1:6, 1:7 **wang** [1] - 15:22 **Wang** [20] - 2:2, 3:7, 4:25, 5:5, 5:19, 6:9, 6:10, 7:3, 7:11, 8:7, 9:5, 9:6, 11:9, 11:21, 12:7, 12:17, 14:3, 15:2, 15:16, 16:20 **Wang's** [6] - 3:3, 4:17, 5:12, 13:21, 16:3, 18:25 **wants** [4] - 14:21, 15:8, 18:1, 18:4 **wasted** [1] - 11:16 **watch** [1] - 15:9 **waters** [1] - 18:20 **ways** [1] - 5:5 **week** [1] - 12:19 **WEN** [2] - 1:7 **WEN-GUI** [1] - 1:7 **WENGUI** [1] - 1:7 **whack** [2] - 14:19, 16:5 **whack-a-mole** [2] - 14:19, 16:5 **White** [1] - 2:3 **wildly** [1] - 16:19 **withdraw** [1] - 6:11 **word** [3] - 15:8, 18:2, 18:6 **worse** [1] - 10:7 **write** [1] - 18:2 **writes** [1] - 10:25 **wrote** [1] - 17:23\n\n## **Y**\n\n**yacht** [1] - 18:19 **YANKWITT**[1] - 2:2 **Yankwitt** [1] - 3:6 **years** [3] - 11:16, 15:21, 16:21 **YORK** [2] - 1:1, 1:1 **York** [10] - 1:11, 1:19, 1:23, 2:3, 2:7, 4:3 **Yvette** [1] - 2:2","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","CIPA","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":837,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9302,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:19:51"}