{"id":"court_ctb_410_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":410,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWO","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 410 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:02:39 Page 1 of 38\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* May 13, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: BENNETT S. SILVERBERG, ESQ. JEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. DAVID HARBACH, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd:\n\nFor the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n> Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street\n\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n- Proposed counsel for the IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Creditors Committee: JOHN KAPLAN, ESQ.\n-\n- For HK International Funds STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ. Investments (USA) Limited, AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. LLC, Interested Party: Zeisler & Zeisler\n- For Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and CAROLLYN H.G. CALLARI, ESQ. Weican Meng, Creditors: Law Firm of Callari Partners One Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10020\n\t- 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n (Proceedings commenced at 12:05 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case no. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok THE COURT: All right. Before we take appearances it's been noted to the court that there are people on Zoom that might not have been authorized to be on Zoom. I don't know -- we're going to deal with that but motions specifically ask for specific people to be on Zoom. And my understanding is that there are people that are on Zoom that are not -- did not file a motion or did not -- weren't listed in a -- listed as a party who was going to appear via Zoom. Attorney Birney? MR. BIRNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson and Cole, on behalf of Pacific Alliance. Your Honor, I will take permission for any problems with that. There are -- only the people that we moved to appear via Zoom will have appearances in the case and will be speaking. But there were other PAX counsel who were listening in and I shared this with them. If that's inappropriate, we certainly could have them drop off and call in the dial number. THE COURT: No, I mean, I'm not going to worry about it today. But I think, you know, in the future, so that the record is clear -- I mean, these people, whether they're appearing or not -- I mean, whether they're speaking\n\n or not, they need to be noted for the record, right? And so, again, as I'm sure you're all tired of me saying, we only have audio for our record. The bankruptcy court is only allowed to keep its record via audio. So when we allow people to appear remotely, it was very helpful to have the names of the people that are being requested to appear remotely. But then if there are other people, then the courtroom deputy and the staff don't know who they are because they're not listed in motion. And they have to try to create a record, right. So in any event it's fine. But I'm going to make everyone who's on Zoom -- whether they're going to speak or not, they're going to have to note their appearance for the record, okay? MR. BIRNEY: Understood, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. So let's take appearances for the record, please, starting with the debtor's counsel. MR. JONAS: Good morning, Your Honor. Jeff Jonas, from Brown Rudnick. With me is Ben Silverberg on behalf of the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon to both of you. MR. ROMNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler. With me is my partner, Stephen\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| | 5 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Kindseth on behalf of HKI International Funds Investments |\n| 2 | Delaware LLC and Ms. Mei Guo. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon to both of you. |\n| 4 | MR. KAPLAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Jonathan |\n| 5 | Kaplan, of Pullman and Comley, along with Irve Goldman on |\n| 6 | behalf of the Committee of Unsecured Creditors. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon to both of you. |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon.
Holley Claiborn |\n| 9 | for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 11 | MR. BIRNEY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Patrick |\n| 12 | Birney, Robinson and Cole, on behalf of PAX. With us joining |\n| 13 | via the Zoom platform, pursuant to your motion, is Attorney |\n| 14 | Peter Friedman, Stuart Sarnoff and Laura Aronsson of the |\n| 15 | O'Melveny Myers firm -- O'Melveny and Myers, sorry. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Good afternoon to you as |\n| 17 | well. |\n| 18 | I see other people and then there are other people |\n| 19 | that were there before but I don't know if they're there |\n| 20 | anymore.
But in any event Attorney Callari, I see you and I |\n| 21 | know there was a motion filed to allow your appearance via |\n| 22 | Zoom. |\n| 23 | So if you would note your appearance for the |\n| 24 | record, please. |\n| 25 | MS. CALLARI:
Certainly, Your Honor.
Good |\n| | |\n\n afternoon. Carollynn Callari on behalf of Rui Ma and yes, Your Honor, Your Honor granted my appearance (indiscernible) today. Thank you very much. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. I don't see anybody else at this point. I don't know -- oh, is Mr. Harbach on the phone? MR. HARBACH: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Harbach, I need you to note your appearance for the record, please. Or did you do that, Mr. Birney, and I missed it. I'm sorry. MR. HARBACH: I did not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Harbach. MR. HARBACH: Yes, Your Honor. It's David Harbach for PAX, also with O'Melveny and Myers. And I dialed in by phone. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone I missed as far as appearances are concerned? Okay. Thank you. All right. On the calendar today then is the -- what we scheduled for a hearing because there was a request that it be scheduled on an expedited basis. THE CLERK: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but there's two people in the waiting room that just called in but they're only -- they haven't put their names\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n so I don't know who they are. THE COURT: Okay. THE CLERK: Do you want to -- THE COURT: Why don't you ask them who they are and then we'll see who they are. THE CLERK: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. THE CLERK: You're welcome. Now I don't see them. Oh, wait here they go. I see them now. Good morning. This is the courtroom deputy. I'm speaking to the person's whose phone number is 143-671-5954. I just need your name to identify for the court. (No response.) THE CLERK: I think they dropped off. THE COURT: All right. And I think the other party dropped off apparently, too. So then they'll either have to wait in the waiting room or call on the public access line. Okay. Let's proceed with the motion for a protective order. Counsel? MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, on behalf of HK International. Before I address the -- THE COURT: Well, you say HK International. Aren't you representing --\n\n MR. ROMNEY: And Ms. Guo, its principal. THE COURT: And could you state her name and spell it for the record please. MR. ROMNEY: M-E-I G-U-O. THE COURT: Okay. And just so I'm clear, it's a notice of deposition -- excuse me, of Ms. Guo individually, not HK International isn't it? MR. ROMNEY: Individually and as a 30(b)(6) witness of HK International. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead then, please. Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Before I address the substance procedurally a number of things have changed in this case since the time we filed our motion, notwithstanding that it was just on May 10th, this past Tuesday. In light of those developments we suggest that the interest of efficiency weigh heavily in favor of continuing this motion until the tail end of the status conference that the committee requested as early as this morning, which was docket number 359. THE COURT: I think it was less than an hour ago that it was requested. MR. ROMNEY: Correct, Your Honor. And, Your Honor, in sum and substance, since the\n\n time we filed our motion for a protective order, when we had every intention of going forward with the deposition subject to the restrictions that the court entered in response to this motion, the debtor has taken the position that it no longer opposes dismissal.\n\n The DIP lender has withdrawn its motion to fund this case and creditors have opposed the motion to dismiss for a variety of reasons, but they ultimately boil down to a completely different issue that was before the court as of Tuesday morning, when the debtor wanted to proceed and the DIP lender wanted to fund.\n\n The issue now on the dismissal motion, as Mr. Goldman articulated this morning in his request for a status conference, is really whether notwithstanding the debtor's consent to dismissal, the interests of creditors weigh in favor of continuing to keep this court in bankruptcy in one form or another.\n\n And we would respectfully submit that with the issue being what it is, Ms. Guo's testimony will likely be completely irrelevant to the dismissal motion which is the motion that the deposition notices were issued in connection with.\n\n So rather than sitting here today taking up all these people's and the court's time trying to figure out the logistics in a very unique situation regarding a deposition\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n that may never happen, we would submit that if we continue this motion for several days, we schedule it for the same time as the status conference, we give everyone a little time for the dust to settle and absorb the implications of the developments that happened over the last 72 hours, we would all be in a better position to address these issues or know that they simply no longer need to be addressed. THE COURT: Okay. Anything further? MR. ROMNEY: If the court is inclined to continue the status conference for the reasons I just stated, we would then -- THE COURT: What status conference? This is a hearing on a protective order. MR. ROMNEY: If the court is inclined to grant the relief I just requested, which is a continuance for a motion for a protective order -- I apologize, Your Honor. I misspoke. THE COURT: That's okay. The record's got to be clear. If the court were inclined to grant a brief continuance of this matter, I would then reserve my rights on argument to the extent we actually have to have a motion on a -- to have the substance of the motion for a protective order heard, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman for PAX from O'Melveny and Meyers. May I be heard? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. FRIEDMAN: So, Your Honor, we don't fully agree with what counsel just argued. And I think the reasons are we do believe that people have challenged some of the *prima facie* evidence that we put forward with respect to whether dismissal is appropriate. And I think people have also said -- argued in their papers that we don't meet the test for appointment to the trustee, which I think in my view dismissal or a trustee is inevitable now and we do believe that the evidence that will go forward at the hearing a week from Wednesday would be pertinent to both issues. And so I think given that there's not a huge amount of time between now and the 25th, it's important for us to be able to take depositions in an efficient matter on the limited days that remain. And I will say that counsel for Mei Guo and HK International has been more cooperative than any other party on the debtor's side in terms of scheduling and making witnesses available and being responsive to discovery. So I'd be remiss not to point that out. Other parties have not been nearly as cooperative\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n or in our views complied with their discovery obligation. We don't know when a status conference will be heard. I will say, Your Honor, as I'd assume you'd expect, Mr. Goldman and I have conferred this morning and we would propose that the status conference be heard Tuesday. It is possible by that time we might be able to reach agreements that we would propose to Mr. Goldman and other parties that moot the need for discovery. We might not be able to. But I think pushing off the motion to quash/motion for protective order really with respect to the conditions under which this deposition take place I think will further jam everybody. So I think -- and we're prepared to go ahead with it today. You know, we are willing, as an accommodation to the fact that it may ultimately become necessary, to push off the actual taking of the deposition until Wednesday if committee counsel is okay with that. I notice they also filed an objection to our -- I'm sorry. A joinder/proposed their own conditions on the taking of the deposition. But we do think it's important to have that teed up. And to the extent the court does wish to hear argument on that, I would defer to Ms. Aronsson to make the argument. You know, counsel for the committee and I had a discussion on a range of issues. We do think that if the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n court's available on Tuesday, we think it would be useful to hold the status conference then. I would attend that conference in person at any time that the court wishes to hold the hearing, if Tuesday's possible. We would prefer not to have it -- and I apologize to the court for mixing two issues at once, but I do think there have been substantial developments that have occurred over the last 72 hours. And we do think that holding that hearing as soon as possible is really important in light of the current date of the 25th, which certainly at this point we don't intend to extend our time frame and believe it's important to keep moving on that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Irve Goldman on behalf of the committee. I do agree with Mr. Friedman's proposal to not continue this hearing. And I can confirm that what he articulated as far as our discussion is morning is accurate. I believe it was productive and I think that if we were able to have a status conference on Tuesday, that would give us a couple of days to further develop what we were talking about in terms of a resolution. I do not agree that the only options on the table\n\n now are dismissal or the appointment of a trustee, especially in light of what occurred. Conversation should be given very serious consideration in this case for the reasons I -- for many of the reasons I mentioned in our opposition to the motion to dismiss. But we're certainly willing to discuss a resolution and that's what we would do, given the time until Tuesday if Your Honor could accommodate that. If Your Honor decides that we should argue this motion, I would defer to Mr. Kaplan to do that. THE COURT: Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard? MS. CALLARI: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, Ms. Callari. Could you just hold your thought for a moment. Mr. Jonas is standing, so I'm going to hear from him first. Okay? Go ahead, Mr. Jonas. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. JONAS: Jeff Jonas, Brown Rudnick, for the debtor. I don't have a lot to add except simply to say for the record, Your Honor, as I think you know at docket no. 344 the debtor did file a consent to dismissal of the case responding to PAX's motion.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n And at docket 345 the debtor filed it's withdrawal of the DIP motion. I just want to note those for the record and for the court. I'm happy to come back on -- there is quite a few things in flux in terms of discovery and I'm happy to come back on Tuesday if it's convenient for the court to discuss wherever we are at that point. So thank Your Honor, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Callari? Oh, I'm sorry. Hold on one second. (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. I'm sorry. I guess there was a technical difficulty there but in any event, Ms. Callari? MS. CALLARI: Thank you, Your Honor. Carol Callari again for Rui Ma. Your Honor, I would echo Attorney Goldman's comment. We do think that the issues have changed and a status conference would be warranted. And that a serious consideration of conversion is warranted and the type of discovery that now would be needed in connection with a PAX motion and the new issues before the court are different. But it likely will be necessary so I would agree with Mr. Friedman that this motion today should go forward\n\n so people understand the parameters and we can get some preliminary matters out of the way so we can move forward once petitions are made, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. So let me just ask Mr. Friedman a question before we go any further. I just want to make sure I understood what you said, Attorney Friedman. You'd like the court to rule on this motion today but if the court rules, you're not going to conduct the deposition as scheduled on Monday the 16th?. You would conduct it on Wednesday, the 18th or some day after that? MR. FRIEDMAN: We would try to conduct it first thing on Wednesday, the 18th, Your Honor. We don't want to do unnecessary discovery but we feel it's important to know the parameters if we wind up -- you know, I don't know whether there are technical issues that would need to be addressed in advance or there are vendor issues. So we would want the additional time to be able to prepare for a deposition in advance. If the court's conclusion is otherwise -- as the court knows there are some things that I feel like on a scale of one to ten, ten very strongly about, I will -- obviously, if the court concludes in your view as a matter of judicial efficiency you'd rather have it argued Wednesday, I'd defer to the court's judgment and how the court believes its time is best used.\n\n THE COURT: Well, thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? I have some questions but is there any other argument that anyone would like to make? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I may. Aaron Romney for HKI and Ms. Guo. The only additional thing I would add here I believe we can make Ms. Guo available for a deposition on Wednesday, thereby putting the deposition on the other side of a status conference if the court is able to schedule one in the first part of this week. We are not -- our motion for a protective order is not saying -- or at least wasn't as of Tuesday saying that she shouldn't be deposed. So if the court orders it go to forward, we will absolutely prevent her. What we are saying is that the dynamic has shifted and I believe it would be more favorable certainly -- frankly, for all parties to be able to process what is the playing field so we can properly present the issue of the protective order to the court based upon the dynamic that wasn't when we filed this motion. We're only asking for a few days and as we are going to make the witness available, if that's what needs to happen and Wednesday will work for us and given the dynamic it just -- fundamental issues of fairness I would say weigh in favor of allowing us a few days to process the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n information and how they weigh on the issue of whether or not this deposition should go forward. THE COURT: Okay. But doesn't a party conducting the deposition have to be prepared for what the -- how the deposition is going to be conducted? You filed the motion for a protective order, which is absolutely allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and asked for an expedited hearing. If you're saying we're going to continue this until I think you're saying until whenever the status conference may be and you're all looking to Tuesday, then how is the party who is taking the deposition going to know how the deposition's going to be conducted? I mean, they're not going to know until 12 hours before it starts. MR. ROMNEY: That's correct, Your Honor. Though the issues presented at least in the protective order -- the motion as of Tuesday when we did not think the possibility of the deposition not going forward was on the table, the issues presented in the motion before the court now are logistical in nature, primarily whether or not this deposition is going to be conducted via video or just audio and if video -- whether that video can be recorded. THE COURT: I don't know how a deposition can be conducted by just audio. I don't under -- I've looked at --\n\n it seems to me the real issue on this protective order, the real dispute is the image of the -- what your concern is the image of the deponent, right? You don't want it to be on video. MR. ROMNEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, then -- and the court reporter isn't going to be in the same room, at least that's what my reading is. Is that correct? The court reporter isn't going to be in the same room? MR. ROMNEY: That was my understanding though it hasn't been worked out one way or another. THE COURT: That doesn't make any sense to me, right? Either the person appears via video that everybody can see so that everybody knows it's that person, or somebody's got to be in the room with her, including maybe the person taking the deposition. So to me it doesn't make any sense to -- if the only dispute, and I think reading the papers quickly, counsel, okay -- as you know everything has been filed in the last -- less than 48 hours, right? I think the dispute is that -- and I agree with you that most of it is logistic, but some of it substantive, right? How are -- if you're going to conduct a deposition, you have to make sure that the person being deposed is that person.\n\n MR. ROMNEY: Of course. THE COURT: And so if there's no one in the room with the person being deposed, and the person's only going to speak over audio, then how could that be confirmed that it's that person? The logistics about the court reporter logging in ten minutes before doesn't work because you could have somebody sit there who is the right person with the court reporter and then ten minutes later it could be somebody else. So I'm not going to allow that regardless of how we proceed. It's either going to be that some -- that she appears via video or somebody's there with her in the room. And that's how it's going to proceed. Otherwise, the credibility and the weight given to that evidence is not really going to be helpful to the court. And that's a waste of judicial resources, okay? So you may all want to talk about that. Your issue -- you question is whether I was going to rule on it today. You know, I could rule on it today. I think I've basically told you what my ruling's going to be, which is if this person is being deposed, there was a subpoena issued, the protective order and the only dispute left that I see, but I'm -- everybody else should correct me if I'm wrong, while it appears technical, and certainly part of it is, in\n\n my view it's not just technical. It goes to the weight and credibility of the evidence. I don't know -- I've never seen a deposition where somebody isn't physically looking at the person and they only ask questions over audio and there's no -- it just doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't. I understand the concerns you've raised and I think they can be addressed in different ways. The person can be asking questions in the same room with the deponent and the deponent doesn't have to be on camera, and then you've got a stenographer taking down what's being said but I'm not going to have the person be in -- wherever the person may be without anyone being able to witness that that's the person who's saying the words that are being -- and answering the questions that are being asked. So that is not going to happen. If you want time to talk about these issues with PAX and the committee, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But to me anyway those were the last issues that I saw. And I appreciate the parties working together to try to resolve the issues. But am I correct that that's the only issue that you need to have addressed as far as a protective order is concerned? MR. ROMNEY: Not entirely, Your Honor.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| | 22 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
So what else? |\n| 2 | MR. ROMNEY:
Well, a related issue. If the |\n| 3 | deposition were to go forward on a video, whether or not |\n| 4 | that video would be recorded as opposed to just audio |\n| 5 | recorded I believe that is -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Well, didn't I just describe a way to |\n| 7 | solve that problem? |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct, which would involve having |\n| 9 | the witness in the same room as -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
And what's the problem with that? |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:
I believe the primary concern with |\n| 12 | that is COVID considerations.
The witness -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Put a mask on like we're doing right |\n| 14 | now, right? |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:
I understand that, Your Honor, and |\n| 16 | different people have different levels of sensitivity with - |\n| 17 | - |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, that's not going to be enough |\n| 19 | for a protective order, counsel.
You know, you're going to |\n| 20 | have to have doctor's note and all those kinds of things. I |\n| 21 | mean, we're not -- you know, the -- |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:
I understand, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |\n| 24 | govern. |\n| 25 | MR. ROMNEY:
The other issue that was not an issue |\n| | |\n\n as between Ms. Guo and PAX, but I believe was raised by the committee this morning or yesterday evening is to whether the witness could be required to testify about her location, where she resides, as well as those of other family members. As we have made clear and I think illustrated and substantiated with substantial evidence, this is not a typical circumstance. This is not a typical deposition. THE COURT: What evidence? MR. ROMNEY: We have a witness -- THE COURT: What evidence are you talking -- MR. ROMNEY: -- who's been imprisoned and tortured and who is clearly being watched by people who have threatened her physical safety with heinous acts. THE COURT: I don't have any evidence of that in this record, counsel. I have Mr. Kwok talking about what happened to him. But I don't have any evidence about your client. MR. ROMNEY: We have attached the social media posts. Granted they're not in English, but we have -- THE COURT: Also that's not evidence at this point. That's not evidence. MR. ROMNEY: I understand, Your Honor. And this is not an evidentiary hearing but it's a discovery motion. THE COURT: I understand but you just said there's evidence that -- and there isn't any evidence. Not at this\n\n point. There might be but there isn't at this point. And that's not what your protective order said. All your protective order -- what you wanted in these paragraphs were this issue about it not being videotaped. Okay. I can understand that. So then I suggested a solution. You could come up with another one. But your client's not going to be somewhere where nobody else is. That's not going to happen. It doesn't make sense. It's not valid testimony if no one can witness that the person who answered the question was the person sitting there answering the questions. That's, as I said, a waste of judicial resources, and all of your time, by the way. MR. ROMNEY: Well, Your Honor, respectfully, we did propose presenting her to the court reporter to verify her identification. THE COURT: I just told you why that didn't work, counsel. MR. ROMNEY: But I understand what the court has said. The separate issue that I raised, which I believe is in the motion, as well as our proposed order, did include language and I believe PAX's proposed order also included language about the witness not having to testify about where she lives or her family members are for safety issues.\n\n| | 25 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
That's fine. I didn't say anything |\n| 2 | about where she lives.
That wasn't what I said, right?
I |\n| 3 | don't have a problem with that.
If you all agree she |\n| 4 | doesn't have to testify where she lives, that's fine. |\n| 5 | That's your agreement. |\n| 6 | But the issue of her being somewhere where no one |\n| 7 | else is is not going to work. |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
All right.
So how are we proceeding |\n| 12 | then?
Are we ruling on this motion today, as I just |\n| 13 | basically stated what would be my ruling, or are we |\n| 14 | continuing it to a conference, which I haven't even read -- |\n| 15 | I mean, I understand why the committee's asking for a |\n| 16 | conference. I don't know what it said, Attorney Goldman, yet |\n| 17 | because I haven't seen it -- I mean, I haven't read it. I |\n| 18 | know it's been filed in the last hour. |\n| 19 | And I understand that things have changed in the |\n| 20 | last few days.
But there's still an evidentiary hearing |\n| 21 | scheduled for whatever -- May 24th, 5th, 6th, whatever the |\n| 22 | days are. I'm sorry. I don't have them right in front of me. |\n| 23 | And you asked for and obtained an expedited hearing on your |\n| 24 | protective order. |\n| 25 | So how should we proceed? |\n| | |\n\n MR. ROMNEY: Any, Your Honor, thank you for providing us the hearing on the expedited basis. We hear Your Honor loud and clear. What I would ask and propose is renew my request to continue a ruling on this hearing until the status conference. During that time I will confer with counsel. I agree with Mr. Friedman's characterization that we have had productive dialogues. We're all professionals who understand our obligations. And I hear you loud and clear and I believe that given the guidance from the bench today that we will be able to work something out and on terms that everyone will be satisfied with. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Friedman? MS. ARONSSON: Your Honor, if I may be heard. Laura Aronsson from O'Melveny. THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. MS. ARONSSON: I just want to reiterate we did not intend to seek further security concerns for Ms. Guo. And I just wanted to be heard briefly on the video recording. We just wanted to state that although we believe that Ms. Guo is likely in the subpoena power of this court, we think that a video recording of the deposition is necessary. If we need to use a video deposition before Your\n\n Honor at any point in the future and if credibility is at issue at any point, that video is a really important piece of the puzzle. Moreover, our previous experience with the debtor raises some concerns in our mind that he might later challenge the authenticity of this deposition. So we need this video for that reason as well. THE COURT: So you're asserting to the court that regardless of whether people are in the room with her or not, it has to be on video. That the stenographer's recordation of what is said is not enough. MS. ARONSSON: Thank you, Your Honor. That's what we (indiscernible). We did propose to Mr. Romney that if he did agree to (indiscernible) May 25th hearing that we could compromise on that. But we didn't hear back. So in our view the video is necessary. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Romney? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, on that point, the -- a deposition transcript can be authenticated when a court reporter has sworn in the witness, counsel are all present. I don't believe the issue of authenticity weighs one way or another in favor of video or not. The issue with the video is once there is a video it can be -- it's there. It's there forever. And we have raised substantial concerns about the witness' physical\n\n safety and privacy. We don't believe it's necessary for her to be recorded. In terms of her deposition testimony being presented to this court, counsel is correct that we have not yet gotten back with a position as to whether the witness would be available to testify at a dismissal hearing. However, to the extent that there's going to be an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the dismissal, it's going to be a bench trial. It's going to be before the court. This court -- THE COURT: That's not necessarily -- it is a bench trial but I may need evidence. MR. ROMNEY: Understood. But meaning it's not going to be presented to a lay jury. It's going to be presented to Your Honor and Your Honor is more than capable of reading a deposition transcript and evaluating the veracity of the testimony. It happens all the time. I don't think in my entire career I have ever presented a video deposition to a court yet probably presented north of 50 deposition transcripts. It would be a waste of time to watch a video of a deposition during an evidentiary hearing presented to a judge and I respectfully submit it's unnecessary and in this case would cause substantial anxiety to a witness who has been through unimaginable things.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard? MS. ARONSSON: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll just add that the credibility issue at the deposition itself, and potentially later in court when we show the video, it's even more important here, given just (Indiscernible) regarding her credibility this past February. And I'll just also add that there's no basis for counsel's concern that the parties to the deposition would somehow break confidentiality and broadcast the deposition or leak it. There's no basis other than his say so. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Kaplan, did you want to be heard? MR. KAPLAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. The committee joins with PAX and their opposition to the motion for a protective order. And I won't reiterate the points that Attorney Aronsson has already made. The one issue I wanted to address was the addresses of some of the family members. This is a bankruptcy that was filed by an individual who is claimed to have a large net worth, yet his schedules indicate he's worth \\$3,500 and has a dog. And there's a lot of discussions in the filings and his declaration regarding wanting to be transparent and open up everything so that the world can take a look and\n\n find out if that's true or not. During some of the discovery procedures that other parties have undertaken, they have been met with resistence in terms of obtaining depositions from his family members, including the family members like his son, who provides \\$2 million plus per year through Golden Springs for his living expenses, help pay for the boat. Help pay for all sorts of things. There has been a harsh rebuke and lack of cooperation in terms of obtaining depositions of individuals like Mr. Kwok's son. So in terms of our request in our opposition, we're really seeking to be able to locate their address, because we're going to need that for subpoenas and additional things in future proceedings because there's been no cooperation. I think Golden Springs just filed another motion to quash this morning during prior discussions in regards to our 2004 Examination motion. They've indicated they will put forward a designee but they will not put forward and they're not authorized to accept service. So that's the reason behind it and so that's why I think it's over broad to just simply say that they should never have to disclose this information and especially I don't think they've presented the record to support that in\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 410 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:02:39 Page 31 of 38\n\n| | 31 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | light of the fact that there is no affidavit attached to it. |\n| 2 | There's no disclosure of those things. |\n| 3 | But most importantly this is information that the |\n| 4 | committee needs in order to proceed with obtaining |\n| 5 | discoverable information going forward. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
Your Honor, it I may briefly. |\n| 8 | This is a deposition that has been noticed in |\n| 9 | connection with a dismissal hearing. |\n| 10 | I'm not going to weigh in one way or another on |\n| 11 | whether what Mr. Kaplan has just said has merit down the |\n| 12 | future. |\n| 13 | But this is not a deposition about the future. |\n| 14 | This is not a Rule 2004 Exam.
This is a deposition noticed |\n| 15 | by the movant, PAX, in connection with its motion to dismiss |\n| 16 | and I have not heard anything and can't fathom how addresses |\n| 17 | of Ms. Guo's family and the debtor's family is relevant one |\n| 18 | way or another to a dismissal motion that is scheduled to be |\n| 19 | heard before this court on May 25th. |\n| 20 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 23 | All right. So what we're -- |\n| 24 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
Attorney -- |\n| | |\n\n MR. GOLDMAN: -- I just want to make the point that addresses of potential witnesses certainly could lead to the discovery of further admissible evidence in connection with the motion to dismiss. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: That's the standard of discovery. THE COURT: What I'm going to do is as follows. By 5:00 on Monday morning you're all going to tell me what you agree to and don't agree to with regard to the protective order. And then I'm going to rule on that. As far as a status conference is concerned I would not be able to hear you at any time before 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday. Does 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday work for the parties? And by the way, a status conference to discuss whatever has happened is not -- is not necessarily changing that we're having an evidentiary hearing on May 25th on a motion to dismiss or in the alternative an appointment for a trustee, right? It's not just on a motion to dismiss. That's what's been pending for some time now. We've talked about it. I've talked about the fact that the code and the rules state that the court has to have that hearing within a certain amount of time unless the movant consents to a specific date, which they have, of May 25th.\n\n So I'm absolutely happy to have a status conference and hear what you've all talked about -- hear about what you've all talked about and where you think things are going with regard to this case. But I just want to be clear that that doesn't mean that there isn't going to be an evidentiary hearing on May 25th. And I think, Attorney Romney, you just corrected me. It's May 25th and 6th. And I said the 24th, and 5th, whatever the dates are. But they're already scheduled. They're part of an order and that's going to happen unless something else happens. So I don't want anyone proceeding with a -- under the belief that because certain things have happened in the last three days there isn't going to be an evidentiary hearing. There or may not be. We'll see. Mr. Jonas? MR. JONAS: Your Honor, Jeff Jonas, Brown Rudnick, for the debtor. I just wanted to inform the court Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. would be fine with us. THE COURT: Great. Thank you. Does Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. work for everyone else? MR. GOLDMAN: It works for the committee, Your Honor.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n MR. BIRNEY: Yes, it works for PAX. MS. CALLARI: Your Honor, it works except for the fact that I have something that would not allow me to get to Connecticut and back to New Jersey for something else I need to attend. So I need to try to work that out. THE COURT: That's okay. Just have -- just file a motion to request to appear via Zoom, okay? MS. CALLARI: Okay. I appreciate that, Your Honor. THE COURT: But I really would like the parties, as much as they can, if possible, to be here in person because I think you all need to talk. I think you all need to talk. And I find, and I'm sure you've all found that talking in person often has more promising developments than over Zoom. That's my personal experience. And maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it. But we won't be able -- I mean, maybe we can start it at 2:30. We have something else scheduled at 2:00. I don't know how long that's going to take. I don't want you all to come here at 2:30 if we're not ready to hear you. If you want to be here at 2:30, we have conference rooms available. We have all -- there is space available for people to talk. And then you may not want to talk, and that's\n\n fine, too. Whatever you decide. I will hear whatever you have to say. But I will -- Attorney Goldman, as I said, I haven't looked at your motion. Does it just ask for a status conference? Is that -- I mean, it doesn't ask for any kind of relief, does it? MR. GOLDMAN: Correct. It just asks for status conference. THE COURT: All right. MR. GOLDMAN: We're not looking to bump off the hearing, although it could be on the table. But no, we just ask for a status conference. THE COURT: That's fine. Then the likelihood is that that order will enter this afternoon, scheduling a status conference. And the only reason I say it may not is because we have other things that are already scheduled this afternoon. Not in court, but it will either enter this afternoon or first thing Monday morning but you all know, you're all here either in person or remotely that the status conference will be held at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday -- whatever date that is. And I'm sorry to say I have no idea sitting here right now but I will look. Tuesday, the 17th. Okay? May 17th at 3:00 p.m. As I said, it's possible the 2 o'clock matter\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n could be done before 3:00. And if it is, the courtroom deputy or someone from the clerk's office will let you all know. And if you want to start it earlier than 3:00, we can do that too. But we'll see. Otherwise, I will not allow the 2 o'clock matter to go beyond 3:00 so that we will start at 3:00 at the very latest, okay. But I want all -- Attorney Romney, Attorney Goldman, Attorney Friedman, the only parties I believe that have filed the motion for a protective order and then responded to the protective order -- I'm correct on that I believe, right? That's the only pleadings that have been filed with regard to the protective order. MR. FRIEDMAN: I believe that's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So then by 5:00 p.m. on Monday you either jointly or on your own, whatever you all decided to do. This is discovery. You all have obligations to continue to work in good faith and see if you can resolve things under the federal rules, right? You either jointly or on your own file a list of what you believe are the remaining issues in the protective order, and whether there's an agreement or not and then I'm going to rule on those issues. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. We will.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone have any other questions or concerns this afternoon, which I'm happy to listen to? I don't know if I will do anything about them, but I'm happy to hear them. Okay. Then hearing none the hearing on the protective order is continued to allow -- well to insist that the parties file their position papers at or before 5:00 p.m. on the remaining issues and let the court know whether they're resolved or not and then the court will rule. And possibly will rule before the 3 o'clock status conference on Tuesday. The only reason I may not is because we have hearings on Tuesday morning throughout the morning. But you know, you never know. We'll just see how it goes, okay? MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further then? We're all set for today? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, thank you, all. That is the last matter on today's calendar so court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 12:52 p.m.)\n\n| 1 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | transcriber and certified electronic reporter and |\n| 3 | transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct |\n| 4 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |\n| 5 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | May 19, 2022 |\n| 9 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\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 | |\n| 24 | |\n| | |\n| | |","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Guo","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":8312,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:20:44"}