{"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":"案号 22-50073 文件 410 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 15:02:39 第 1 页，共 38 页\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦地区破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）\n布里奇波特分院（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于 案号 22-50073(JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n\n债务人。 May 13, 2022\n\n保护令动议庭审记录\n\n在美国破产法院法官 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代理债务人：\n\nBENNETT S. SILVERBERG, ESQ.（本内特·S·西尔弗伯格律师）\nJEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ.（杰弗里·L·乔纳斯律师）\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代理债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\n\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\nLAURA ARONSSON, ESQ.（劳拉·阿伦松律师）\nDAVID HARBACH, ESQ.（戴维·哈巴赫律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦文律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼律师）\nRobinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n庭审程序以电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代理美国受托人：\n\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍利·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n债权人委员会拟任律师：\n\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nJOHN KAPLAN, ESQ.（约翰·卡普兰律师）\n\n代理利害关系方 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK 国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）：\n\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思律师）\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n\n代理债权人 Rui Ma（瑞·马）、Zheng Wu（郑·吴）及 Weican Meng（维灿·孟）：\n\nCAROLLYN H.G. CALLARI, ESQ.（卡罗琳·H.G. 卡拉里律师）\nLaw Firm of Callari Partners（卡拉里合伙人律师事务所）\nOne Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, NY 10020\n10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n（庭审于下午 12:05 开始。）\n\n书记员：案号 22-50073，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：好的。在我们确认出庭人员之前，法庭注意到，Zoom 上可能有未经授权使用 Zoom 的人员。我不知道——我们会处理这个问题，但动议明确请求特定人员通过 Zoom 出席。据我了解，目前 Zoom 上有人员并未——没有提交动议，也没有——未被列为将通过 Zoom 出庭的一方。伯尼律师？\n\n伯尼先生：下午好，法官阁下。帕特里克·伯尼，Robinson and Cole，代表 Pacific Alliance。法官阁下，对于由此产生的任何问题，我愿承担责任。只有我们申请通过 Zoom 出庭的人员会在本案中出庭并发言。但还有其他 PAX 律师在旁听，我已将此事与他们分享。若此举不适当，我们当然可以让他们退出并拨打接入号码。\n\n法庭：不，我今天不会为此担心。但我认为，您知道，为使记录清楚——我是说，这些人，无论他们是否出庭——我是说，无论他们是否发言，都需要记入记录，对吗？因此，再次说明，我相信你们都已经厌倦听我这样说，我们的记录仅有音频。破产法院只被允许以音频方式保存其记录。因此，当我们允许人员远程出庭时，如能提供请求远程出庭人员的姓名，将十分有帮助。但如果还有其他人员，法庭书记员和工作人员就不知道他们是谁，因为他们未列于动议中。他们必须设法制作记录，对吗？无论如何，这没有问题。但我将要求所有在 Zoom 上的人员——无论他们是否发言——均须就其出庭情况记入记录，可以吗？\n\n伯尼先生：明白，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，请为记录确认出庭人员，从债务人代理律师开始。\n\n乔纳斯先生：早上好，法官阁下。杰夫·乔纳斯，来自 Brown Rudnick。与我一同出庭的是代表债务人的本·西尔弗伯格。\n\n法庭：两位下午好。\n\n罗姆尼先生：早上好，法官阁下。亚伦·罗姆尼，Zeisler and Zeisler。与我一同出庭的是我的合伙人斯蒂芬。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n1 金德塞思，代表 HKI International Funds Investments\n\n2 Delaware LLC 及 Mei Guo 女士。\n\n3 法庭：两位下午好。\n\n4 卡普兰先生：下午好，法官阁下。乔纳森\n\n5 卡普兰，来自 Pullman and Comley，与欧文·戈德曼一同\n\n6 代表无担保债权人委员会。\n\n7 法庭：两位下午好。\n\n8 克莱伯恩女士：下午好。霍利·克莱伯恩\n\n9 代表美国受托人。\n\n10 法庭：下午好。\n\n11 伯尼先生：下午好，法官阁下。帕特里克\n\n12 伯尼，Robinson and Cole，代表 PAX。根据您的动议，通过\n\n13 Zoom 平台与我们一同出庭的有弗里德曼律师、\n\n14 斯图尔特·萨诺夫及 O'Melveny Myers 律师事务所的劳拉·阿伦松\n\n15 ——抱歉，是 O'Melveny and Myers。\n\n16 法庭：谢谢。也向您\n\n17 致以下午好。\n\n18 我看到其他人，另外还有此前在场的其他人，\n\n19 但我不知道他们现在是否仍在场。\n\n20 无论如何，卡拉里律师，我看到您，并且我\n\n21 知道已提交动议，准许您通过\n\n22 Zoom 出庭。\n\n23 因此，请您为\n\n24 记录确认出庭，好吗？\n\n25 卡拉里女士：当然，法官阁下。下午好。卡罗琳·卡拉里，代表 Rui Ma，且是的，法官阁下，您准许我今天出庭（听不清）。非常感谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。目前我没有看到其他人。我不知道——哦，哈巴赫先生在电话上吗？\n\n哈巴赫先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：哈巴赫先生，请您为记录确认出庭。或者，伯尼先生，您是否已经这样做了，而我遗漏了？抱歉。\n\n哈巴赫先生：我没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。哈巴赫先生。\n\n哈巴赫先生：是的，法官阁下。我是代表 PAX 的戴维·哈巴赫，也来自 O'Melveny and Myers。我通过电话拨入。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。就出庭人员而言，有我遗漏的人吗？好的。谢谢。好的。那么，今天日程上的是——由于有人请求以加急方式安排，因此已排定举行听证会的事项。\n\n书记员：法官阁下，抱歉打断您，但等候室里有两人刚刚拨入，不过他们只是——尚未输入自己的姓名。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n因此我不知道他们是谁。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n书记员：您要不要——\n\n法庭：您为什么不问问他们是谁，然后我们看看他们是谁。\n\n书记员：好的。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n书记员：不客气。现在我看不到他们了。哦，等等，他们来了。我现在看到他们了。早上好。这是法庭书记员。我正在与电话号码为 143-671-5954 的人通话。我只需要您的姓名，以供法庭识别。\n\n（无人回应。）\n\n书记员：我想他们退出了。\n\n法庭：好的。我想另一方显然也退出了。那么，他们要么必须在等候室等候，要么拨打公共接入线路。好的。让我们继续审理保护令动议。律师？\n\n罗姆尼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。亚伦·罗姆尼，Zeisler and Zeisler，代表 HK International。在我陈述——之前。\n\n法庭：您说 HK International。您不是代表——\n\n罗姆尼先生：以及其负责人 Guo 女士。\n\n法庭：请您陈述她的姓名，并为记录拼写，好吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：M-E-I G-U-O。\n\n法庭：好的。为使我理解清楚，这是对 Guo 女士个人的证言录取通知——抱歉，而非对 HK International 的，不是吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：以个人身份，并作为 HK International 的 30(b)(6) 证人。\n\n法庭：好的。那么请继续。谢谢。\n\n罗姆尼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。在我从实体内容和程序角度进行陈述之前，自我们提交动议以来，本案已有若干事项发生变化，尽管该动议仅于 May 10th，即本周二提交。鉴于这些进展，我们认为，效率考量强烈支持将本动议延至委员会今晨才请求的状态会议结束时继续审理，该请求的案卷编号为 359。\n\n法庭：我认为该请求是在不到一小时前提出的。\n\n罗姆尼先生：正确，法官阁下。并且，法官阁下，概言之，自我们提交保护令动议以来，当时我们完全打算推进证言录取，但须受法庭就该动议作出的限制，债务人现已采取立场，不再反对驳回。\n\nDIP 出借方已撤回其为本案提供资金的动议，债权人则基于各种理由反对驳回动议，但这些理由最终归结为一个与本周二上午呈现在法庭面前的问题完全不同的问题；当时债务人希望继续进行，DIP 出借方希望提供资金。\n\n正如戈德曼先生今晨在其状态会议请求中所阐述的，现在驳回动议所涉及的问题，实际是即使债务人同意驳回，债权人的利益是否仍支持以某种形式继续使本案留在本破产法院。\n\n我们谨此提出，鉴于所涉问题现为上述问题，Guo 女士的证言很可能与驳回动议完全无关，而该证言录取通知正是就该动议发出的。\n\n因此，与其今天在此占用所有这些人和法庭的时间，试图解决有关一项可能永远不会进行的证言录取的、在极为特殊情形下的程序安排，我们谨此提出，如果将本动议延续数日，并安排在与状态会议相同的时间举行，给予每个人一些时间让情况稳定下来，并消化过去 72 小时发生的进展所带来的影响，我们都将处于更有利的位置，以处理这些问题，或者知道根本无需再处理这些问题。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他内容吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：如果法庭倾向于基于我刚才所述理由延续状态会议，我们随后将——\n\n法庭：什么状态会议？这是关于保护令的听证会。\n\n罗姆尼先生：如果法庭倾向于准许我刚才请求的救济，即延续保护令动议——我道歉，法官阁下。我失言了。\n\n法庭：没关系。记录必须清楚。如果法庭倾向于准许对本事项作短暂延续，那么，就我们实际上必须就保护令动议的实体内容举行听证会而言，我将保留我在辩论中的权利，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n罗姆尼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我是代表 PAX 的彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman），来自 O'Melveny and Meyers（欧麦律师事务所）。我可以发言吗？法庭：可以，请讲。弗里德曼先生：因此，法官阁下，我们并不完全同意刚才律师所作的陈述。我认为原因在于，我们确实认为，有人对我们就驳回是否适当所提出的部分初步证据提出了质疑。我认为也有人在其书面文件中表示——主张我们不符合指定受托人的标准；在我看来，现在驳回或指定受托人已不可避免，而我们确实认为，下周三举行的听证会上将提交的证据将与这两个问题均相关。因此，我认为，鉴于现在至25日之间的时间并不多，重要的是我们能够在剩余的有限几天内高效地进行证言录取。我还要说，郭美（Mei Guo）和 HK International（香港国际）的律师在安排时间、提供证人以及回应证据开示方面，比债务人一方的任何其他当事人都更为合作。因此，如不指出这一点，我将有所疏漏。其他当事人远没有如此合作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n或者依我们看来，并未履行其证据开示义务。我们不知道何时将举行状态会议。我想说，法官阁下，正如我相信您所预期的那样，戈德曼先生（Mr. Goldman）和我今天上午已经进行了协商，我们建议在周二举行状态会议。届时我们可能能够与戈德曼先生及其他当事人达成协议，从而使证据开示不再必要。我们也可能无法达成。但我认为，推迟对撤销传票动议／保护令动议的处理——实际上是关于此次证言录取应在何种条件下进行——将使所有人更加受阻。因此，我认为——我们准备今天继续进行。鉴于最终可能有必要这样做，如果委员会律师同意，我们愿意作为一种通融，将实际进行证言录取推迟至周三。我注意到他们也对我们的——抱歉，提出了加入申请／就证言录取提出了其自身条件。但我们确实认为，重要的是将此问题准备就绪。如法院希望就此听取辩论，我将请阿伦松女士（Ms. Aronsson）进行辩论。您知道，委员会律师和我就一系列问题进行了讨论。我们确实认为，如果法院\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n周二有空，我们认为届时举行状态会议将是有益的。如果周二可行，我愿在法院希望举行听证会的任何时间亲自出席该会议。我们不希望——我为同时混合两个问题向法院致歉，但我确实认为，在过去72小时内已经发生了重大进展。鉴于目前日期为25日，我们确实认为尽快举行该听证会极为重要；当然，截至目前，我们无意延长我们的时间框架，并认为继续推进此事十分重要。法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？戈德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。我是代表委员会的厄夫·戈德曼（Irve Goldman）。我同意弗里德曼先生不延期开庭的建议。我可以确认，他就我们今天上午讨论所陈述的内容是准确的。我认为讨论富有成效，而且我认为，如果我们能够在周二举行状态会议，这将给我们几天时间，进一步推进我们就解决方案所讨论的内容。我不同意目前摆在面前的唯一选择\n\n是驳回或指定受托人，特别是鉴于已经发生的情况。基于我在反对驳回动议时提出的许多理由，本案应当对转换程序给予非常认真考虑。但我们当然愿意讨论解决方案；如果法官阁下能够作此安排，这就是我们在周二之前这段时间内将会做的事。如果法官阁下决定我们应就该动议进行辩论，我将请卡普兰先生（Mr. Kaplan）处理。法庭：好的。还有其他人希望发言吗？卡拉里女士：法官阁下——法庭：抱歉，卡拉里女士。您能否先稍等一下。乔纳斯先生正站着，因此我先听取他的意见。好吗？请讲，乔纳斯先生。乔纳斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。下午好，法官阁下。法庭：下午好。乔纳斯先生：我是代表债务人的杰夫·乔纳斯（Jeff Jonas），来自 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）。我没有太多要补充的，只是要为记录说明，法官阁下，正如我想您知道的，在案卷编号344，债务人确实已提交同意驳回本案的文件，以回应 PAX 的动议。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n并且在案卷编号345，债务人提交了其撤回 DIP 动议的文件。我只是希望为记录和法院指出这些事项。关于证据开示，有相当多事项尚未确定；如果法院方便，我很愿意在周二回来讨论届时的进展。因此，谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。卡拉里女士？哦，抱歉。请等一下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：好的。抱歉。我想刚才出现了技术问题；但无论如何，卡拉里女士？卡拉里女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。我再次说明，我是代表马睿（Rui Ma）的卡罗尔·卡拉里（Carol Callari）。法官阁下，我赞同戈德曼律师的意见。我们确实认为，问题已经发生变化，举行状态会议是适当的。应当认真考虑转换程序，而目前就 PAX 动议以及法院面前的新问题所需的证据开示类型也不同。但这很可能仍有必要，因此我同意弗里德曼先生的意见，即今天应继续处理该动议，\n\n以便人们了解相关界限，并且我们可以处理一些初步事项，从而在提出申请后能够继续推进，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。那么，在我们继续之前，我先向弗里德曼先生提一个问题。我只是想确认我理解了您的意思，弗里德曼律师。您希望法院今天就该动议作出裁定，但如果法院作出裁定，您不会按计划于16日星期一进行证言录取？您将于18日星期三或其后的某日进行？弗里德曼先生：我们将尽力于18日星期三一早进行，法官阁下。我们不想进行不必要的证据开示，但我们认为，如果最终——您知道，我不知道是否有需要预先解决的技术问题，或者是否有服务商问题，那么了解相关界限很重要。因此，我们希望有额外时间，以便提前准备证言录取。如果法院的结论不同——如法院所知，有些事情我从一到十的程度来说，是以十的强度坚持的，我将——显然，如果法院认为，出于司法效率考虑，您宁愿在周三听取辩论，我将遵从法院的判断以及法院认为如何最有效地使用其时间。\n\n法庭：好的，谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？我有一些问题，但还有任何人希望提出其他辩论吗？罗姆尼先生：法官阁下，如果可以。我是代表 HKI 和郭女士的亚伦·罗姆尼（Aaron Romney）。我唯一想补充的是，我相信我们可以安排郭女士于周三接受证言录取；如果法院能够安排在本周前半段举行状态会议，这样证言录取将在状态会议之后进行。我们并非——我们的保护令动议并非表示——或者至少截至周二并非表示，她不应接受证言录取。因此，如果法院命令继续进行，我们绝对会让她出席。我们所说的是，事态已经改变，我相信，坦率地说，为使各方都能够厘清目前的形势，以便我们能够基于我们提交该动议时尚不存在的情势，向法院适当陈述保护令问题，这将更为有利。我们只请求几天时间；而且如有必要，我们将提供该证人，周三对我们也可行。鉴于事态变化，我认为——出于基本公平的考虑，应当允许我们有几天时间来处理该\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n信息，以及这些信息如何影响此次证言录取是否应当继续进行的问题。法庭：好的。但进行证言录取的一方，难道不需要为证言录取将如何进行做好准备吗？你们提交了保护令动议，这绝对是《联邦民事诉讼规则》所允许的，并请求加急听证。如果你们说我们要将此事延至——我认为你们是说延至状态会议可能举行的任何时候，而你们都在考虑周二，那么进行证言录取的一方将如何知道证言录取将如何进行？我的意思是，他们要到开始前12小时才会知道。罗姆尼先生：是的，法官阁下。不过，至少在保护令中提出的问题——在周二时，我们并不认为证言录取可能不再进行这一可能性已被纳入考虑，现提交法院审理的动议所提出的问题主要具有程序性，即此次证言录取究竟将通过视频还是仅通过音频进行；以及如果通过视频——该视频是否可以被录制。法庭：我不知道仅通过音频如何进行证言录取。我不明白——我看过——\n\n我认为，关于该保护令的真正问题，真正的争议是证人形象——你们所关切的是被询问人的形象，对吗？你们不希望她出现在视频中。罗姆尼先生：正确，法官阁下。法庭：那么——庭审记录员不会在同一房间内，至少这是我从材料中的理解。正确吗？庭审记录员不会在同一房间内？罗姆尼先生：这是我的理解，尽管尚未以某种方式确定下来。法庭：这对我而言没有任何意义，对吗？要么该人通过所有人都能看到的视频出席，以便所有人都知道是该人；要么必须有人与她同处一室，可能包括进行证言录取的人。因此，对我而言，如果唯一的争议——而且我认为快速阅览文件后，律师，好吗——如你所知，所有文件都是在过去不到48小时内提交的，对吗？我认为争议是——而且我同意你们，大部分是程序性的，但其中部分是实质性的，对吗？如果你们要进行证言录取，就必须确保接受证言录取的人就是该人。\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：当然。\n\n法庭：那么，如果受询问的人所在房间内没有其他人，而且该人仅通过音频发言，那么如何能够确认是该人本人？让法庭书记员提前十分钟登录的安排不可行，因为可能有人与法庭书记员坐在那里，且该人是正确的人，但十分钟后可能换成另一个人。因此，无论我们如何推进，我都不会允许这样做。要么她通过视频出庭，要么有人与她同处一室。程序将按此方式进行。否则，赋予该证据的可信度和证明力对法庭并无实际帮助。这是在浪费司法资源，明白吗？所以你们各方或许应当讨论这一点。你们的问题——你们问的是我是否会在今天就此作出裁定。你知道，我可以今天作出裁定。我认为我基本上已经告诉你们我的裁定将会是什么，也就是，如果此人要接受询问，已经发出了传票，也有保护令，而我看到的唯一尚存争议——但如果我错了，其他各方应当纠正我——尽管表面上看似乎是技术性问题，而且其中一部分当然如此，但在我看来，这不只是技术性问题。它涉及证据的证明力和可信度。我不知道——我从未见过这样的讯问：没有人实际看着受询问人，只通过音频提问，而且没有——这对我来说毫无道理。确实没有道理。我理解你们提出的担忧，我认为可以通过不同方式解决。提问人可以与受询问人在同一房间内，受询问人不必出现在镜头中，然后由速记员记录所说内容；但我不会允许该人身处——无论该人可能身在何处——而没有任何人能够见证，正在说出那些话并回答所提问题的人就是该人。因此，这不会发生。如果你们希望有时间与 PAX 和委员会讨论这些问题，可以。我对此没有异议。但无论如何，对我而言，这些是我看到的最后几个问题。我感谢各方共同努力解决这些问题。但就保护令而言，我的理解是否正确：这是你们唯一需要处理的问题？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：并不完全是，法官大人。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n法庭：好。那么还有什么？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：还有一个相关问题。如果讯问通过视频进行，我认为需要确定该视频是否会被录制，而不是仅录制音频——\n\n法庭：我刚才不是已经说明了一个解决该问题的方法吗？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：是的，即让证人与——同处一室。\n\n法庭：那有什么问题？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：我认为主要担忧是 COVID 方面的考量。证人——\n\n法庭：像我们现在这样戴上口罩，对吧？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：我理解，法官大人，而且不同人对此有不同程度的敏感性——\n\n法庭：律师，这不足以成为签发保护令的依据。你知道，你们必须提供医生证明以及诸如此类的材料。我的意思是，我们并不是——你知道，——\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：我理解，法官大人。\n\n法庭：——《联邦民事诉讼规则》适用。\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：另一个问题在 Guo 女士（郭女士）与 PAX 之间并非争议，但我相信委员会今天上午或昨晚提出了这个问题，即是否可以要求该证人就其所在地、居住地，以及其他家庭成员的所在地作证。正如我们已明确说明，而且我认为也已通过大量证据加以说明和证实，这并非典型情形。这并非典型的讯问。\n\n法庭：什么证据？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：我们有一名证人——\n\n法庭：你说的是什么证据——\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：——她曾遭监禁和酷刑，并且显然正受到曾以恶劣行径威胁其人身安全之人的监视。\n\n法庭：律师，本案记录中没有任何此类证据。我有 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）谈论发生在他身上的事情。但我没有任何关于你当事人的证据。\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：我们附上了社交媒体帖文。诚然，它们不是英文，但我们有——\n\n法庭：而且目前那也不是证据。那不是证据。\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：我理解，法官大人。这不是证据听证会，而是一项证据开示动议。\n\n法庭：我理解，但你刚才说有证据表明——而事实上没有任何证据。目前没有。或许会有，但目前没有。而且这不是你们保护令中所述的内容。你们保护令——你们在这些段落中所要求的，是不得进行视频录制这一问题。好。我可以理解。因此，我提出了一个解决方案。你们也可以提出另一个方案。但你们的当事人不能身处没有其他人的地方。这不会发生。这没有道理。如果没有人能够见证，回答问题的人就是坐在那里回答问题的人，那么那不是有效证言。正如我所说，这是在浪费司法资源，也是在浪费你们各方的时间。\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：法官大人，恕我直言，我们确实提议让她向法庭书记员出示，以核实其身份。\n\n法庭：律师，我刚才已经告诉你为什么那样不可行。\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：但我理解法庭所说的。我们提出的另一个独立问题——我相信该问题载于动议以及我们拟议的命令中——包括有关证人基于安全问题无需就其居住地或其家庭成员所在地作证的表述，我相信 PAX 拟议的命令中也包括了该表述。\n\n法庭：这没有问题。我没有说任何关于她居住地的话。那不是我说的，对吧？我对此没有异议。如果你们都同意她无需就其居住地作证，可以。那是你们之间的协议。但她身处没有其他人的地方这一问题是行不通的。\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：明白，法官大人。\n\n法庭：明白吗？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：谢谢，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好。那么我们接下来如何进行？我们今天就这项动议作出裁定吗，如同我刚才基本已经说明我的裁定将会是什么；还是将其延至一次会议？我甚至还没有读过——我的意思是，我理解委员会为何要求举行会议。我还不知道 Goldmann 律师（戈德曼）所提交的内容，因为我还没有看到——我的意思是，我还没有读过。我知道它是在过去一小时内提交的。我也理解过去几天情况发生了变化。但仍安排有一场关于——无论是哪几天——May 24th, 5th, 6th 的证据听证会。抱歉，具体日期目前不在我面前。你们请求并获得了就保护令举行加速听证会的机会。那么我们应当如何进行？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：并且，法官大人，感谢您为我们提供加速举行听证会的机会。我们完全明白您的意思。我请求并提议，再次请求将对此次听证会的裁定延至状态会议期间作出。在此期间，我将与各方律师协商。我同意 Friedman 先生（弗里德曼）对我们已进行富有成效对话的描述。我们都是理解自身义务的专业人士。我完全明白您的意思，我相信鉴于法官席今天提供的指引，我们将能够解决问题，并达成所有人都会满意的条件。\n\n法庭：好。谢谢。Friedman 律师？\n\nARONSSON 女士（阿伦松）：法官大人，如果允许我发言。来自 O'Melveny（奥麦文律师事务所）的 Laura Aronsson（劳拉·阿伦松）。\n\n法庭：可以。请讲。\n\nARONSSON 女士（阿伦松）：我只想重申，我们无意就 Guo 女士（郭女士）寻求进一步的安全方面安排。我也想就视频录制简要发言。我们只是想说明，尽管我们认为 Guo 女士很可能处于本法庭的传唤权范围内，但我们认为对讯问进行视频录制是必要的。如果我们在今后任何时候需要在法官大人面前使用视频讯问，而可信度在任何时候成为争议问题，该视频将是整个拼图中非常重要的一部分。此外，我们此前与债务人打交道的经验，使我们担心他日后可能质疑此次讯问的真实性。因此，我们出于该原因也需要这段视频。\n\n法庭：所以你是在向法庭主张，无论是否有人与她同处一室，都必须进行视频录制。速记员对所说内容的记录不足够。\n\nARONSSON 女士（阿伦松）：谢谢，法官大人。这就是我们（听不清）。我们确实向 Romney 先生提议，如果他同意（听不清）May 25th 听证会，我们可以就此妥协。但我们没有收到回复。因此，我们认为视频是必要的。\n\n法庭：好。Romney 先生？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：法官大人，就此而言，当法庭书记员已让证人宣誓，且各方律师均在场时，讯问笔录可以得到认证。我认为真实性问题并不会以任何方式倾向于支持或反对视频录制。视频的问题在于，一旦有了视频，它就可能被——它会一直存在。它会永远存在。我们已就证人的人身安全和隐私提出重大担忧。我们认为没有必要对她进行录制。关于向本法庭提交她的讯问证言，各方律师所言正确，我们尚未回复我们对于该证人是否可出席驳回听证会作证的立场。然而，如果将就驳回问题举行证据听证会，那将是一场法官审理。将在法庭面前进行。本法庭——\n\n法庭：不一定——它是一场法官审理，但我可能需要证据。\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：明白。但我的意思是，它不会提交给非专业陪审团。它将提交给法官大人，而法官大人完全有能力阅读讯问笔录并评估证言的真实性。这种情况一直都在发生。我认为在我的整个职业生涯中，我从未向法庭提交过视频讯问，但可能提交过超过 50 份讯问笔录。在向法官进行的证据听证会上观看讯问视频将是浪费时间，我恭请法庭认为这没有必要，而且在本案中会给一名经历过难以想象之事的证人造成重大焦虑。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n阿伦松女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。我只想补充一点，鉴于今年2月有关其可信度的情况（听不清），证言录取本身的可信度问题，以及之后我们在法庭上播放视频时可能出现的可信度问题，在本案中就显得更加重要。我还想补充，律师对于证言录取当事人会以某种方式违反保密义务、公开传播或泄露证言录取内容的担忧，没有任何依据，除了他自己的说法之外没有任何依据。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。卡普兰律师，您想发言吗？\n\n卡普兰先生：下午好，法官阁下。委员会与PAX（PAX）共同反对该保护令动议。我不会重复阿伦松律师已经提出的观点。我想处理的一个问题是部分家庭成员的地址。这是一宗由一名据称拥有巨额净资产的个人提出的破产案件，但其财产申报表显示，他价值$3,500，并且有一条狗。提交的文件及其声明中有许多讨论，表示希望做到透明并公开一切，以便全世界都能审视并查明这是否属实。在其他当事人进行的一些证据开示程序中，他们在取得其家庭成员的证言录取方面遭遇阻力，包括其儿子等家庭成员；其儿子每年通过Golden Springs（戈尔登斯普林斯）为其生活费用提供超过$2 million，并协助支付船只费用，协助支付各种费用。在取得郭先生儿子等人员的证言录取方面，存在严厉拒绝和不予合作的情况。因此，就我们在反对意见中提出的请求而言，我们确实是在寻求能够查明他们的地址，因为在今后的程序中，我们将为传票及其他事项需要这些地址，原因是一直没有合作。我认为Golden Springs今天上午刚刚就我们此前讨论的有关2004审查动议提交了另一项撤销动议。他们表示会指定一名代表，但他们不会提交该代表，且该代表无权接受送达。这就是背后的原因，因此我认为，简单地说他们永远不必披露该信息，范围过于宽泛；尤其是我认为，他们并未提交支持该主张的记录，因为没有附上宣誓书。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 410 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 15:02:39 Page 31 of 38\n\n最重要的是，这是委员会为继续取得可开示信息所需要的信息。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n罗姆尼先生：法官阁下，如果我可以简要发言。\n\n这是就一场驳回听证会所通知进行的证言录取。我不会就卡普兰先生刚才所说的内容在未来是否有依据发表意见。但是，这不是一场关于未来的证言录取。这不是一项Rule 2004 Exam。这是由动议人PAX就其驳回动议所通知进行的证言录取；我没有听到任何内容，也无法理解郭女士家庭成员和债务人家庭成员的地址如何会以任何方式与定于May 25th由本院审理的驳回动议相关。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n好的。那么我们——\n\n戈德曼先生：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：抱歉。律师——\n\n戈德曼先生：——我只想指出，潜在证人的地址当然可能导致发现与驳回动议有关的更多可采证据。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n戈德曼先生：这就是证据开示标准。\n\n法庭：我将作如下处理。到周一上午5:00之前，你们都要告诉我，就保护令而言，你们同意什么、不同意什么。然后我将对此作出裁定。至于状态会议，我无法在周二下午3:00之前的任何时间听取你们的意见。周二下午3:00对各方是否合适？顺便说一下，召开状态会议讨论已经发生的任何事情，并不——并不必然改变我们将于May 25th就驳回动议，或作为替代救济指定受托人的申请，举行证据听证会这一安排，对吗？不只是就驳回动议。这是已经待决一段时间的事项。我们讨论过。我谈过《法典》和规则规定，除非动议人同意特定日期，否则法院必须在一定期限内举行该听证会；而他们已经同意May 25th这个日期。\n\n因此，我当然很愿意召开状态会议，听取你们大家谈了什么——听取你们大家谈了什么，以及你们认为本案会如何发展。但我只想明确，这并不意味着May 25th不会举行证据听证会。我认为，罗姆尼律师，您刚刚纠正了我。是May 25th和6th。我说的是24th和5th，不管具体日期是什么。但它们已经排定。它们是命令的一部分，除非发生其他情况，否则将会举行。因此，我不希望任何人认为，由于过去三天发生了某些事情，就不会举行证据听证会。可能会，也可能不会。我们再看。乔纳斯先生？\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我是代表债务人的布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所（Brown Rudnick）的杰夫·乔纳斯（Jeff Jonas）。我只是想通知法院，周二下午3:00对我们来说没有问题。\n\n法庭：很好。谢谢。周二下午3:00对其他所有人都合适吗？\n\n戈德曼先生：对委员会合适，法官阁下。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n伯尼先生：是的，对PAX合适。\n\n卡拉里女士：法官阁下，除了我有一件事使我无法到康涅狄格州后再返回新泽西州参加我需要出席的另一件事之外，这个时间合适。因此，我需要设法协调此事。\n\n法庭：没关系。请——请提交一项动议，申请通过Zoom出庭，好吗？\n\n卡拉里女士：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：但我确实希望各方在可能的范围内，如有可能，亲自到场，因为我认为你们都需要谈谈。我认为你们都需要谈谈。而且我发现，我相信你们也都发现，面对面交谈往往比通过Zoom带来更有希望的进展。这是我的个人经验。也许我错了，但我是这么看的。不过我们无法——我是说，也许我们可以在2:30开始。我们在2:00另有事项安排。我不知道那会持续多久。我不希望你们所有人在2:30到这里来，而我们还未准备好听取你们的意见。如果你们想在2:30到这里来，我们有可用的会议室。我们有——有可供人们交谈的空间。你们也可能不想交谈，那也没关系。无论你们如何决定。我都会听取你们要说的任何内容。但是我会——戈德曼律师，正如我所说，我还没有看过你的动议。它只是请求召开状态会议吗？我是说，它并未请求任何形式的救济，对吗？\n\n戈德曼先生：正确。它只是请求召开状态会议。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n戈德曼先生：我们并不寻求取消听证会，尽管这可能会被摆上台面。但不是，我们只是请求召开状态会议。\n\n法庭：没问题。那么，该命令很可能会在今天下午登记，安排召开状态会议。我说它可能不会在今天下午登记的唯一原因，是因为我们今天下午已经另有安排的事项。不是在法庭上，但它要么在今天下午登记，要么在周一一早登记；但你们都知道，你们都亲自或远程在场，状态会议将于周二下午3:00举行——不管那是哪一天。很抱歉，我现在坐在这里完全不知道，但我会看一下。周二，17th。好吗？May 17th下午3:00。正如我所说，2 o'clock事项可能会在3:00之前结束。如果结束，法庭书记官助理或书记官办公室的某人会通知你们所有人。如果你们想在3:00之前开始，我们也可以这样做。但我们再看。否则，我不会允许2 o'clock事项延续至3:00之后，因此我们最晚会在3:00开始，好吗？但我希望所有——罗姆尼律师、戈德曼律师、弗里德曼律师，我相信是唯一提交过保护令动议、并对保护令作出回应的当事人——我相信我说得对，对吗？这是就保护令所提交的唯一书面陈述。\n\n弗里德曼先生：我相信这是正确的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么到周一下午5:00之前，你们可以共同或自行提交，按你们大家决定的方式。这是证据开示。你们都有义务继续本着诚信开展工作，并根据联邦规则看看能否解决问题，对吗？你们可以共同或自行提交一份清单，列出你们认为保护令中尚未解决的问题，以及是否已达成协议；然后我将就这些问题作出裁定。\n\n弗里德曼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我们会的。\n\n法庭：好的。今天下午还有其他问题或顾虑吗？我很乐意听取。我不知道是否会对此采取任何行动，但我很乐意听取。好的。那么，既然没有人提出，保护令听证会延期，以便——嗯，要求各方在下午5:00或之前提交就剩余问题所持立场的文件，并告知法院这些问题是否已解决，然后法院将作出裁定。并且可能会在周二3 o'clock状态会议之前作出裁定。我可能不会那样做的唯一原因，是因为我们周二上午整整一上午都有听证会。不过，你知道，谁也说不准。我们就看情况如何，好吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么还有其他事项吗？今天都处理完了吗？\n\n戈德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好吧。谢谢各位。这是今天日程上的最后一项事项，因此现在休庭。\n\n（程序于12:52 p.m.结束。）\n\n本人，克里斯汀·菲奥雷（CHRISTINE FIORE），经法院批准的速记员及经认证的电子记录员和速记员，证明上述内容是上述案件程序官方电子录音的正确文字记录。\n\nMay 19, 2022\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT","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":"2026-08-23 20:15:47"}