{"id":"court_ctb_4717_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4717,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*\n\nDebtors[1](#page-0-0)\n\nJointly Administered\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n# **LIMITED OBJECTION OF MEI GUO AND HING CHI NGOK TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER: (I) SUPPLEMENTING, AMENDING, AND SUPERSEDING (A) ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEDIATION, APPOINTING THE HONORABLE JAMES J. TANCREDI AS MEDIATOR, AND AMENDING ORDER APPROVING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS; AND (B) ORDER AMENDING ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEDIATION, APPOINTING THE HONORABLE JAMES J. TANCREDI AS MEDIATOR, AND AMENDING ORDER APPROVING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS TO FACILITATE CONSENSUAL PRE-LITIGATION AND PRE-APPEARANCE MEDIATION; AND (II) APPROVING INTERVENTION OF APPROPRIATE AVOIDANCE DEFENDANTS IN OMNIBUS ALTER EGO ACTIONS AS TO ALTER EGO CLAIMS AGAINST SPECIFIED ALTER EGO DEFENDANTS**\n\nPursuant to this Court's September 3, 2025 Order [Doc. No. 4631], Avoidance Action defendants and parties-in-interest Mei Guo (\"Ms. Guo\") and Hing Chi Ngok (\"Ms. Ngok\" and with Ms. Guo collectively \"Defendants\"), respectfully submit their Limited Objection to the Chapter 11 Trustee's (the \"Trustee\") August 28, 2025 Motion for Entry of Order: (I) Supplementing, Amending, and Superseding (A) Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nApplicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings; and (B) Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings to Facilitate Consensual Pre-Litigation and Pre-Appearance Mediation; and (II) Approving Intervention of Appropriate Avoidance Defendants in Omnibus Alter Ego Actions as to Alter Ego Claims Against Specified Alter Ego Defendants (the \"Motion\") [Doc. No. 4628]. The Motion, via the Revised Proposed Order filed by the Trustee on September 25, 2025 [Doc. No. 4682] (the \"Revised Proposed Order\"), seeks, *inter alia*, (i) to require an Avoidance Defendant, as defined in the Revised Proposed Order, to move to intervene in the as defined First Omnibus Alter Ego Action and/or Second Omnibus Alter Ego Action to dispute the Trustee's claims that certain entities enumerated in the Revised Proposed Order are alter egos of the Debtor[2](#page-1-0) (the \"Specified Alter Ego Defendants\"), *see* Revised Proposed Order, at 5-8 of 85[3](#page-1-1) , and (ii) the implementation of Discovery Procedures that will be made applicable to all Avoidance Actions, as that term is defined in the Revised Proposed Order. *See Id.*, at 10 of 85. Defendants do not object to the requirement of intervention or the implementation of Discovery Procedures applicable to the Avoidance Actions in which they are named as defendants, but do object to the following provisions of the Revised Proposed Order:\n\n#### **A. Intervention**\n\n1. The Revised Proposed Order would require an Avoidance Defendant to contest a claim by the Trustee that one or more Specified Alter Ego Defendants is an alter ego of the Debtor by filing a Notice of Intervention in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Action or the Second Omnibus\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> References to the Debtor are to the individual debtor, Mr. Kwok.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> For ease of reference citations to the Revised Proposed Order are to the ECF pagination.\n\nAlter Ego Action, depending on the action in which the Specified Alter Ego Defendant at issue is named as a defendant. *See* Revised Proposed Order, at 6-8 of 85.\n\n2. The Revised Proposed Order provides that intervention is \"limited to those claims that the Avoidance Defendant has identified and has standing to dispute.\" (*Id.*, at 7 of 85). Standing is not defined in the Revised Proposed Order but is presumed to mean that an Avoidance Defendant is alleged to have received a transfer from a Specified Alter Ego Defendant that the Trustee seeks to recover through an Avoidance Action. Thus, an Avoidance Defendant that is not alleged to have received a transfer from any of the Specified Alter Ego Defendants would not have standing to intervene.\n\n3. The Revised Proposed Order provides at paragraph 7 that \"[a]ny judgments entered in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions with respect to the Specified Alter Ego Defendants shall be binding on all Avoidance Defendants, irrespective of whether an Avoidance Defendant filed a Notice of Intervention in the relevant Omnibus Alter Ego Action. (*Id.*, at 8 of 85). Thus, all Avoidance Defendants would be bound by judgments entered in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions, regardless of whether they had standing to intervene to challenge whether a Specified Alter Ego Defendant is an alter ego of the Debtor.\n\n4. An Avoidance Defendant should not be bound by a judgment finding, or declaring, that one or more of the Specified Alter Ego Defendants is an alter ego of the Debtor if the Avoidance Defendant did not have an opportunity, or right, to intervene in the respective First Omnibus Alter Ego Action or the Second Omnibus Alter Ego Action because it lacked standing to intervene.[4](#page-2-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> Such a scenario may be unlikely but is certainly plausible and could happen if the Trustee brings an action to avoid a transfer from a Specified Alter Ego Defendant to an Avoidance Defendant\n\n5. Thus, the Proposed Revised Order should be further revised to provide that the binding effect of any judgment entered in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Action or the Second Omnibus Alter Ego Action is limited to Avoidance Defendants who had standing to intervene prior to the entry of judgment.\n\n6. The Proposed Revised Order should also be further revised to provide that, absent further court order, an Avoidance Defendant whose Notice of Intervention is successfully objected to by the Trustee is not bound by any judgment entered in the Omnibus Alter Ego Action for which intervention was sought and denied. Such a revision is necessary to ensure that all parties who are bound by a judgment entered in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Action or the Second Omnibus Alter Ego Action and who sought to litigate issues of alter ego necessary to the Avoidance Action claims asserted against them actually had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of alter ego, a necessary prerequisite for the application of collateral estoppel. *See e.g.*, *Boguslavsky v. Kaplan*, 159 F.3d 715, 720 (2d Cir. 1998).\n\n### **B. Discovery Procedures**\n\n#### **i. Scope of Data to be Made Available in Data Rooms**\n\n7. Paragraph 2 of the Proposed Revised Order's Discovery Procedures (the \"Discovery Procedures\") provides that \"the Trustee shall create an electronic discovery depository (the \"Depository\") comprised of data rooms (the \"Data Rooms\") each containing all nonprivileged documents in the possession of the Trustee related to the following subject matter: . . .\n\n> k. The Trustee's allegations in Avoidance Complaints asserting claims for actual fraudulent transfer under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and/or N.Y. Debtor & Creditor Law regarding the Debtor's \"shell game\" of using alter egos and nominees to hold title to his assets and conduct his affairs.\n\nafter judgment has entered in the Trustee's favor finding a Specified Alter Ego Defendant is an alter ego of the Debtor.\n\n*See, e.g., Avoidance Complaint* in *Despins v. Agora Lab, Inc.*  [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05005 Docket No. 1] ¶¶ 15-27, 32-34;\"\n\nProposed Revised Order, at 39 of 85.\n\n8. Paragraph 2(k) is too narrow as drafted and should not be limited in scope, but instead should simply read: \"k. The Trustee's allegations in Avoidance Complaints\". Further revising the Proposed Revised Order in this manner will ensure that all relevant and responsive documents are included in the Depository. Indeed, as currently drafted subparagraph k does not include documents related to post-petition transfers under section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code even though many of the Avoidance Actions seek to recover post-petition transfers under section 549.\n\n#### **ii. Trustee's Privilege Log**\n\n9. Paragraph 3 of the Discovery Procedures provides for the Trustee to produce \"a categorical privilege log generally identifying by producing parties and/or categories of documents those documents covered by the above subject matter that have been withheld from the Data Rooms, . . .\". *See* Proposed Revised Order, at 40 of 85. Any privilege log produced by the Trustee should comply with the requirements of D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e), made applicable to this proceeding by Local Bankr. R. 7026-1, so that the Avoidance Defendants can reasonably assess the validity of the claimed privilege and determine whether to challenge the assertion of privilege. At a minimum, any privilege log must include the identity of a withheld document's author and all senders and recipients of a communication, including CCs and BCCs, to allow for a proper assessment of the applicability of a privilege claim.\n\n10. Requiring a privilege log that conforms with Local Bankr. R. 7026-1 will also ensure that documents are not initially withheld from production on the bases of privilege and subsequently used with dispositive motions or at trial. Defendants are not suggesting that the\n\n5\n\nTrustee would engage in such gamesmanship, only that a Local Rules compliant privilege log creates a level playing field for all parties.\n\n#### **iii. Initial Disclosures**\n\n11. Paragraph 5(b) of the Discovery Procedures provides for the exchange of Fed. R. Bankr. Pro. 7026 initial disclosures, but as currently drafted could be read to do away with the Trustee's obligation under Bankruptcy Rule 7026 to identify \"all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the [Trustee] has in [his] possession, custody, or control and may use to support [his] claims or defenses\" in an Avoidance Action.\n\n12. Defendants agree that the Trustee's obligation to provide copies of documents pursuant to Rule 7026(a)(1)(A)(ii) is satisfied by the creation of the Depository and Data Rooms, but the creation of the Depository and Data Rooms does not satisfy the Trustee's obligation to identify in his initial disclosures \"all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the [Trustee] has in [his] possession, custody, or control and may use to support [his] claims or defenses\". Thus, the Proposed Revised Order should be further revised and clarified to avoid any ambiguity regarding the Trustee's obligations to fully comply with the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 7026(a).\n\n#### **iv. Sharing of Confidential Information**\n\n13. Paragraph 4(f) of the Discovery Procedures provides:\n\nCounsel that obtain documents or information through Discovery Proceedings in any Avoidance Action may only share such documents and information with the client(s) as to which such Discovery Proceedings are conducted. For the avoidance of doubt, counsel that obtain documents or information through Discovery Proceedings as to one client may not share such documents or information with any other individuals or entities (including counsel's other client(s), unless such other clients are independently entitled to access the documents or information in accordance with these Discovery Procedures).\n\n(Proposed Order, at 41 of 85). As drafted paragraph 4(f) would prohibit an attorney who discovers information relevant to a client's case in a data room from sharing that information with the client if the information was discovered while reviewing documents in a data room on behalf of another client. At a minimum, such a restriction could hinder counsel's ability to provide clients with \"candid advice\" as required by Rule 2.1 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct.\n\n14. To avoid even the appearance that counsel's ability to advise and fully represent a client is somehow compromised, Paragraph 4(f) of the Discovery Procedures should be further revised to permit counsel of record to share all documents and information obtained through discovery with all clients who have agreed to be bound by the Protective Order, regardless of the Data Room from which the information is obtained.\n\n#### **iv. Expert Discovery**\n\n15. Paragraph 5(e) of the Discovery Procedures should be further revised to include a schedule for expert discovery. Including an expert discovery schedule, rather than parties meeting and conferring at some future date to establish an expert discovery schedule if \"any party believes expert discovery is required\", (Proposed Order at 42 of 85), is consistent with the District of Connecticut's Form of Report of Parties Planning Meeting utilized to establish scheduling orders, *see* D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(f) made applicable by Local Bankruptcy Rule 7026.1, and will avoid prolonged disputes over the issue of whether expert discovery is necessary.\n\n- 16. Defendants propose the following as a reasonable schedule for expert discovery:\n\t- a. The deadline for the completion of all discovery shall be 360 days after the Discovery Start Date. *See*, Proposed Order, at 41 of 85 requiring that all fact discovery be completed within 300 days of the Discovery Start Date.\n\t- b. Within 270 days of the Discovery Start Date \"parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) [, made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026], on any issues on which they bear the burden of proof.\" (*See* D. Conn. Form 26(F) Report of Parties\n\nPlanning Meeting, at §2(E)(i)). Depositions of any such designated experts will be completed within 300 days of the Discovery Start Date.\n\n- c. Within 330 days of the Discovery Start Date \"parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) [, made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026], on any issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof.\" (*See* D. Conn. Form 26(F) Report of Parties Planning Meeting, at §2(E)(j))). Depositions of any such designated experts will be completed within 360 days of the Discovery Start Date.\n- 17. For the avoidance of doubt, expert reports on issues on which a party does not bear\n\nthe burden of proof are not intended to be responsive or rebuttal reports and may be served regardless of whether the party bearing the burden of proof designates experts on a particular issue.\n\n# **C. Conclusion**\n\n18. Defendants' counsel has engaged with the Trustee's counsel in an effort to resolve and/or limit the above identified matters prior to the October 21 2025 hearing on the Amended Procedures Motion, and counsel will continue those discussions in an attempt to at least narrow the issues requiring Court intervention. [5](#page-7-0)\n\n### THE DEFENDANTS, MEI GUO AND HING CHI NGOK\n\nBy: */s/ James M. Moriarty* Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 (203) 368-4234 (203) 549-5485 (fax) Email: [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) Their Attorneys\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> Defendants anticipate that other Avoidance Action Defendants will file objections to the Revised Proposed Order, that there will be changes to the Revised Proposed Order based on Defendants' Objections and/or the objections of others. Accordingly, Defendants do not include with their Objections a form of further revised proposed order.\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on October 10, 2025, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of thisfiling will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ James M. Moriarty* James M. Moriarty","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格区破产法院 布里奇波特分院\n\n案由：\n\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等\n\n债务人[1]\n\n联合审理\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\nMEI GUO（郭美）与 HING CHI NGOK（岳庆芝）对第11章受托人关于作出以下裁定的动议的有限异议：(I) 补充、修改并废止 (A) 责令各方进行调解、指定 JAMES J. TANCREDI 法官阁下为调解员并修改适用于撤销权诉讼对抗性程序之程序的裁定；以及 (B) 为促进诉前和出庭前的自愿调解而修改责令各方进行调解、指定 JAMES J. TANCREDI 法官阁下为调解员并修改适用于撤销权诉讼对抗性程序之程序的裁定；以及 (II) 批准适当的撤销权诉讼被告就针对特定另我被告的另我主张参加综合另我诉讼\n\n依据本法院2025年9月3日的裁定 [文件编号 4631]，撤销权诉讼被告及利害关系人 Mei Guo（郭美，简称“郭女士”）与 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝，简称“岳女士”，与郭女士统称“被告”），谨就第11章受托人（简称“受托人”）于2025年8月28日提出的关于作出以下裁定的动议提交其有限异议：(I) 补充、修改并废止 (A) 责令各方进行调解、指定 James J. Tancredi 法官阁下为调解员并修改适用程序的裁定\n\n1 本等第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，以及其他化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Luc A. Despins（作为郭文贵破产财产的受托人）（仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\n适用于撤销权诉讼对抗性程序之程序；以及 (B) 为促进诉前和出庭前的自愿调解而修改责令各方进行调解、指定 James J. Tancredi 法官阁下为调解员并修改适用于撤销权诉讼对抗性程序之程序的裁定；以及 (II) 批准适当的撤销权诉讼被告就针对特定另我被告的另我主张参加综合另我诉讼（简称“该动议”）[文件编号 4628]。该动议通过受托人于2025年9月25日提交的修改后拟议裁定 [文件编号 4682]（简称“修改后拟议裁定”），除其他事项外，寻求：(i) 要求修改后拟议裁定中所定义的撤销权诉讼被告，在所定义的第一综合另我诉讼和/或第二综合另我诉讼中申请参加诉讼，以对受托人关于修改后拟议裁定中列举的某些实体为债务人[2]之另我的主张（简称“特定另我被告”）提出异议，见修改后拟议裁定第5-8页（共85页）[3]；以及 (ii) 实施将适用于所有撤销权诉讼（依修改后拟议裁定中之定义）的证据开示程序。参见同上，第10页（共85页）。对于参加诉讼的要求以及适用于被告被列为被告的撤销权诉讼的证据开示程序的实施，被告均不持异议，但对修改后拟议裁定的以下条款提出异议：\nA. 参加诉讼\n\n1. 修改后拟议裁定将要求撤销权诉讼被告若对受托人主张的一个或多个特定另我被告是债务人另我的主张提出异议，必须根据涉案特定另我被告在何起诉讼中被列为被告，在第一综合另我诉讼或第二综合另我诉讼中提交参加诉讼通知。见修改后拟议裁定第6-8页（共85页）。\n\n2 本文中提及的“债务人”均指个人债务人郭先生。\n\n3 为便于查阅，对修改后拟议裁定的引注均采用 ECF 页码。\n\n另我诉讼，取决于涉案特定另我被告在何诉讼中被列为被告。见修改后拟议裁定第6-8页（共85页）。\n\n2. 修改后拟议裁定规定，参加诉讼“仅限于撤销权诉讼被告已明确且具有抗辩当事人资格的诉讼请求”。（同上，第7页，共85页）。修改后拟议裁定中未对当事人资格作出定义，但推定其含义为：撤销权诉讼被告被指控从特定另我被告处接收了受托人试图通过撤销权诉讼予以追回的转让财产。因此，未被指控从任何特定另我被告处接收转让财产的撤销权诉讼被告，将不具备参加诉讼的当事人资格。\n\n3. 修改后拟议裁定在第7段中规定：“在综合另我诉讼中就特定另我被告作出的任何判决均对所有撤销权诉讼被告具有约束力，不论撤销权诉讼被告是否在相关综合另我诉讼中提交了参加诉讼通知。”（同上，第8页，共85页）。因此，所有撤销权诉讼被告都将受到综合另我诉讼中所作判决的约束，而无论其是否具有参加诉讼以质疑特定另我被告是否为债务人另我的当事人资格。\n\n4. 如果撤销权诉讼被告因缺乏参加诉讼的当事人资格而没有机会或权利在相应的第一综合另我诉讼或第二综合另我诉讼中参加诉讼，则该撤销权诉讼被告不应受到认定或宣告一个或多个特定另我被告是债务人另我的判决的约束。[4]\n\n4 这种情况可能不太可能发生，但完全是合理的，且如果在法院作出有利于受托人、认定特定另我被告为债务人另我的判决之后，受托人提起诉讼以撤销特定另我被告向撤销权诉讼被告所作的转让，便可能发生这种情况。\n\n5. 因此，拟议修改裁定应进一步修改为：在第一综合另我诉讼或第二综合另我诉讼中所作任何判决的约束力，仅限于在判决作出前具有参加诉讼当事人资格的撤销权诉讼被告。\n\n6. 拟议修改裁定还应进一步修改为：在没有进一步法院命令的情况下，若受托人对撤销权诉讼被告的参加诉讼通知提出异议且异议成立，则该撤销权诉讼被告不受其申请参加但被拒绝参加的综合另我诉讼中所作任何判决的约束。此项修改是必要的，以确保所有受到第一综合另我诉讼或第二综合另我诉讼判决约束、且试图就针对其主张的撤销权诉讼请求所必需的另我问题进行诉讼的当事人，确实获得了就另我问题进行充分且公正诉讼的机会，而这是适用争点排除效（collateral estoppel）的必要先决条件。参见例如 Boguslavsky v. Kaplan 案, 159 F.3d 715, 720 (2d Cir. 1998)。\nB. 证据开示程序\ni. 资料室中提供的数据范围\n\n7. 拟议修改裁定的证据开示程序（简称“证据开示程序”）第2段规定：“受托人应建立一个由各资料室（简称‘资料室’）组成的电子证据开示存储库（简称‘存储库’），每个资料室均包含受托人占有的与以下主题相关的所有非特权保护文件：……\n\n> k. 受托人在撤销权起诉书中所作的指控，即依据《破产法典》第548条和/或《纽约州债务人与债权人法》就债务人利用另我和代名人持有其资产所有权并处理其事务的‘骗局’主张实际欺诈性转让请求。\n\n在判决认定特定另我被告为债务人另我并有利于受托人之后。\n\n参见例如 Despins v. Agora Lab, Inc. 案中的撤销权起诉书 [对抗性程序编号 24-05005 卷宗编号 1] 第15-27段、第32-34段；”\n\n拟议修改裁定，第39页（共85页）。\n\n8. 第2(k)段目前的起草范围过于狭窄，不应限制范围，而应直接表述为：“k. 受托人在撤销权起诉书中的指控”。通过这种方式进一步修改拟议修改裁定，将确保所有相关且符合要求的文件均被纳入存储库。事实上，按照目前的起草，k分项并未包含与《破产法典》第549条项下破产申请后转让相关的文书，尽管许多撤销权诉讼都旨在追回第549条项下的破产申请后转让。\nii. 受托人的特权保护清单\n\n9. 证据开示程序第3段规定，受托人应出具“一份分类特权保护清单，按提供方和/或文件类别大体列明属于上述主题范围但未放入资料室的文件，……”。见拟议修改裁定第40页（共85页）。受托人出具的任何特权保护清单均应符合《康涅狄格区联邦民事诉讼地方规则》（D. Conn. L. Civ. R.）第26(e)条的要求（根据《地方破产规则》第7026-1条适用于本程序），以便撤销权诉讼被告能够合理评估所主张特权的有效性，并决定是否对特权主张提出异议。特权保护清单至少必须包括被扣留文件的作者身份以及通信的所有发件人和收件人（包括抄送人和密送人），以便能够正当评估特权主张的适用性。\n\n10. 要求提供符合《地方破产规则》第7026-1条的特权保护清单，还将确保文件不会在最初以特权为由拒绝提供，随后又在决定性动议或庭审中被使用。被告并非暗示受托人会进行此类诉讼技巧，而只是认为符合地方规则的特权保护清单能为各方当事人创造一个公平的竞争环境。\niii. 初始披露\n\n11. 证据开示程序第5(b)段规定了《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（Fed. R. Bankr. Pro.）第7026条初始披露的交换，但目前的起草方式可能被解读为免除了受托人根据《破产规则》第7026条在撤销权诉讼中指明“受托人占有、保管或控制并可能用于支持其诉讼主张或抗辩的所有文件、电子存储信息和有形物品”的义务。\n\n12. 被告同意，受托人依据第7026(a)(1)(A)(ii)条提供文件副本的义务已通过建立存储库和资料室得以履行，但建立存储库和资料室并不能免除受托人在其初始披露中指明“受托人占有、保管或控制并可能用于支持其诉讼主张或抗辩的所有文件、电子存储信息和有形物品”的义务。因此，应对拟议修改裁定作进一步修改和澄清，以消除关于受托人全面遵守第7026(a)条初始披露要求之义务的任何含糊之处。\niv. 保密信息的共享\n\n13. 证据开示程序第4(f)段规定：\n\n在任何撤销权诉讼中通过证据开示程序获取文件或信息的律师，仅可与开展该等证据开示程序所针对的委托人共享此类文件和信息。为免生疑义，律师就某一委托人通过证据开示程序获取的文件或信息，不得与任何其他个人或实体（包括该律师的其他委托人，除非该等其他委托人根据本证据开示程序独立享有查阅该等文件或信息的权利）共享。\n\n（拟定裁定，第 85 页中的第 41 页）。按目前的起草内容，第 4(f) 款将禁止在数据库中发现与某委托人案件相关信息的律师与该委托人分享该信息，如果该信息是在代表另一名委托人审查数据库中的文件时被发现的。至少，这种限制可能会阻碍律师根据《Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct（康涅狄格州职业操守规则）》第 2.1 条的要求向委托人提供「坦诚建议」的能力。\n\n14. 为避免哪怕出现律师向委托人提供建议和全面代理委托人的能力受到某种损害的外观，应进一步修订《证据开示程序》第 4(f) 款，允许记录在案的代理律师与所有同意受《保护令》约束的委托人分享通过证据开示获得的所有文件和信息，不论该信息是从哪个数据库中获得的。\n\niv. 专家证据开示\n\n15. 应进一步修订《证据开示程序》第 5(e) 款，以纳入专家证据开示的时间表。纳入专家证据开示时间表，而不是在「任何当事人认为需要进行专家证据开示」时由各方当事人在未来某个日期会面并协商以制定专家证据开示时间表（拟定裁定，第 85 页中的第 42 页），这符合康涅狄格区用于确立日程安排裁定的《当事人规划会议报告表格》（参见通过《Local Bankruptcy Rule（本地破产规则）》7026.1 条适用的《D. Conn. L. Civ. R.（康涅狄格区民事诉讼本地规则）》26(f)），并且将避免就专家证据开示是否有必要这一问题产生旷日持久的争议。\n\n- 16. 被告提议以下作为专家证据开示的合理时间表：\n\t- a. 完成所有证据开示的截止日期应为证据开示开始日期之后的 360 天。参见拟定裁定，第 85 页中的第 41 页，要求所有事实证据开示应在证据开示开始日期之后的 300 天内完成。\n\t- b. 在证据开示开始日期之后的 270 天内，「各方当事人将指定所有出庭专家，并根据《Fed. R. Civ. P.（联邦民事诉讼规则）》26(a)(2) 条［通过《Fed. R. Bankr. P.（联邦破产诉讼规则）》7026 条适用］就其承担举证责任的任何问题向对方律师提供受聘专家的报告。」（参见《康涅狄格区表格 26(F) 当事人规划会议报告》第 §2(E)(i) 条）。对此类任何指定专家的宣誓证言陈述应在证据开示开始日期之后的 300 天内完成。\n\n- c. 在证据开示开始日期之后的 330 天内，「各方当事人将指定所有出庭专家，并根据《Fed. R. Civ. P.（联邦民事诉讼规则）》26(a)(2) 条［通过《Fed. R. Bankr. P.（联邦破产诉讼规则）》7026 条适用］就其不承担举证责任的任何问题向对方律师提供受聘专家的报告。」（参见《康涅狄格区表格 26(F) 当事人规划会议报告》第 §2(E)(j) 条）。对此类任何指定专家的宣誓证言陈述应在证据开示开始日期之后的 360 天内完成。\n\n- 17. 为免疑义，就某一方当事人不承担举证责任的问题所作的专家报告，并非旨在作为答辩或反驳报告，且无论承担举证责任的当事人是否就特定问题指定专家，均可送达此类报告。\n\nC. 结论\n\n18. 被告律师已与受托人律师进行接洽，力求在 2025 年 10 月 21 日就《修改后程序动议》举行听证会之前解决和/或限定上述所确定的事项，且律师将继续进行这些讨论，以试图至少缩小需要法院介入的问题范围。[5]\n\n被告：MEI GUO（郭美）与 HING CHI NGOK（岳庆芝）\n\n签署人：/s/ James M. Moriarty\nStephen M. Kindseth（ct14640）\nJames M. Moriarty（ct21876）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n(203) 368-4234\n(203) 549-5485（传真）\n电子邮件：[skindseth@zeislaw.com] [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com]\n其代理律师\n\n5 被告预计其他撤销权诉讼被告将对《修改后的拟定裁定》提出异议，并且《修改后的拟定裁定》将根据被告的异议和/或其他人的异议进行更改。因此，被告在其异议中未附具进一步修改后的拟定裁定格式。\n\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于 2025 年 10 月 10 日，上述文书的一份副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交件的通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人。各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本提交件。\n\n/s/ James M. Moriarty\nJames M. Moriarty","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2589,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:19:31"}