{"id":"court_ctb_608_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":608,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2022-07-25","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |                                        |  |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11                   |  |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                     | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)<br>: |  |  |  |\n| Debtor.1                                                         | :<br>:                                 |  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x                                      |  |  |  |\n\n## **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULES 9014(c) AND 9016, QUASHING SUBPOENAS AND CONFIRMING THAT DEBTOR IS NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER APPOINTING LUC A. DESPINS AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OR THE TRUSTEE'S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY PAUL HASTINGS LLP AS COUNSEL**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned proposed counsel, hereby respectfully moves (the \"Motion\"), under Rules 9014(c) and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") for entry of an order, substantially in the form of the proposed order attached hereto as Exhibit A (the \"Proposed Order\"), (a) quashing the Subpoenas (defined below) directed to the Trustee's proposed counsel, Paul Hastings LLP (\"Paul Hastings\"), which the Debtor served on Paul Hastings on July 22, 2022 in connection with his *Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee* [Docket No. 561] (the \"60(b) Motion\"), and (b) confirming that the Debtor is not entitled to any discovery in connection with the 60(b) Motion or the Trustee's *Application*\n\n<sup>1</sup> Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n*Authorizing and Approving Retention and Employment of Paul Hastings LLP as Counsel to the Chapter 11 Trustee* [Docket No. 539] (the \"PH Retention Application\").\n\nAt the status conference held July 21, 2022 (the \"Status Conference\"), concerning, *inter alia*, the 60(b) Motion and the PH Retention Application, the Debtor announced his intention to pursue discovery in search for a basis (suggested only in broad-strokes conspiracy theories) to overturn the Trustee's appointment and prevent the retention of Paul Hastings as counsel. Partiesin-interest, including the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\") and Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\"), as well as the Trustee, expressed concern that devoting time and resources to humor the Debtor's paranoia would waste potential recoveries for creditors of the Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\") and delay its proper administration. **The Court plainly stated at the Status Conference that such discovery would not be permitted, and, if such discovery were served, the Trustee would not need to respond.**\n\nNevertheless, on Friday, July 22, 2022, in purported support of his Rule 60(b) Motion, the Debtor served Paul Hastings with a *Subpoena Duces Tecum* including a *Schedule A* of documents demanded for production (collectively, the \"Document Subpoena\"), requiring Paul Hastings to produce documents at the offices of Debtor's declared new counsel at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, July 26, 2022. The Debtor also served Paul Hastings with a *Subpoena to Testify at Deposition* (the \"Deposition Subpoena\" and, together with the Document Subpoena, the \"Subpoenas\"), directing Paul Hastings to produce a witness to testify at 10:00 a.m. on July 28, 2022. True and accurate copies of the Subpoenas are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, respectively. The Subpoenas seek, *inter alia*, documents and testimony concerning purported connections the Debtor speculates may exist between (unidentified) entities potentially influenced by the Chinese Government and Paul Hastings.\n\nIndulging the Debtor's unfounded conspiracy theories would waste time and resources at a critical juncture in this Chapter 11 Case – when the Trustee is poised to pursue substantial assets that the Debtor and allied persons have sought for years to insulate and conceal from the Debtor's creditors while the Debtor simultaneously controls them and enjoys their use. **Accordingly, the Court should exercise its discretion under Bankruptcy Rules 9014(c) and 9016 (which incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45) to (i) quash the Subpoenas and (ii) confirm its prior statements and order the Debtor is not entitled to discovery on the 60(b) Motion or the PH Retention Application.**\n\nIn further support of the Motion, the Trustee states the following:\n\n#### **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY BASIS**\n\n1. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\") has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended). This Motion is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n2. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n3. The basis for the relief sought by this Motion is Bankruptcy Rules 9014(c) and 9016 (incorporating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45).\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n4. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (such title, hereinafter, the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n5. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed the Committee in the Debtor's Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n6. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [ECF No. 465] (the \"Trustee Order\") directing the United States Trustee (the \"U.S. Trustee\") to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to the Trustee Order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee.\n\n7. On July 7, 2022, the U.S. Trustee filed its *Application for Order Approving Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee* (the \"Appointment Application\") together with the *Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins* (the \"Trustee Declaration\") [Docket No. 515]. The Court held a hearing (the \"Hearing\") on the Appointment Application on July 8, 2022, which was attended by, *inter alia*, Debtor's counsel (then, Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\")) and counsel for HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK International\") and Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter (Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. (\"Z&Z\")).\n\n8. No parties objected to the Appointment Application or requested discovery with respect thereto prior to or at the Hearing, and, thereafter, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [ECF No. 523] (the \"Appointment Order\").\n\n9. On July 12, 2022, the Trustee filed his *First Supplemental Declaration of Disinterestedness* [Docket No. 538] and the PH Retention Application.\n\n10. On July 13, 2022, Brown Rudnick moved to withdraw as the Debtor's counsel [Docket No. 543] (the \"Motion to Withdraw\"). On July 14, 2022, attorneys from Z&Z filed appearances for the Debtor. [Docket Nos. 550-553.]\n\n11. On July 15, 2022, the Debtor filed his 60(b) Motion seeking relief from the Court's Appointment Order. On July 20, 2022, the Trustee filed his objection to the Debtor's 60(b) Motion\n\n[Docket No. 575] (the \"60(b) Objection\"), which 60(b) Objection the Trustee incorporates herein by reference.\n\n12. The Court held the Status Conference on July 21, 2022, for the Trustee to advise the Court and parties-in-interest concerning his administration of the Estate to date, and to discuss the Motion to Withdraw, the PH Retention Application, and the 60(b) Motion.\n\n13. At the Status Conference, the Debtor's counsel repeatedly stated the Debtor's intention to take discovery on the 60(b) Motion and the PH Retention Application. The Court was crystal clear that such discovery would not be permitted, including during the following exchange between the Court and Debtor's counsel, which occurred between 2:05:45 – 2:06:45 on the audio recording of the Status Conference:<sup>2</sup>\n\n|                                                                                                  | THE COURT: | I'm not allowing you to take any discovery before I rule on<br>the 60(b)<br>Motion.                                                                                                    |  |  |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n|                                                                                                  | MR. HENZY: | And on the Paul Hastings Retention application?                                                                                                                                        |  |  |\n|                                                                                                  | THE COURT: | And on the Paul Hastings Retention application.                                                                                                                                        |  |  |\n|                                                                                                  | MR. HENZY: | Ok. So you're ruling that today?                                                                                                                                                       |  |  |\n|                                                                                                  | THE COURT: | That is correct. There is going to be no discovery … That's<br>not going to happen. We'll have a hearing. We'll hear your<br>matter … If I rule against you, then you'll appeal.<br>…. |  |  |\n|                                                                                                  | THE COURT: | I'm telling you if you seek discovery before I rule on these<br>matters, then I'm not going to make the other side comply.                                                             |  |  |\n|                                                                                                  | 14.        | Following the Status Conference, the Court scheduled a hearing with respect to the                                                                                                     |  |  |\n| Motion to Withdraw, the PH Retention Application, and the 60(b) Motion,<br>for Monday, August 1, |            |                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |  |\n| 2022<br>[Docket No. 596].                                                                        |            |                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |  |\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Trustee has ordered a transcript of the Status Conference on an expedited basis.\n\n15. The Debtor served Paul Hastings with the Subpoenas on July 22, 2022, demanding compliance with the Document Subpoena by 9 a.m. on Tuesday, July 26, 2022, and demanding a deposition at 10:00 a.m. on July 28, 2022.\n\n16. On the evening of July 22, 2022, in an abundance of caution, counsel for the Trustee held a telephonic meet-and-confer with counsel for the Debtor (the \"Meet-and-Confer\") and requested that the Debtor withdraw the Subpoenas. The parties discussed their respective positions and the Debtor declined to withdraw the Subpoenas, necessitating this Motion.<sup>3</sup>\n\n#### **REQUESTED RELIEF**\n\n17. The Court should exercise its discretion to quash the Subpoenas and confirm that the Debtor is not entitled to discovery on the 60(b) Motion or the PH Retention Application. The Trustee does not concede that the Debtor has standing to attack the Appointment Order or to oppose the PH Retention Application, but, out of an abundance of caution, the Trustee is addressing the merits herein, as they relate to discovery, as if the Debtor had such standing.\n\n18. The Debtor's theories proposed to advance his 60(b) Motion are irrelevant and speculative – not to mention paranoid and conspiracist – and do not warrant the delay and expense of discovery. (*See generally* Trustee's Objection to 60(b) Motion.) As concerns the PH Retention Application, the Debtor has not objected to the application and therefore it is not a contested matter pursuant to which the Debtor has sought discovery. In any event, discovery on the PH Retention Application is irrelevant and unnecessary for the same reasons as discovery on the 60(b) Motion.\n\n<sup>3</sup> The Meet-and-Confer was not mandatory and an affidavit attesting that such a conference occurred is not required, because this Motion is brought under Bankruptcy Rules 9014(c) and 9016 and not under the Bankruptcy Rules 7026-7037 (the \"Discovery Rules\") or under Rule 2004, *see* Rules 2004-1 and 7037-1 of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, provided however, to the extent that the Court believes that these requirements do or should apply, undersigned proposed counsel for the Trustee, Patrick R. Linsey, declares upon penalty of perjury that the representations set forth in Paragraph 16 of this Motion are true and correct, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 1746.\n\n19. The Debtor indicated during the Meet-and-Confer that he claims discovery on the 60(b) Motion pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9014, which governs \"contested matters.\" While the term \"contested matter\" \"is not defined in the [Bankruptcy] Code or text of the [Bankruptcy] Rules, the Notes of the Advisory Committee to the 1983 amendment to [Bankruptcy] Rule 9014 explain: 'Whenever there is an actual dispute, other than an adversary proceeding, before the bankruptcy court, the litigation to resolve that dispute is a contested matter.'\" *In re Northwest Airlines Corp.*, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 5114, \\*10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007); *see also* 10 Collier on Bankruptcy P 9014.01 (16th 2022).<sup>4</sup>\n\n20. Bankruptcy Rule 9014 incorporates certain of the Part VII Bankruptcy Rules, including, with certain exceptions and modifications, the Discovery Rules, \"**unless the court directs otherwise** …\" (emphasis added). Indeed, the Court's discretion to direct otherwise reflects what is the \"hallmark of the contested matter rules …\" *i.e.*, \"the power of the court to tailor the rules to fit the situation.\" *See In re Fagan*, 559 B.R. 718, 725 (E.D. Cal. 2016); *see also In re Gaftick*, 333 B.R. 177, 182-183 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (rejecting appeal of bankruptcy court's denial of discovery with respect to contested matter given the bankruptcy court's discretion under Bankruptcy Rule 9014(c) to direct that the Discovery Rules shall not apply).\n\n21. Crafting procedures to decide contested matters (including whether to apply Part VII rules) is subject to the Court's sound discretion. *See SE Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Gaddy Electric & Plumbing, LLC (In re Gaddy)*, 851 Fed. Appx. 996, 1003-1004 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding\n\n<sup>4</sup> Collier states: \"Broadly speaking, disputes that arise in bankruptcy cases can be divided into the following categories: (1) adversary proceedings, governed by Part VII of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; (2) administrative matters, in which there is no adversary party (for example, an unopposed motion by a trustee to sell property of the estate); and (3) contested matters, which do not qualify as adversary proceedings because they are not included in the Rule 7001 list. Contested matters resemble adversary proceedings in that there are (at least) two parties who are opposing each other with respect to relief sought by one of them.\" Id.\n\nbankruptcy court \"did not abuse its discretion\" in declining to allow discovery claimed pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9014); *In re Gaftick*, 333 B.R. 177, 182-183 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); *cf. In re Ephedra Prods. Liab. Litig.*, 329 B.R. 1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (affirming bankruptcy court's exercise of discretion in declining request to apply Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to a contested matter) (\"Although the Bankruptcy Code and [Bankruptcy] Rules give no express guidance for the court's exercise of this discretion, a pervasive theme is avoiding undue delay in the administration of the case.\").\n\n22. The Court further has discretion to quash a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, as incorporated by Bankruptcy Rule 9016. Specifically, Rule 45(d)(3) permits a court to quash a subpoena that, among other things, subjects a person to undue burden.\n\n23. The Debtor's 60(b) Motion purports to be based on new evidence and exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify the Court's reconsideration of the Appointment Order. In reality, the 60(b) Motion is founded on speculative conspiracy theories that irrelevant connections may exist between Paul Hastings and persons influenced by the Chinese Government, because the law firm does business in China and represents Chinese clients. Dozens of international law firms (including U.S.-based international law firms) have offices and/or do business in China. For example, Brown Rudnick apparently regularly represents Chinese persons and entities, such that the firm has even \"authored a guide for Chinese companies on navigating the [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] process.\" *See Brown Rudnick's CFIUS Practice*, *available at* http (last visited July 24, 2022) (specifically describing Brown Rudnick's engagements representing Chinese business interests).<sup>5</sup> Yet the\n\n<sup>5</sup> Brown Rudnick also formerly represented (as to unrelated matters) entities owned by Zheng Wu (a/k/a Bruno Wu), a Chinese businessman who is a creditor active in this Chapter 11 Case and a plaintiff suing the Debtor in an adversary proceeding (case no. 22-05013). *See Supplemental Declaration of William R. Baldiga*, Exhibit B to Debtor's *Reply in Support of Application of the*\n\nDebtor and his former counsel repeatedly represented that Brown Rudnick was disinterested; apparently, then, the Debtor's purported concerns voiced in its 60(b) Motion are selective, if not merely feigned in an effort to obstruct the Trustee's effective operation. 6 **The Debtor's theories concerning the Trustee and his counsel are irrelevant, paranoid, speculative – and fall far short of any basis sufficient to justify the delay and expense of discovery as to these matters.**\n\n24. Further, the Debtor's purported basis for the 60(b) Motion rests on public information that was known at the time of the Hearing, which was attended by both the Debtor's old counsel and its new counsel (then representing HK International and the Debtor's daughter). Neither the Debtor nor these insider parties sought discovery prior to or at the Hearing or otherwise in advance of the Appointment Order's entry. **The purpose of Bankruptcy Rule 9014 is not to resuscitate rights that the Debtor and his allies already waived.**\n\n25. Discussion from the Status Conference reflects that the Court recognized these considerations and thus properly exercised its discretion under Bankruptcy Rule 9014(c) to order that the Debtor would not be permitted discovery on the 60(b) Motion or the PH Retention Application. *See, e.g.,* Audio Recording of Status Conference at 1:40:00 – 1:40:22 (\"I'm not going to allow discovery to derail the process of the Chapter 11 Trustee appointment and his duties and responsibilities to carry out his affairs in this case.\").\n\n26. To the extent that the Court does not quash the Subpoenas and/or permits any discovery on the 60(b) Motion or the PH Retention Application, the Trustee reserves all rights and bases to challenge any discovery sought for any and all additional reasons not specifically stated\n\n*Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Employment and Retention of Brown Rudnick LLP as Counsel for the Debtor*, at p. 5 [Docket No. 195].\n\n<sup>6</sup> The Trustee observes these facts not to litigate Brown Rudnick's disinterestedness – but to highlight the selectivity of the Debtor's purported concerns.\n\nherein, including, without limitation, the irrelevance, ambiguity, and over-breadth of particular requests or the extent to which particular requests or areas of inquiry seek to invade the attorneyclient privilege or other applicable privileges and protections.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this Motion, enter the Proposed Order quashing the Subpoenas and ordering that the Debtor is not permitted to serve discovery in connection with the 60(b) Motion or the PH Retention Application, and order such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n*[The rest of this page is intentionally blank.]*\n\nDated: July 25, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalk@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(*admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(*admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Proposed counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 608 Filed 07/25/22 Entered 07/25/22 18:15:02 Page 12 of 33\n\n## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |                                        |  |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11                   |  |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                     | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)<br>: |  |  |  |\n| Debtor.                                                          | :<br>:                                 |  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x                                      |  |  |  |\n\n## **[PROPOSED] ORDER, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULES 9014(c) AND 9016, QUASHING SUBPOENAS AND CONFIRMING THAT DEBTOR IS NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER APPOINTING LUC A. DESPINS AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEE'S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY PAUL HASTINGS LLP AS COUNSEL**\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\") of Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), for the entry of an order (this \"Order\"), pursuant to Rules 9014(c) and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), (a) quashing the Subpoenas (defined below) that the Debtor served on the Trustee on July 22, 2022 in connection with his *Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee* [Docket No. 561] (the \"60(b) Motion\"), and (b) confirming that the Debtor is not entitled to any discovery in connection with the 60(b) Motion; and this Court having jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended); and consideration of the Motion and the relief requested therein being a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); and venue being proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interest of the Estate, its creditors, and all parties-in-interest; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given under the\n\nparticular circumstances; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; and upon all of the proceedings had before this Court; and any objections to the relief requested herein having been withdrawn or overruled on the merits; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. The Subpoenas (as defined in the Motion) are hereby QUASHED.\n\n3. The Debtor is not entitled to serve discovery on the Trustee, Paul Hastings LLP, or any other party in connection with the Rule 60(b) Motion or the PH Retention Application.\n\n4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\n## **EXHIBIT B**\n\n**Subpoena Duces Tecum to Paul Hastings LLP**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 608 Filed 07/25/22 Entered 07/25/22 18:15:02 Page 16 of 33 B257 (Form 257 - Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information in a Bankruntev Case or Adversary Proceding) (12/13)\n\n# UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\nDistrict of \\_\\_CONNECTICUT\n\nCase No.\n\nHO WAN KWOK In re\n\nDebtor\n\n(Complete if issued in an adversary proceeding)\n\nHO WAN KWOK\n\nPlaintiff v.\n\nChapter\\_11\n\n22-50073\n\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON, UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2. ET AL\n\nDefendant\n\nAdv. Proc. No.\n\n## SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMITT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A BANKRUPTCY CASE (OR ADVERSARY PROCEEDING)\n\n## To: PAUL HASTINGS, LLP, KEEPER OF RECORDS\n\n(Name of person to whom the subpoena is directed)\n\n1 Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: See Schedule A to Debtor's Subpoena attached hereto.\n\n| PLACE                                                                       | DATE AND TIME              |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|\n| Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, Bridgeport, CT 06604 | July 26, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. |\n\nI Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.\n\n| PLACE | ' DATE AND TIME |\n|-------|-----------------|\n|       |                 |\n\nThe following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, are attached - Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and 45(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.\n\nDate: July 22, 2022\n\nCLERK OF COURT\n\nOR Attorney's signature\n\nSignature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk\n\nThe name, address, email address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Ho Wan Kwok, The Debtor/Movant , who issues or requests this subpoena, are:\n\nAaron A. Romney, Esq., Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle St., 15th Fl., Bpt., CT, 06604, aromney@zeislaw.com,\n\n203-368-4234\n\n## Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena\n\nIf this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or the inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of this subpoena must be served on each party before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).\n\n## PROOF OF SERVICE\n\n#### (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)\n\n| I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any):<br>on (date)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| [ ] I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| [ ] I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the<br>witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of \\$<br>My fees are \\$ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |  |  |  |  |\n| I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true and correct.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| Date: Date: Date:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| Server's signature                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |\n| Printed name and title                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |\n| Server's address                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |\n\nAdditional information concerning attempted service, etc.:\n\n#### Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Rule 9016, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure)\n\n#### (c) Place of compliance.\n\n(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:\n\n(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or\n\n(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person\n\n(i) is a party or a party's officer; or\n\n(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.\n\n#### (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:\n\n(A) production of documents, or electronically stored information, or things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and\n\n(B) inspection of premises, at the premises to be inspected.\n\n#### (d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.\n\n(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees -- on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\n\n#### (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.\n\n(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.\n\n(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises - or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:\n\n(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.\n\n(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.\n\n#### (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.\n\n(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:\n\n(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;\n\n(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);\n\n(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or\n\n(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.\n\n(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:\n\n(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or\n\n(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.\n\n(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party;\n\n(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and\n\n(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.\n\n#### (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.\n\n(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:\n\n(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.\n\n(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.\n\n(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.\n\n(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.\n\n#### (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.\n\n(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:\n\n(i) expressly make the claim; and\n\n(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.\n\n(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.\n\n(g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required -- and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court - may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.\n\nFor access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n## **SCHEDULE A TO DEBTOR'S SUBPOENA TO PAUL HASTINGS, LLP**\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\n1. The responses to these Requests for the Production of Documents in accordance with the Debtor's Subpoena to Paul Hastings, LLP (each a \"Request\" and collectively, the \"Requests\") shall include such materials as are within Paul Hastings, LLP's custody, possession or control, or are within the custody, possession or control of its partners, associates, consultants, accountants, other attorneys or other agents, or which are otherwise available to Paul Hastings, LLP. Paul Hastings, LLP is specifically instructed to review the files (both hard copy and electronic), records, computers, notes, correspondence, daily calendars and telephone logs or records of all persons who have knowledge of the information inquired about in the Requests.\n\n2. With respect to any document that Paul Hastings, LLP refuses to produce in response to the Requests on the basis of a claim of privilege, or attorney work-product, it must produce a privilege log in compliance with D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e), made applicable to this proceeding by Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b).\n\n3. Notwithstanding the assertion of any objection to production, any document to which an objection is raised which contains non-objectionable matter that is responsive to a Request must be produced, but that portion of the document as to which the objection is asserted may be withheld or redacted in the first instance provided that the privilege log required by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e) is furnished.\n\n4. Each document to be produced pursuant to the Requests is to be produced along with all non-identical drafts and copies thereof, in its entirety without abbreviation, expurgation or redaction.\n\n5. Documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or, alternatively, shall be organized and labeled to correspond to the specific Request in response to which such documents are produced.\n\n6. Electronically stored information shall be produced in a reasonably usable form or forms as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(C), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016.\n\n7. The term \"all/each\" shall both be construed as all and each.\n\n8. The term \"and/or\" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the Requests all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope.\n\n9. The singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa.\n\n10. The Requests are continuing in nature. The Debtor demands that supplemental and additional productions be made by Paul Hastings, LLP immediately after any new or additional responsive documents or information comes into its possession, custody, or control, or is otherwise made available to it.\n\n11. If Paul Hastings, LLP withholds documents on the basis of an asserted objection other than privilege, then it shall affirmatively state that responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of the objection.\n\n12. Unless otherwise specified, the time period covered by these Requests is January 1, 2014 to the present.\n\n#### **II. DEFINITIONS**\n\n1. Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c), made applicable to this proceeding by Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b).\n\n2. Unless otherwise specified herein, the rules of construction set forth in D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d), made applicable to this proceeding by Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b), shall apply to the terms used herein.\n\n3. \"CCP Official\" means an official of the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n4. \"Debtor\" means Ho Wan Kwok, and anyone acting or purporting to act on his behalf.\n\n5. \"Despins\" means Luc A. Despins, and anyone acting or purporting to act on his behalf.\n\n6. \"Disinterested\" shall have the meaning under 11 U.S.C. 101(14) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2007(c), Including that a person **not** (a) possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (b) possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.\n\n7. \"Paul Hastings\" means Paul Hasting, LLP, and includes its partners, members, managers, managing partners, managing members, officers, employees, agents, and to the extent applicable to a particular request, outside service providers.\n\n8. \"PAG Entities\" means and includes PAG Holdings Limited, PAG Real Estate Asia, PAG Real Estate, PAG Assets (Real Estate) Limited, PAG Real Estate Investments, Ltd., BT Cayman Ltd., Super Alliance, Real Estate L.P, Sunstone KB (HKSAR) Ltd., PAG Private Equity,\n\nPAG Real Assets, PAG Credits and Markets, PAG Asia Capital, PAG Growth Capital, Secured Capital Real Estate Partners (\"SCREP\") V, SCREP VI, SCREP VI Management LLC, SCREP VII, PAG Real Estate Partners I, PAG Real Estate Partners II, Polymer Capital, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, Capital Structure Opportunities Fund, Pegasus Fund, RE Strategic Investments Pte. Ltd., Strategic Investment LP, Res Investments GP, Spirit Cayman, BT Cayman, and any other entity, regardless of form, managed by PAG or controlled by PAG Holdings Limited.\n\n9. \"PAX\" means Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., and anyone acting or purporting to act on its behalf.\n\n10. \"State Owned Entity\" or \"State Owned Entities\" means an entity or entities owned or controlled by the government of the People's Republic of China and is intended to have the same meaning ascribed to such term in the Paul Hastings Press Release titled Paul Hastings Represents Chinese Local Government Enterprises in Seven Bond Issuances, dated April 7, 2022.\n\n11. \"UBS\" means UBS AG, UBS Securities, LLC, UBS Securities ltd. Pte., UBS Investment Bank, or any other entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by UBS AG.\n\n12. \"UST\" means the United States Trustee's Office, Including its employees, agents, and anyone acting or purporting to act on its behalf.\n\n#### **III. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION**\n\n1. All Documents or Communications between Despins or Paul Hastings and the UST, the Debtor, PAX, any other creditor or party in interest to this Bankruptcy Case, or anyone acting or purporting to act on behalf of any of the foregoing Concerning the conflicts of interest alleged in (a) the Letter from Aaron A. Mitchell on the Debtors behalf Objecting to Appointment of Luc A Despins as Trustee dated July 11, 2022 (ECF No. 531), Including the letter attached thereto from Aaron A. Mitchell to the UST dated July 11, 2022 (ECF No. 531-1); and/or (b) the\n\nDebtor's Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee dated July 15, 2022 (ECF No. 561).\n\n2. Documents sufficient to identify all State Owned Entities or CCP Officials represented or advised by Paul Hastings, Including the scope of such representations and the status of such representations, *i.e.,* completed, terminated, on-going, or not yet commenced.\n\n3. Documents sufficient to identify all consideration received by Paul Hastings, whether monetary or otherwise, from the representation of all State Owned Entities or CCP Officials regardless of the Paul Hastings office from which the services generating the revenue were performed.\n\n4. Documents Sufficient to identify all matters on which Paul Hastings has advised or represented each of the PAG Entities, Including the scope of each such representation and the status of each such representation, *i.e.,* completed, terminated, on-going, or not yet Commenced.\n\n5. Documents sufficient to identify all consideration, whether monetary or otherwise, received by Paul Hastings from its representation of each of the PAG Entities regardless of the Paul Hastings office from which the services generating the revenue were performed.\n\n6. Documents Sufficient to identify all matters on which Paul Hastings has advised or represented UBS.\n\n7. Documents sufficient to identify all consideration, whether monetary or otherwise, received by Paul Hastings from its representation of UBS regardless of the Paul Hastings office from which the services generating the revenue were performed.\n\n8. Documents sufficient to identify any licenses, certificates or other authorizations held by Paul Hastings permitting it to operate its:\n\na. Beijing office;\n\n- b. Hong Kong office; and\n- c. Shanghai office,\n\nIncluding Documents sufficient to Identify (i) all Chinese governmental authorities issuing any such licenses, certificates or other authorizations, (ii) the terms and conditions for continued maintenance of any such licenses, certificates or other authorizations, Including Documents sufficient to Identify the level and/or degree of discretion held by any Chinese governmental authorities to suspend, revoke or allow Paul Hastings to continue to maintain any or all such licenses, certifications or other authorizations; and (iii) the date of which any such licenses, certificates or other authorizations expire by their terms.\n\n9. Documents sufficient to identify the revenue generated by each of Paul Hastings' offices located in the People's Republic of China, Including Hong Kong, for the period beginning January 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2022.\n\n10. All Documents and Communications between Despins or Paul Hastings, on the one hand, and any other person, Concerning (a) the Debtor's adverse interests to the Chinese Government or the Chinese Communist Party; or (b) whether those adverse interests impact, one way or another, the issue of whether Despins or Paul Hastings is Disinterested.\n\n## **EXHIBIT C**\n\n**Subpoena to Testify at Deposition to Paul Hastings LLP**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 608 Filed 07/25/22 Entered 07/25/22 18:15:02 Page 26 of 33 B2560 (Form 2560 -- Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Bankruptcv Case or Adversary Proceeding) (12/15)\n\n# UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\nDistrict of Connecticut\n\nIn re HO WAN KWOK\n\nDebtor\n\n(Complete if issued in an adversary proceeding)\n\nHO WAN KWOK\n\nPlaintiff V.\n\nCase No. 22-50073\n\nChapter 11 - - -\n\nAdv. Proc. No.\n\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2, ET AL\n\nDefendant\n\n## SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A BANKRUPTCY CASE (OR ADVERSARY PROCEEDING)\n\nTo: Paul Hastings, LLP\n\n(Name of person to whom the subpoena is directed)\n\n[ ] Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this bankruptcy case (or adversary proceeding). If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: See attached Schedule A\n\n| PLACE                                                                      | DATE AND TIME           |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle Street, 15\" Floor, Bridgeport, CT 06604 | July 28, 2022, 10:00 am |\n\nThe deposition will be recorded by this method:\n\nStenographic means, or as otherwise agreed.\n\n| Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, or sampling of the material:\n\nThe following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, are attached - Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.\n\nDate: July 22, 2022\n\nCLERK OF COURT\n\nOR\n\nSignature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk\n\nAttorney's signature\n\nThe name, address, email address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Ho Wan Kwok, The Debtor/Movant, who issues or requests this subpoena, are: Aaron A. Romney, Esq., Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle St., 15th Fl., Bridgeport, CT 06604, aromney@zeislaw.com, 203-368-4234\n\n## Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena\n\nIf this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or the inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of this subpoena must be served on each party before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).\n\n#### Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Rule 9016, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure)\n\n#### (c) Place of compliance.\n\n(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:\n\n(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or\n\n(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person\n\n(i) is a party or a party's officer; or\n\n(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.\n\n#### (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:\n\n(A) production of documents, or electronically stored information, or things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and\n\n(B) inspection of premises, at the premises to be inspected.\n\n#### (d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.\n\n(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\n\n#### (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.\n\n(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.\n\n(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises -- or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:\n\n(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.\n\n(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.\n\n#### (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.\n\n(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:\n\n(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits\n\nspecified in Rule 45(c);\n\n(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or\n\n(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.\n\n(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:\n\n(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or\n\n(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.\n\n(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:\n\n(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and\n\n(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.\n\n#### (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.\n\n(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:\n\n(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.\n\n(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.\n\n(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.\n\n(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.\n\n#### (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.\n\n(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:\n\n(i) expressly make the claim; and\n\n(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.\n\n(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.\n\n(g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required - and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court - may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it\n\nFor access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n#### **SCHEDULE A**\n\n#### **DEFINITIONS**\n\n1. Unless otherwise defined herein, and to the extent applicable, all terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c), made applicable to this proceeding by Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b).\n\n2. Unless otherwise specified herein, and to the extent applicable, the rules of construction set forth in D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d), made applicable to this proceeding by Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b), shall apply to the terms used herein.\n\n3. \"CCP Official\" means an official of the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n4. \"Debtor\" means Ho Wan Kwok, and anyone acting or purporting to act on his behalf.\n\n5. \"Despins\" means Luc A. Despins, and anyone acting or purporting to act on his behalf.\n\n6. The \"Despins Declaration of Disinterestedness\" means the Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A. Despins dated July 7, 2022 (ECF No. 515-1).\n\n7. \"Disinterested\" shall have the meaning under 11 U.S.C. 101(14) and Bankr. R. 2007(c), Including that a person **not** (1) possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.\n\n8. The \"First Supplemental Declaration\" means the First Supplemental Declaration of Disinterestedness of Luc A Despins dated July 12, 2022 (ECF No. 538).\n\n9. \"Paul Hastings\" means Paul Hasting, LLP, and includes its partners, members, manager, managing members, employees, and agents.\n\n10. \"PAG Entities\" means and includes PAG Holdings Limited, PAG Real Estate Asia, PAG Real Estate, PAG Assets (Real Estate) Limited, PAG Real Estate Investments, Ltd., BT Cayman Ltd., Super Alliance, Real Estate L.P, Sunstone KB (HKSAR) Ltd., PAG Private Equity, PAG Real Assets, PAG Credits and Markets, PAG Asia Capital, PAG Growth Capital, Secured Capital Real Estate Partners (\"SCREP\") V, SCREP VI, SCREP VI Management LLC, SCREP VII, PAG Real Estate Partners I, PAG Real Estate Partners II, Polymer Capital, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, Capital Structure Opportunities Fund, Pegasus Fund, RE Strategic Investments Pte. Ltd., Strategic Investment LP, Res Investments GP, Spirit Cayman, BT Cayman, and any other entity, regardless of form, managed by PAG or controlled by PAG Holdings Limited.\n\n11. \"PAX\" means Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., and anyone acting or purporting to act on its behalf.\n\n12. \"State Owned Entity\" or \"State Owned Entities\" means an entity or entities owned or controlled by the government of the People's Republic of China and is intended to have the same meaning ascribed to such term in the April 7, 2022, Paul Hastings Press Release titled Paul Hastings Represents Chinese Local Government Enterprises in Seven Bond Issuances.\n\n13. \"Trustee\" or \"Chapter 11 Trustee\" means the position of Chapter 11 Trustee of the Debtor's Estate.\n\n14. \"UBS\" means UBS AG, UBS Securities, LLC, UBS Securities ltd. Pte., UBS Investment Bank, or any other entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by UBS AG.\n\n15. \"UST\" means the Office of the United States Trustee, including its employees, agents, and anyone acting or purporting to act on its behalf.\n\n#### **DEPOSITION TOPICS**\n\n1. Despins' appointment, or consideration for appointment, as Trustee.\n\n2. Any conflicts of interest, alleged conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest between Despins or Paul Hastings and the Debtor or the Debtor's Estate.\n\n3. The conflicts of interest, or facts Concerning Despins' or Paul Hastings' Disinterestedness or lack thereof, alleged in (a) the Letter from Aaron A. Mitchell on the Debtors behalf Objecting to Appointment of Luc A Despins as Trustee dated July 11, 2022 (ECF No. 531), Including the letter attached thereto from Aaron A. Mitchell to the UST dated July 11, 2022 (ECF No. 531-1); and/or (b) the Debtor's Motion for Relief from Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee dated July 15, 2022 (ECF No. 561).\n\n4. The Despins Declaration of Disinterestedness or First Supplemental Declaration, Including Despins' or Paul Hastings' relationships, or potential conflicts of interest with, any of the entities referred to in the Despins Declaration of Disinterestedness or First Supplemental Declaration.\n\n5. Paul Hastings' or Despins' relationship with or representation of PAX, PAG or any of the PAG Entities, Including the scope of such representations, the status of such representations, *i.e.,* completed, terminated, on-going, or not yet commenced, and the consideration received by Paul Hastings, whether monetary or otherwise, from all such the representations.\n\n6. The relationship between each or any of the PAG Entities and PAX and/or each and any of these entities' relationships, direct or indirect, to any common parent company with PAX.\n\n7. Paul Hastings' or Despins' relationship with or representation of UBS, Including the scope of such representations, the status of such representations, *i.e.,* completed, terminated, on-going, or not yet commenced, and the consideration received by Paul Hastings, whether monetary or otherwise, from all such representations.\n\n8. The litigation between the Debtor and UBS AG, identified in the Despins Declaration of Disinterestedness, and whether, as a result of Paul Hastings representation of multiple UBS entities, Despins is Disinterested.\n\n9. Paul Hastings' or Despins' relationship with or representation of any/all State Owned Entities or CCP Officials, Including the scope of such representations, the status of such representations, *i.e.,* completed, terminated, on-going, or not yet commenced, and the consideration received by Paul Hastings, whether monetary or otherwise, from all such representations\n\n10. Licenses, certificates or other authorizations held by Paul Hastings permitting it to operate its:\n\n- a. Beijing office;\n- b. Hong Kong office; and\n- c. Shanghai office,\n\n11. The Chinese governmental authorities issuing any licenses, certificates or other authorizations referred to in the prior paragraph, the terms and conditions for continued maintenance of any such licenses, certificates or other authorizations, Including the level and/or degree of discretion held by any Chinese governmental authorities to suspend, revoke or allow Paul Hastings to continue to maintain any or all such licenses, certifications or other\n\nauthorizations; and the date on which any such licenses, certificates or other authorizations expire by their terms.\n\n12. The revenue generated by each of Paul Hastings' offices located in the People's Republic of China, Including Hong Kong, for the period beginning January 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2022.\n\n13. The Debtor's adverse interests to the Chinese Government or the Chinese Communist Party and whether those adverse interests impact, one way or another, the issue of whether Despins or Paul Hastings is Disinterested.\n\n14. Paul Hastings' search for, and production of, Documents responsive to the Debtors July 22, 2022, Requests for Production included in the Subpoena Decus Tecum served on Paul Hastings by the Debtor.","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　:\n:\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。1　:\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n第11章受托人依据《联邦破产程序规则》9014(c)和9016条提出的动议，请求作出裁定，撤销传票并确认债务人无权就债务人针对指定LUC A. DESPINS为第11章受托人的命令所提救济动议或受托人聘请PAUL HASTINGS LLP担任律师的申请进行证据开示\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其作为上述标题第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）中Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）获指定的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）的身份，通过其下列签名的拟任律师，现根据《联邦破产程序规则》（以下简称“破产规则”）9014(c)和9016条，谨此恭请提出本动议（以下简称“本动议”），请求作出与随附本动议作为附件A的拟议裁定（以下简称“拟议裁定”）实质相同的裁定，以：(a) 撤销债务人于July 22, 2022就其针对指定Luc A. Despins为第11章受托人的命令所提救济动议[Docket No. 561]（以下简称“60(b)动议”）向受托人的拟任律师Paul Hastings LLP（以下简称“Paul Hastings”）送达的、针对Paul Hastings的传票（定义见下文）；及(b) 确认债务人无权就60(b)动议或受托人的申请\n\n1 尽管债务人的法定姓名为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），其亦以Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok以及众多其他别名为人所知。债务人纳税人识别号码的最后四位数字为9595。\n\n授权并批准聘请Paul Hastings LLP担任第11章受托人律师[Docket No. 539]（以下简称“PH聘任申请”）进行任何证据开示。\n\n在July 21, 2022举行的、涉及60(b)动议和PH聘任申请等事项的状态会议（以下简称“状态会议”）上，债务人宣布其意图进行证据开示，以寻求依据（仅以粗略的阴谋论方式提出）推翻对受托人的指定并阻止聘请Paul Hastings担任律师。包括无担保债权人正式委员会（以下简称“委员会”）和Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（以下简称“PAX”）在内的利益相关方，以及受托人，均表示担忧：投入时间和资源来迁就债务人的偏执，将会浪费债务人破产财产（以下简称“破产财产”）债权人的潜在回收款，并延误对该破产财产的适当管理。法院在状态会议上明确表示，不会准许此类证据开示；如送达此类证据开示请求，受托人无需作出回应。\n\n尽管如此，于Friday, July 22, 2022，债务人表面上为支持其第60(b)条动议，向Paul Hastings送达了一份调取文件传票，其中包括要求提供文件的附件A（合称“文件传票”），要求Paul Hastings于Tuesday, July 26, 2022上午9时在债务人所声明的新律师办公室提交文件。债务人还向Paul Hastings送达了一份要求在证言笔录中作证的传票（以下简称“证言传票”，与文件传票合称“传票”），指示Paul Hastings于July 28, 2022上午10:00提供一名证人作证。传票的真实、准确副本分别作为附件B和C随附于本动议。传票寻求的包括但不限于有关债务人推测可能存在于（身份不明的）可能受中国政府影响的实体与Paul Hastings之间的所谓联系的文件和证言。\n\n迁就债务人毫无根据的阴谋论，将在本第11章案件的关键时刻浪费时间和资源——此时，受托人正准备追索债务人及与其有关联的人士多年来一直试图使其免受债务人债权人追索并予以隐匿、而债务人同时控制并享有其使用权的重大资产。因此，法院应行使其根据破产规则9014(c)和9016条（后者纳入《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条）所享有的裁量权，(i) 撤销传票，及(ii) 确认其先前的陈述，并裁定债务人无权就60(b)动议或PH聘任申请进行证据开示。\n\n为进一步支持本动议，受托人陈述如下：\n\n管辖权、审判地及法定依据\n\n1. 美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院（以下简称“法院”）依据28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334以及美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Connecticut）作出的移送常设命令（经修订），对本事项拥有管辖权。本动议属于28 U.S.C. § 157(b)所指的核心程序。\n\n2. 依据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本地区为适当审判地。\n\n3. 本动议所请求救济的依据为破产规则9014(c)和9016条（纳入《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条）。\n\n背景\n\n4. 于February 15, 2022（以下简称“申请日”），债务人向法院提交了一份依据《美国法典》第11编第11章请求救济的自愿申请（该编以下称为“破产法典”）。\n\n5. 于March 21, 2022，美国受托人指定委员会参与债务人的第11章案件。第11章案件中尚未指定任何审查人。\n\n6. 于June 15, 2022，法院作出决定备忘录及命令[ECF No. 465]（以下简称“受托人命令”），指示美国受托人（以下简称“美国受托人”）在第11章案件中指定一名第11章受托人。根据受托人命令，美国受托人选定Luc A. Despins担任受托人。\n\n7. 于July 7, 2022，美国受托人提交了批准指定第11章受托人的命令申请（以下简称“指定申请”），并一同提交Luc A. Despins的无利害关系声明（以下简称“受托人声明”）[Docket No. 515]。法院于July 8, 2022就指定申请举行听证会（以下简称“听证会”）；出席者包括但不限于债务人的律师（当时为Brown Rudnick LLP（以下简称“Brown Rudnick”））以及HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（以下简称“HK International”）和债务人之女Mei Guo的律师（Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（以下简称“Z&Z”））。\n\n8. 在听证会前或听证会上，没有任何当事方反对指定申请或请求就此进行证据开示；其后，法院作出命令，批准在第11章案件中指定Luc A. Despins为受托人[ECF No. 523]（以下简称“指定命令”）。\n\n9. 于July 12, 2022，受托人提交其第一份无利害关系补充声明[Docket No. 538]及PH聘任申请。\n\n10. 于July 13, 2022，Brown Rudnick提出动议，请求辞去债务人律师职务[Docket No. 543]（以下简称“辞任动议”）。于July 14, 2022，Z&Z的律师为债务人提交出庭通知。[Docket Nos. 550-553.]\n\n11. 于July 15, 2022，债务人提交其60(b)动议，请求获得针对法院指定命令的救济。于July 20, 2022，受托人提交其对债务人60(b)动议的异议\n\n[Docket No. 575]（以下简称“60(b)异议”）；受托人在此通过援引方式将该60(b)异议纳入本动议。\n\n12. 法院于July 21, 2022举行状态会议，以供受托人向法院和利益相关方说明其迄今对破产财产的管理情况，并讨论辞任动议、PH聘任申请和60(b)动议。\n\n13. 在状态会议上，债务人的律师反复表示债务人拟就60(b)动议和PH聘任申请进行证据开示。法院明确表示不会准许此类证据开示，包括法院与债务人律师之间的以下交谈；该交谈出现在状态会议音频记录的2:05:45 – 2:06:45处：2\n\n法院：　在我就\n第60(b)条动议作出裁定之前，我不允许你们进行任何证据开示。\n\nHENZY先生：　那Paul Hastings聘任申请呢？\n\n法院：　Paul Hastings聘任申请也是如此。\n\nHENZY先生：　好的。那么您今天会作出裁定吗？\n\n法院：　是的。不会有任何证据开示……那不会发生。我们会举行听证会。我们会听取你们的事项……如果我作出对你们不利的裁定，那么你们可以上诉。\n\n……\n\n法院：　我告诉你们，如果你们在我就这些事项作出裁定之前寻求证据开示，那么我不会要求另一方遵从。\n\n14.　在状态会议后，法院就辞任动议、PH聘任申请和60(b)动议安排于Monday, August 1举行听证会，\n\n[Docket No. 596]。\n\n2 受托人已要求以加急方式取得状态会议的庭审记录。\n\n15. 债务人于July 22, 2022向Paul Hastings送达传票，要求其于Tuesday, July 26, 2022上午9时前遵从文件传票，并要求于July 28, 2022上午10:00进行证言笔录。\n\n16. 于July 22, 2022晚间，出于审慎考虑，受托人的律师与债务人的律师举行电话会谈（以下简称“会谈”），并要求债务人撤回传票。各方讨论了各自立场，债务人拒绝撤回传票，因而有必要提出本动议。3\n\n请求的救济\n\n17. 法院应行使裁量权撤销传票，并确认债务人无权就60(b)动议或PH聘任申请进行证据开示。受托人并不承认债务人有资格质疑指定命令或反对PH聘任申请，但出于审慎考虑，受托人在此就与证据开示有关的实体问题作出回应，犹如债务人具有该等资格。\n\n18. 债务人拟用以推进其60(b)动议的理论并不相关且具有推测性——更不用说其偏执和阴谋论性质——不足以证明证据开示所造成的延误和费用具有正当性。（一般参见受托人对60(b)动议的异议。）就PH聘任申请而言，债务人并未对该申请提出异议，因此该申请并非债务人曾据以寻求证据开示的争议事项。无论如何，基于与就60(b)动议进行证据开示相同的理由，就PH聘任申请进行证据开示亦不相关且无必要。\n\n3 该会谈并非强制要求，且无需提交证明该会谈已发生的宣誓书，因为本动议依据破产规则9014(c)和9016条提出，而非依据破产规则7026-7037条（以下简称“证据开示规则”）或第2004条提出；参见《地方破产程序规则》2004-1和7037-1条。然而，如法院认为该等要求确实适用或应当适用，则受托人的下列签名拟任律师Patrick R. Linsey依伪证罪处罚宣告，本动议第16段所述陈述真实、准确；参见28 U.S.C. § 1746。\n\n19. 债务人在会谈期间表示，其主张依据规范“争议事项”的破产规则9014条，就60(b)动议进行证据开示。虽然“争议事项”一词“并未在[破产]法典或[破产]规则文本中定义，但咨询委员会关于1983年对[破产]规则9014条修订的说明解释道：‘每当破产法院面前存在实际争议，而非对抗程序时，为解决该争议而进行的诉讼即为争议事项。’”In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 5114, \\*10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007); 另见10 Collier on Bankruptcy P 9014.01 (16th 2022)。4\n\n20. 破产程序规则第9014条纳入了第VII部分破产程序规则中的某些规则，其中包括经若干例外和修改后的证据开示规则，“除非法院另有指示……”（着重号为原文所加）。事实上，法院作出不同指示的自由裁量权体现了“争议事项规则的标志性特征……”，即“法院为适应具体情形而调整规则的权力”。参见 In re Fagan, 559 B.R. 718, 725 (E.D. Cal. 2016)；另参见 In re Gaftick, 333 B.R. 177, 182-183 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)（鉴于破产法院根据破产程序规则第9014(c)条有权指示证据开示规则不适用，驳回了针对破产法院就争议事项拒绝证据开示的上诉）。\n\n21. 制定用于裁决争议事项的程序（包括是否适用第VII部分规则）属于法院的合理自由裁量范围。参见 SE Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Gaddy Electric & Plumbing, LLC (In re Gaddy), 851 Fed. Appx. 996, 1003-1004 (11th Cir. 2021)（裁定破产法院拒绝允许依据破产程序规则第9014条主张的证据开示，并未“滥用其自由裁量权”）；In re Gaftick, 333 B.R. 177, 182-183 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)；参照 In re Ephedra Prods. Liab. Litig., 329 B.R. 1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)（确认破产法院行使自由裁量权，拒绝将破产程序规则第7023条适用于争议事项的请求）（“尽管《破产法典》和[破产]程序规则未就法院如何行使该自由裁量权提供明示指引，但贯穿其中的主题是避免案件管理中的不当延误。”）。\n\n4 Collier 载称：“概括而言，破产案件中产生的争议可分为以下类别：(1) 对抗程序，受《联邦破产程序规则》第VII部分管辖；(2) 行政事项，其中不存在对立当事方（例如，受托人提出的未经反对的出售遗产财产动议）；以及 (3) 争议事项，其不符合对抗程序的条件，因为其未被列入规则第7001条的清单。争议事项与对抗程序相似，因为就其中一方所请求的救济而言，存在（至少）两个相互对立的当事方。”同上。\n\n22. 法院还可依据经破产程序规则第9016条纳入的《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条行使自由裁量权，撤销传票。具体而言，第45(d)(3)条允许法院撤销传票，包括使某人承受不当负担的传票。\n\n23. 债务人的60(b)动议表面上基于新证据及足以证明法院重新考虑任命命令具有正当性的特殊情形。实际上，60(b)动议建立在推测性的阴谋论之上，即由于 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）在中国开展业务并代理中国客户，该律师事务所与受中国政府影响的人士之间可能存在无关紧要的联系。数十家国际律师事务所（包括总部设于美国的国际律师事务所）在中国设有办事处和/或在中国开展业务。例如，Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）显然经常代理中国个人和实体，以至于该所甚至“为中国公司编写了关于如何应对[美国外国投资委员会]程序的指南”。参见 Brown Rudnick's CFIUS Practice，载于 http（最后访问于 July 24, 2022）（具体说明 Brown Rudnick 代理中国商业利益的业务）。5 然而，债务人及其前任律师反复表示 Brown Rudnick 不存在利益冲突；显然，债务人在其60(b)动议中所称的担忧是选择性的，甚或只是为阻碍受托人有效履职而虚构的。6 债务人关于受托人及其律师的理论毫无关联、充满偏执臆测，且远不足以构成正当理由，使针对这些事项的证据开示所导致的延误和费用具有合理性。\n\n5 Brown Rudnick 此前还曾代理由 Zheng Wu（又名 Bruno Wu）拥有的实体（就无关事项而言）。Zheng Wu 是一名中国商人，是本第11章案件中积极参与的债权人，并且是在对抗程序（案号 22-05013）中起诉债务人的原告。参见 Supplemental Declaration of William R. Baldiga, Exhibit B to Debtor's Reply in Support of Application of the Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Employment and Retention of Brown Rudnick LLP as Counsel for the Debtor, at p. 5 [Docket No. 195]。\n\n6 受托人提及这些事实并非为了就 Brown Rudnick 是否不存在利益冲突进行诉讼，而是为了突出债务人所称担忧的选择性。\n\n24. 此外，债务人所称的60(b)动议依据，是在听证会举行时已为人所知的公开信息；债务人的原律师和新律师均出席了该听证会，后者当时代理 HK International 和债务人的女儿。债务人及这些内部人士当事方均未在任命命令作出前、于听证会之前或听证会期间，或以其他方式寻求证据开示。破产程序规则第9014条的目的，并非恢复债务人及其盟友已经放弃的权利。\n\n25. 状态会议的讨论表明，法院认识到这些考量因素，因而适当行使了其根据破产程序规则第9014(c)条享有的自由裁量权，命令不准债务人就60(b)动议或 PH 聘任申请进行证据开示。例如，参见 Audio Recording of Status Conference at 1:40:00 – 1:40:22（“我不会允许证据开示破坏第11章受托人任命程序，以及其在本案中履行事务的职责和责任。”）。\n\n26. 如法院不撤销传票和/或准许就60(b)动议或 PH 聘任申请进行任何证据开示，受托人保留基于未在本文中具体陈述的任何及所有其他理由，对所寻求的任何证据开示提出异议的一切权利和依据，包括但不限于特定请求的不相关性、含糊性及范围过宽，或特定请求或调查领域试图侵犯律师—当事人保密特权或其他适用特权及保护的程度。\n\n结论\n\n因此，基于上述理由，法院应当准许本动议，作出拟议命令以撤销传票，并命令债务人不得就60(b)动议或 PH 聘任申请送达证据开示请求，以及给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留空。]\n\n日期：July 25, 2022    LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），New Haven, Connecticut    第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalk@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）*（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）*（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人的拟任律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 608 Filed 07/25/22 Entered 07/25/22 18:15:02 Page 12 of 33\n\n附件A\n\n拟议命令\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格联邦地区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分庭）\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　：\n：\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。　：\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n[拟议]命令：依据破产程序规则第9014(c)条和第9016条，撤销传票并确认债务人无权就债务人请求免除任命 LUC A. DESPINS 为第11章受托人的命令之动议或受托人聘用 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 为律师的申请进行证据开示\n\n兹因 Luc A. Despins 先生以其作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份提出动议（“本动议”），请求依据《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产程序规则”）第9014(c)条和第9016条作出命令（“本命令”），(a) 撤销债务人于 July 22, 2022 就其请求免除任命 Luc A. Despins 为第11章受托人的命令之动议 [Docket No. 561]（“60(b)动议”）向受托人送达的传票（定义见下文），以及 (b) 确认债务人无权就60(b)动议进行任何证据开示；且本院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格联邦地区法院）的移送常设命令（经修订），对审理本动议及其中请求的救济具有管辖权；且审理本动议及其中请求的救济，依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 构成核心程序；且依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本院为适当审理地点；且法院已认定，本动议所请求的救济符合遗产、其债权人及所有利害关系方的最大利益；且已在具体情形下就本动议作出适当且充分的通知；且看来无须作出其他或进一步通知；且在本院已进行全部程序后；且对本文所请求救济的任何异议已被撤回或经实体审理驳回；且经适当审议并显示存在充分理由，现命令如下：\n\n1. 本动议按本文所述予以准许。\n\n2. 特此撤销传票（定义见本动议）。\n\n3. 债务人无权就规则60(b)动议或 PH 聘任申请，向受托人、Paul Hastings LLP 或任何其他方送达证据开示请求。\n\n4. 对于因实施、解释和执行本命令而产生或与之有关的一切事项，本院保留管辖权。\n\n附件B\n\n致 Paul Hastings LLP 的调取文件传票\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 608 Filed 07/25/22 Entered 07/25/22 18:15:02 Page 16 of 33 B257（表格257——破产案件或对抗程序中要求提交文件、信息的传票）(12/13)\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\n\nDistrict of \\_\\_CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格联邦地区）\n\nCase No.\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 关于\n\n债务人\n\n（如在对抗程序中签发，请填写）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n原告 诉\n\nChapter\\_11\n\n22-50073\n\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON, UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2. ET AL（WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON、美国第2地区受托人等）\n\n被告\n\nAdv. Proc. No.\n\n破产案件（或对抗程序）中要求提交文件、信息或物品，或准许检查场所的传票\n\n致：PAUL HASTINGS, LLP, KEEPER OF RECORDS\n\n（传票所指向人员的姓名）\n\n1 提交：现命令你方于下列时间、日期及地点提交下列文件、电子存储信息或物品，并准许检查、复制、测试或抽样该等材料：见随附的债务人传票附件A。\n\n地点　日期和时间\n\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, Bridgeport, CT 06604　July 26, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.\n\nI 检查场所：现命令你方于下列时间、日期及地点准许进入由你方占有或控制的指定场所、土地或其他财产，以便请求方检查、测量、勘测、拍照、测试或抽样该财产或其上的任何指定物品或活动。\n\n地点　' 日期和时间\n\n下列 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 条款，根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016 适用于破产案件，随附于后——有关履行地点的 Rule 45(c)；有关作为传票所针对人员应受保护的 Rule 45(d)；以及有关您回应本传票的义务及未作回应可能后果的 Rule 45(e) 和 45(g)。\n\n日期：July 22, 2022\n\n法院书记员\n\n或 律师签名\n\n书记员或副书记员签名\n\n代表（当事人姓名）Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（债务人/动议人）并签发或请求签发本传票的律师姓名、地址、电子邮件地址和电话号码如下：\n\nAaron A. Romney, Esq., Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒专业公司）, 10 Middle St., 15th Fl., Bpt., CT, 06604, aromney@zeislaw.com,\n\n203-368-4234\n\n致签发或请求签发本传票之人的通知\n\n如本传票命令在审判前提交文件、电子存储信息，或准许检查场所，则必须在向传票指定的人员送达前，向每一当事人送达通知及本传票副本。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4)。\n\n送达证明\n\n（除非 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 要求，否则本节不应向法院提交。）\n\n我收到向（个人姓名及职务，如有）发出的本传票：\n\n于（日期）\n\n[ ] 我通过如下方式向被指定人员交付副本而送达传票：\n\n[ ] 我未予执行即退回传票，原因为：------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n除非传票代表 United States（美国）或其官员或代理人签发，我亦已向证人支付一天出席的费用及法律允许的里程费用，金额为 $\n\n我的费用为 $ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________\n\n我在伪证处罚下声明，该等信息真实且正确。\n\n日期： 日期： 日期：\n\n送达人签名\n\n正楷姓名及职务\n\n送达人地址\n\n有关尝试送达等的补充信息：\n\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), (e), and (g)（Effective 12/1/13）（根据 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9016 适用于破产案件）\n\n(c) 履行地点。\n\n(1) 审判、听证或证言录取。传票仅可依下列规定命令人员出席审判、听证或证言录取：\n\n(A) 在该人员居住、受雇或亲自经常开展业务地点的 100 英里范围内；或\n\n(B) 在该人员居住、受雇或亲自经常开展业务所在州内，如该人员\n\n(i) 为当事人或当事人的高级职员；或\n\n(ii) 被命令出席审判且不会产生重大费用。\n\n(2) 其他证据开示。传票可命令：\n\n(A) 在该人员居住、受雇或亲自经常开展业务地点的 100 英里范围内提交文件、电子存储信息或物品；以及\n\n(B) 在拟检查的场所检查场所。\n\n(d) 对传票所针对人员的保护；执行。\n\n(1) 避免不当负担或费用；制裁。负责签发和送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，避免向传票所针对人员施加不当负担或费用。要求履行的地区法院必须执行此项义务，并对未遵守者的当事人或律师施加适当制裁，该制裁可包括损失的收入及合理的律师费。\n\n(2) 命令提交材料或准许检查。\n\n(A) 无须出庭。被命令提交文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或准许检查场所的人员，无须亲自出现在提交或检查地点，除非其亦被命令出席证言录取、听证或审判。\n\n(B) 异议。被命令提交文件或有形物品，或准许检查的人员，可向传票中指定的当事人或律师送达书面异议，反对检查、复制、测试或抽样全部或部分材料，或反对检查场所，或反对以请求的形式提交电子存储信息。异议必须于指定履行时间之前或传票送达后 14 天内（以较早者为准）送达。如提出异议，则适用下列规则：\n\n(i) 送达方可随时在通知被命令人员后，向要求履行的地区法院提出动议，请求作出强制提交或检查的命令。\n\n(ii) 仅可按照命令所指示的方式要求实施该等行为，且该命令必须保护非当事人亦非当事人高级职员的人员，使其免受因履行而产生的重大费用。\n\n(3) 撤销或修改传票。\n\n(A) 必须撤销或修改的情形。经及时动议，要求履行的地区法院必须撤销或修改具有下列情形的传票：\n\n(i) 未给予合理的履行时间；\n\n(ii) 要求人员在 Rule 45(c) 规定的地理范围之外履行；\n\n(iii) 在不适用任何例外或豁免的情况下，要求披露享有特权或受其他保护的事项；或\n\n(iv) 对人员施加不当负担。\n\n(B) 可以撤销或修改的情形。为保护受传票约束或受其影响的人员，如传票要求下列事项，要求履行的地区法院可依动议撤销或修改传票：\n\n(i) 披露商业秘密或其他保密研究、开发或商业信息；或\n\n(ii) 披露未受聘专家的意见或信息，该等意见或信息并非描述争议中的特定事件，且源于并非由当事人请求的该专家研究。\n\n(C) 将规定条件作为替代方案。在 Rule 45(d)(3)(B) 所述情形下，法院可不撤销或修改传票，而在送达方符合下列条件时命令在规定条件下出庭或提交：\n\n(i) 证明对证言或材料具有重大需要，且不造成不当困难即无法以其他方式满足；以及\n\n(ii) 确保被传唤人员将获得合理补偿。\n\n(e) 回应传票时的义务。\n\n(1) 提交文件或电子存储信息。下列程序适用于提交文件或电子存储信息：\n\n(A) 文件。回应文件提交传票的人员必须按文件在日常业务过程中保存的方式提交，或者必须将文件整理并标注，以对应请求中的类别。\n\n(B) 未指定电子存储信息提交形式。如传票未指定电子存储信息的提交形式，回应人员必须以其通常保存的一种或多种形式，或以一种或多种合理可用的形式提交。\n\n(C) 电子存储信息仅以一种形式提交。回应人员无须以多于一种形式提交相同的电子存储信息。\n\n(D) 无法合理取得的电子存储信息。对于回应人员认定因不当负担或费用而无法合理取得的来源中的电子存储信息，回应人员无须提供证据开示。对于强制证据开示动议或保护令动议，回应人员必须证明该信息因不当负担或费用而无法合理取得。如作出该证明，在考虑 Rule 26(b)(2)(C) 的限制后，如请求方证明具有正当理由，法院仍可命令对此类来源进行证据开示。法院可为该证据开示规定条件。\n\n(2) 主张特权或保护。\n\n(A) 被扣留的信息。以信息享有特权或作为审判准备材料受到保护为由扣留被传唤信息的人员必须：\n\n(i) 明确提出该主张；以及\n\n(ii) 以一种在不披露本身享有特权或受保护的信息的情况下，能够使当事人评估该主张的方式，说明被扣留文件、通信或有形物品的性质。\n\n(B) 已提交的信息。如为回应传票而提交的信息属于特权或作为审判准备材料受到保护主张的对象，提出该主张的人员可将该主张及其依据通知任何收到该信息的当事人。收到通知后，当事人必须立即返还、隔离或销毁所指定的信息及其持有的任何副本；在该主张得到解决前不得使用或披露该信息；如该当事人在收到通知前已披露该信息，则必须采取合理措施追回该信息；并可立即将该信息密封提交给要求履行的地区法院，以裁定该主张。提交该信息的人员必须保存该信息，直至该主张得到解决。\n\n(g) 藐视法庭。要求履行的地区法院——以及在动议被移送后，签发法院——可认定已被送达却无充分理由不遵守传票或与之有关命令的人员构成藐视法庭。\n\n有关取得传票材料，请参见 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n债务人致 Paul Hastings, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）传票之附件 A\n\n指示\n\n1. 根据债务人致 Paul Hastings, LLP 的传票对该等文件提交请求作出的回应（每项称为“一项请求”，合称“该等请求”）应包括 Paul Hastings, LLP 保管、占有或控制的材料，或其合伙人、律师助理、顾问、会计师、其他律师或其他代理人保管、占有或控制的材料，或以其他方式可供 Paul Hastings, LLP 取得的材料。特此明确指示 Paul Hastings, LLP 审查所有知悉该等请求所询问信息之人员的档案（包括纸质和电子档案）、记录、计算机、笔记、通信、每日历表及电话日志或记录。\n\n2. 对于 Paul Hastings, LLP 以特权或律师工作成果为由拒绝依该等请求提交的任何文件，其必须依照 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e) 制作特权日志；该规则根据 Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b) 适用于本程序。\n\n3. 尽管提出任何反对提交的异议，凡对其提出异议的文件含有对某项请求作出回应且不存在异议的事项，均必须提交；但就提出异议的该部分文件，如提供 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e) 所要求的特权日志，可在初步阶段予以扣留或涂删。\n\n4. 根据该等请求应提交的每份文件，均应连同其所有非相同的草稿和副本一并提交，并应完整提交，不得缩略、删节或涂删。\n\n5. 文件应按其在日常业务过程中保存的方式提交，或者，应予整理并标注，以对应提交该等文件所回应的具体请求。\n\n6. 电子存储信息应按 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(C) 所要求的一种或多种合理可用的形式提交；该规则根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016 适用于本程序。\n\n7. “all/each”一词均应解释为包括“all”和“each”。\n\n8. “and/or”一词应根据需要作析取或合取解释，以使原本可能被解释为不属于该等请求范围的所有回应均纳入该等请求范围。\n\n9. 任何词语的单数形式包括复数形式，反之亦然。\n\n10. 本请求具有持续性。债务人要求 Paul Hastings, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）在任何新的或补充的相关文件或信息进入其占有、保管或控制范围内，或以其他方式向其提供后，立即作出补充和追加提供。\n\n11. 如 Paul Hastings, LLP 基于所主张的特权以外的异议而扣留文件，则其应明确说明其基于该异议扣留了相关文件。\n\n12. 除非另有说明，本请求所涵盖的期间为 January 1, 2014 至今。\n\nII. 定义\n\n1. 除非本文另有定义，本文所用的所有术语均应具有 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c) 规定的含义；该规则经 Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b) 适用于本程序。\n\n2. 除非本文另有说明，D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d) 规定的解释规则应适用于本文所用术语；该规则经 Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b) 适用于本程序。\n\n3. “CCP Official”系指中国共产党的官员。\n\n4. “Debtor”系指 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），以及任何代表其行事或声称代表其行事的人。\n\n5. “Despins”系指 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），以及任何代表其行事或声称代表其行事的人。\n\n6. “Disinterested”应具有 11 U.S.C. 101(14) 和 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2007(c) 规定的含义，包括指某人不：(a) 拥有或主张任何可能趋于降低破产财产价值，或可能造成破产财产作为竞争性权利主张人参与的现实或潜在争议的经济利益；或 (b) 在使其对破产财产形成该等偏见的情形下具有预先倾向。\n\n7. “Paul Hastings”系指 Paul Hasting, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），并包括其合伙人、成员、经理、管理合伙人、管理成员、高级管理人员、雇员、代理人，以及在适用于某一特定请求的范围内，其外部服务提供者。\n\n8. “PAG Entities”系指并包括 PAG Holdings Limited（PAG控股有限公司）、PAG Real Estate Asia（PAG亚洲房地产）、PAG Real Estate（PAG房地产）、PAG Assets (Real Estate) Limited（PAG资产〈房地产〉有限公司）、PAG Real Estate Investments, Ltd.（PAG房地产投资有限公司）、BT Cayman Ltd.（BT开曼有限公司）、Super Alliance, Real Estate L.P.（超级联盟房地产有限合伙企业）、Sunstone KB (HKSAR) Ltd.（Sunstone KB〈香港特别行政区〉有限公司）、PAG Private Equity（PAG私募股权）、\n\nPAG Real Assets（PAG实物资产）、PAG Credits and Markets（PAG信贷与市场）、PAG Asia Capital（PAG亚洲资本）、PAG Growth Capital（PAG成长资本）、Secured Capital Real Estate Partners (\"SCREP\") V（担保资本房地产合伙企业〈“SCREP”〉V）、SCREP VI、SCREP VI Management LLC（SCREP VI管理有限责任公司）、SCREP VII、PAG Real Estate Partners I（PAG房地产合伙企业I）、PAG Real Estate Partners II（PAG房地产合伙企业II）、Polymer Capital（保利资本）、Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金）、Capital Structure Opportunities Fund（资本结构机会基金）、Pegasus Fund（飞马基金）、RE Strategic Investments Pte. Ltd.（RE战略投资私人有限公司）、Strategic Investment LP（战略投资有限合伙企业）、Res Investments GP（Res投资普通合伙人）、Spirit Cayman（Spirit开曼）、BT Cayman（BT开曼），以及任何其他无论何种形式、由 PAG 管理或受 PAG Holdings Limited 控制的实体。\n\n9. “PAX”系指 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），以及任何代表其行事或声称代表其行事的人。\n\n10. “State Owned Entity”或“State Owned Entities”系指由中华人民共和国政府拥有或控制的一个或多个实体，并拟具有 Paul Hastings 新闻稿《Paul Hastings Represents Chinese Local Government Enterprises in Seven Bond Issuances》中赋予该术语的相同含义，该新闻稿日期为 April 7, 2022。\n\n11. “UBS”系指 UBS AG（瑞银集团）、UBS Securities, LLC（瑞银证券有限责任公司）、UBS Securities ltd. Pte.（瑞银证券私人有限公司）、UBS Investment Bank（瑞银投资银行），或任何由 UBS AG 直接或间接拥有或控制的其他实体。\n\n12. “UST”系指 United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室），包括其雇员、代理人以及任何代表其行事或声称代表其行事的人。\n\nIII. 文件提供请求\n\n1. Despins 或 Paul Hastings 与 UST、债务人、PAX、本破产案件中的任何其他债权人或利害关系方，或任何代表前述任何一方行事或声称代表其行事的人之间，就以下所指称的利益冲突所作的一切文件或通信：(a) Aaron A. Mitchell（阿伦·A·米切尔）代表债务人就反对任命 Luc A. Despins 为受托人而提交的、日期为 July 11, 2022 的信函（ECF No. 531），包括附于该信函的 Aaron A. Mitchell 致 UST 的日期为 July 11, 2022 的信函（ECF No. 531-1）；及/或 (b)\n\n债务人请求解除任命 Luc A. Despins 为 Chapter 11 受托人的裁定的动议，日期为 July 15, 2022（ECF No. 561）。\n\n2. 足以识别由 Paul Hastings 代理或提供法律意见的所有国有实体或中共官员的文件，包括该等代理的范围和状态，即已完成、已终止、持续进行或尚未开始。\n\n3. 足以识别 Paul Hastings 因代理所有国有实体或中共官员而获得的全部对价（无论为金钱或其他形式）的文件，不论产生该等收入的服务由 Paul Hastings 的哪个办事处提供。\n\n4. 足以识别 Paul Hastings 就其向每一 PAG Entities 提供法律意见或代理的所有事项的文件，包括每项该等代理的范围和状态，即已完成、已终止、持续进行或尚未开始。\n\n5. 足以识别 Paul Hastings 因代理每一 PAG Entities 而获得的全部对价（无论为金钱或其他形式）的文件，不论产生该等收入的服务由 Paul Hastings 的哪个办事处提供。\n\n6. 足以识别 Paul Hastings 就其向 UBS 提供法律意见或代理的所有事项的文件。\n\n7. 足以识别 Paul Hastings 因代理 UBS 而获得的全部对价（无论为金钱或其他形式）的文件，不论产生该等收入的服务由 Paul Hastings 的哪个办事处提供。\n\n8. 足以识别 Paul Hastings 持有的、准许其经营下列办事处的任何许可证、证书或其他授权的文件：\n\na. 北京办事处；\n\nb. 香港办事处；以及\n\nc. 上海办事处，\n\n包括足以识别：(i) 签发任何该等许可证、证书或其他授权的所有中国政府机关；(ii) 持续维持任何该等许可证、证书或其他授权的条款和条件，包括足以识别任何中国政府机关在暂停、撤销或准许 Paul Hastings 继续维持任何或全部该等许可证、认证或其他授权方面所拥有裁量权的层级及/或程度的文件；以及 (iii) 任何该等许可证、证书或其他授权依其条款到期的日期的文件。\n\n9. 足以识别位于中华人民共和国（包括香港）的 Paul Hastings 各办事处在自 January 1, 2017 起至 June 30, 2022 止期间所产生收入的文件。\n\n10. 一方面，Despins 或 Paul Hastings；另一方面，任何其他人之间，就以下事项所作的一切文件和通信：(a) 债务人与中国政府或中国共产党存在相对立的利益；或 (b) 该等相对立的利益是否以任何方式影响 Despins 或 Paul Hastings 是否为无利害关系人士的问题。\n\n附件 C\n\n向 Paul Hastings LLP 发出的在证言录取中作证传票\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 608 Filed 07/25/22 Entered 07/25/22 18:15:02 Page 26 of 33 B2560（表格2560——破产案件或对抗程序中的证言录取作证传票）（12/15）\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\n\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格区）\n\n关于 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n债务人\n\n（如在对抗程序中签发，请填写）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n原告 诉\n\nCase No. 22-50073\n\nChapter 11 - - -\n\nAdv. Proc. No.\n\nWILLIAM K. HARRINGTON（威廉·K·哈林顿），UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 2（第二区美国受托人），等\n\n被告\n\n破产案件（或对抗程序）中的证言录取作证传票\n\n致：Paul Hastings, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n\n（传票所指向人员的姓名）\n\n[ ] 证言：兹命令你于下列时间、日期和地点出席，就将在本破产案件（或对抗程序）中进行的证言录取作证。如你为组织，你必须指定一名或多名高级管理人员、董事或管理代理人，或者指定同意代表你就下列事项或附件中载明事项作证的其他人员：见所附附件 A\n\n地点　日期和时间\n\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒专业公司），10 Middle Street, 15\" Floor, Bridgeport, CT 06604　July 28, 2022, 10:00 am\n\n证言录取将通过以下方式记录：\n\n速记方式，或经另行约定的其他方式。\n\n提供：你或你的代表还必须在证言录取时携带下列文件、电子存储信息或物品，并必须允许检查或抽样该等材料：\n\n下列 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 的规定已附后；该规则经 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016 适用于破产案件：Rule 45(c)，关于履行地点；Rule 45(d)，关于对作为传票对象人员的保护；以及 Rule 45(g)，关于你对本传票作出回应的义务及不作回应的潜在后果。\n\n日期：July 22, 2022\n\n法院书记员\n\n或\n\n书记员或副书记员签名\n\n律师签名\n\n签发或请求签发本传票的、代表 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）、债务人/动议人的律师姓名、地址、电子邮件地址和电话号码为：Aaron A. Romney, Esq.（阿伦·A·罗姆尼律师），Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒专业公司），10 Middle St., 15th Fl., Bridgeport, CT 06604，aromney@zeislaw.com，203-368-4234\n\n向签发或请求签发本传票之人的通知\n\n如本传票命令在审判前提供文件、电子存储信息，或检查场所，则必须在向被指向人送达之前，向每一方当事人送达通知和本传票副本。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4)。\n\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)、(d)、(e) 和 (g)（Effective 12/1/13）（经 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9016 适用于破产案件）\n\n(c) 履行地点。\n\n(1) 关于审判、听证或证言录取。传票仅可按下列方式命令某人出席审判、听证或证言录取：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自从事业务地点的 100 英里范围内；或\n\n(B) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自从事业务所在州内，如该人\n\n(i) 是一方当事人或一方当事人的高级管理人员；或\n\n(ii) 被命令出席审判且不会产生重大费用。\n\n(2) 关于其他证据开示。传票可以命令：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或经常亲自从事业务地点的 100 英里范围内的地点提供文件、电子存储信息或物品；以及\n\n(B) 在拟检查的场所检查场所。\n\n(d) 对作为传票对象人员的保护；执行。\n\n(1) 避免不当负担或费用；制裁。负责签发和送达传票的一方当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，避免对作为传票对象的人员施加不当负担或费用。要求履行传票的地区法院必须执行该义务，并对未遵守该义务的一方当事人或律师处以适当制裁，其中可包括收入损失和合理律师费。\n\n(2) 命令提供材料或允许检查。\n\n(A) 无须出席。被命令提供文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或允许检查场所的人员，无须亲自到提供或检查地点出席，除非还被命令出席证言录取、听证或审判。\n\n(B) 异议。被要求出示文件或有形物品或允许检查的人，可以向传票中指定的当事人或律师送达书面异议，反对检查、复制、测试或抽样全部或部分材料，或者反对检查场所，或者反对以所要求的一种或多种形式出示以电子方式存储的信息。异议必须在规定的履行时间届满前或传票送达后14天内（以较早者为准）送达。提出异议后，适用下列规则：\n\n(i) 在任何时候，经通知被要求履行的人，送达方可以向要求履行所在地区的法院提出动议，请求作出强制出示或检查的命令。\n\n(ii) 只有依照命令的指示才可要求实施上述行为，该命令必须保护既非当事人亦非当事人高级职员的人免于承担因履行而产生的重大费用。\n\n(3) 撤销或修改传票。\n\n(A) 必须撤销或修改的情形。经及时提出动议，要求履行所在地区的法院必须撤销或修改具有下列情形的传票：\n\n(i) 未留出合理的履行时间；(ii) 要求某人在超出\n\nRule 45(c)规定的地域范围之外履行；\n\n(iii) 要求披露享有特权或受其他保护的事项，且不存在任何例外或弃权；或者\n\n(iv) 使某人承担不当负担。\n\n(B) 可以撤销或修改的情形。为保护受传票约束或受其影响的人，要求履行所在地区的法院可以根据动议，在传票要求下列事项时撤销或修改该传票：\n\n(i) 披露商业秘密或其他保密的研究、开发或商业信息；或者\n\n(ii) 披露未受聘专家的意见或信息，而该等意见或信息既不描述争议中的具体事件，也不源自任何当事人请求该专家进行的研究。\n\n(C) 作为替代方案规定条件。在Rule 45(d)(3)(B)所述情形下，如送达方：\n\n(i) 证明对证言或材料存在实质性需要，且如无不当困难则无法以其他方式满足该需要；并且\n\n(ii) 确保被传唤人将获得合理报酬，\n\n法院可以不撤销或修改传票，而是在规定条件下命令出庭或出示。\n\n(e) 对传票作出回应时的义务。\n\n(1) 出示文件或以电子方式存储的信息。下列程序适用于出示文件或以电子方式存储的信息：\n\n(A) 文件。对要求出示文件的传票作出回应的人，必须按照该等文件在正常业务过程中保存的方式出示文件，或者必须将其整理并标记，以对应于请求中的类别。\n\n(B) 未指定以电子方式存储的信息的出示形式。如果传票未指定出示以电子方式存储的信息的形式，作出回应的人必须以其通常保存的一种或多种形式，或者以合理可用的一种或多种形式出示该信息。\n\n(C) 以电子方式存储的信息仅须以一种形式出示。作出回应的人无需以一种以上的形式出示相同的以电子方式存储的信息。\n\n(D) 无法合理获取的以电子方式存储的信息。作出回应的人无需就其认定因不当负担或费用而无法合理获取的来源中的以电子方式存储的信息提供证据开示。在提出强制证据开示动议或保护令动议时，作出回应的人必须证明该信息因不当负担或费用而无法合理获取。如作出该等证明，若请求方在考虑Rule 26(b)(2)(C)的限制后证明存在正当理由，法院仍可命令从该等来源进行证据开示。法院可对该证据开示规定条件。\n\n(2) 主张特权或保护。\n\n(A) 被扣留的信息。以该信息享有特权或作为审判准备材料受到保护为由扣留被传唤信息的人，必须：\n\n(i) 明确提出该主张；并且\n\n(ii) 以一种在不披露本身享有特权或受保护的信息的情况下，能够使各方评估该主张的方式，说明被扣留文件、通信或有形物品的性质。\n\n(B) 已出示的信息。如果为回应传票而出示的信息受到特权主张或作为审判准备材料受保护主张的约束，提出该主张的人可以将该主张及其依据通知收到该信息的任何一方。收到通知后，当事人必须立即返还、隔离或销毁所指定的信息及其持有的任何副本；在该主张获得解决之前，不得使用或披露该信息；如该当事人在收到通知前已披露该信息，必须采取合理措施取回该信息；并且可以立即将该信息密封提交给要求履行所在地区的法院，以裁定该主张。出示该信息的人必须在该主张获得解决之前保存该信息。\n\n(g) 藐视法庭。要求履行所在地区的法院，以及在动议被移送后签发传票的法院，可以认定已被送达但无充分理由未遵守传票或相关命令的人构成藐视法庭。\n\n关于获取传票材料，见Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n附表A\n\n定义\n\n1. 除非本文另有定义，并在适用范围内，本文所用的所有术语均具有D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c)规定的含义；该规则因Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b)而适用于本程序。\n\n2. 除非本文另有规定，并在适用范围内，D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d)规定的解释规则适用于本文所用术语；该规则因Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-1(b)而适用于本程序。\n\n3. “CCP Official”是指中国共产党的官员。\n\n4. “Debtor”是指Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），以及任何代表或声称代表其行事的人。\n\n5. “Despins”是指Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯潘），以及任何代表或声称代表其行事的人。\n\n6. “Despins Declaration of Disinterestedness”是指Luc A. Despins于July 7, 2022作出的《无利害关系声明》（ECF No. 515-1）。\n\n7. “Disinterested”具有11 U.S.C. 101(14)和Bankr. R. 2007(c)项下的含义，包括某人不得：(1) 拥有或主张任何可能降低破产财产价值，或可能造成破产财产作为竞争性请求权人的实际或潜在争议的经济利益；或者(2) 在使其对破产财产产生该等偏见的情形下具有预先倾向。\n\n8. “First Supplemental Declaration”是指Luc A Despins于July 12, 2022作出的《第一补充无利害关系声明》（ECF No. 538）。\n\n9. “Paul Hastings”是指Paul Hastings, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），并包括其合伙人、成员、经理、管理成员、雇员和代理人。\n\n10. “PAG Entities”是指并包括PAG Holdings Limited、PAG Real Estate Asia、PAG Real Estate、PAG Assets (Real Estate) Limited、PAG Real Estate Investments, Ltd.、BT Cayman Ltd.、Super Alliance、Real Estate L.P、Sunstone KB (HKSAR) Ltd.、PAG Private Equity、PAG Real Assets、PAG Credits and Markets、PAG Asia Capital、PAG Growth Capital、Secured Capital Real Estate Partners (“SCREP”) V、SCREP VI、SCREP VI Management LLC、SCREP VII、PAG Real Estate Partners I、PAG Real Estate Partners II、Polymer Capital、Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund、Capital Structure Opportunities Fund、Pegasus Fund、RE Strategic Investments Pte. Ltd.、Strategic Investment LP、Res Investments GP、Spirit Cayman、BT Cayman，以及任何其他不论组织形式、由PAG管理或由PAG Holdings Limited控制的实体。\n\n11. “PAX”是指Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.，以及任何代表或声称代表其行事的人。\n\n12. “State Owned Entity”或“State Owned Entities”是指由中华人民共和国政府拥有或控制的一个或多个实体，并旨在具有April 7, 2022题为Paul Hastings Represents Chinese Local Government Enterprises in Seven Bond Issuances的Paul Hastings新闻稿中赋予该术语的相同含义。\n\n13. “Trustee”或“Chapter 11 Trustee”是指债务人破产财产的Chapter 11 Trustee职位。\n\n14. “UBS”是指UBS AG（瑞银集团）、UBS Securities, LLC、UBS Securities ltd. Pte.、UBS Investment Bank，或任何由UBS AG直接或间接拥有或控制的其他实体。\n\n15. “UST”是指Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室），包括其雇员、代理人，以及任何代表或声称代表其行事的人。\n\n证言录取事项\n\n1. 德斯潘被任命为受托人，或对任命其为受托人的考虑。\n\n2. 德斯潘或保罗·黑斯廷斯与债务人或债务人破产财产之间的任何利益冲突、被指称的利益冲突或潜在利益冲突。\n\n3. 下列文件中指称的利益冲突，或者有关德斯潘或保罗·黑斯廷斯是否无利害关系的事实：(a) Aaron A. Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔）代表债务人于July 11, 2022出具的、反对任命Luc A Despins为受托人的信函（ECF No. 531），包括其所附Aaron A. Mitchell于July 11, 2022致UST的信函（ECF No. 531-1）；及/或(b) 债务人于July 15, 2022提出的、请求免除任命Luc A. Despins为Chapter 11 Trustee的命令之救济的动议（ECF No. 561）。\n\n4. 德斯潘无利害关系声明或第一补充声明，包括德斯潘或保罗·黑斯廷斯与德斯潘无利害关系声明或第一补充声明中提及的任何实体之间的关系或潜在利益冲突。\n\n5. 保罗·黑斯廷斯或德斯潘与PAX、PAG或任何PAG实体之间的关系或代理，包括该等代理的范围、该等代理的状态，即已完成、已终止、进行中或尚未开始，以及保罗·黑斯廷斯从所有该等代理中获得的报酬，无论是金钱形式或其他形式。\n\n6. 各个或任何PAG实体与PAX之间的关系，及/或各该等实体与PAX的任何共同母公司之间直接或间接的关系。\n\n7. 保罗·黑斯廷斯或德斯潘与UBS之间的关系或代理，包括该等代理的范围、该等代理的状态，即已完成、已终止、进行中或尚未开始，以及保罗·黑斯廷斯从所有该等代理中获得的报酬，无论是金钱形式或其他形式。\n\n8. 德斯潘无利害关系声明中所列债务人与UBS AG之间的诉讼，以及由于保罗·黑斯廷斯代理多个UBS实体，德斯潘是否属于无利害关系人士。\n\n9. 保罗·黑斯廷斯或德斯潘与任何/所有国有实体或中国共产党官员之间的关系或代理，包括该等代理的范围、该等代理的状态，即已完成、已终止、进行中或尚未开始，以及保罗·黑斯廷斯从所有该等代理中获得的报酬，无论是金钱形式或其他形式。\n\n10. 保罗·黑斯廷斯持有的、准许其运营下列办公室的许可证、证书或其他授权：\n\na. 北京办公室；\n\nb. 香港办公室；以及\n\nc. 上海办公室，\n\n11. 签发前述段落所称任何许可证、证书或其他授权的中国政府机关，持续维持任何该等许可证、证书或其他授权的条款和条件，以及任何中国政府机关拥有的中止、撤销或允许保罗·黑斯廷斯继续维持任何或全部该等许可证、认证或其他授权的权限和/或自由裁量程度。\n\n授权；以及任何该等许可、证书或其他授权依其条款届满的日期。\n\n12. Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）位于中华人民共和国（包括香港）的各办公室在自 January 1, 2017 起至 June 30, 2022 止期间产生的收入。\n\n13. 债务人与中国政府或中国共产党的不利利益，以及该等不利利益是否以任何方式影响 Despins 或 Paul Hastings 是否为无利害关系人的问题。\n\n14. Paul Hastings 对债务人于 July 22, 2022 提出的文件出示请求所作的文件检索及出示；该等请求载于债务人向 Paul Hastings 送达的文件提交传票中。","key_entities":["Paul Hastings","Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Chinese Communist Party","Guo","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":515,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":531,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":538,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":561,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9618,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-07-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-07-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:10:59"}