{"id":"court_sdny_1090_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":1090,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 1090","summary_zh":"联合异议 —— Ho Wan Kwok破产案，案号22-50073（JAM），ECF #1090，2022年11月14日提交。债务人Ho Wan Kwok、Mei Guo及HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC联合反对破产管理人强制执行《破产规则》第2004条传票命令。异议人主张破产管理人缺乏充分理由要求Mei Guo提供个人财务信息和众多与债务人无关实体的文件。","summary_en":"Joint Objection —— Ho Wan Kwok Bankruptcy Case, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), ECF No. 1090, filed November 14, 2022. Debtor Ho Wan Kwok, Mei Guo, and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC jointly object to Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to compel compliance with Rule 2004 subpoenas. Objectors argue Trustee lacks adequate basis to compel production of Mei Guo's personal financial information and documents related to numerous entities unconnected to Debtor.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re : Chapter 11\n\n : Debtor. :\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ :\n\n:\n\nHO WON KWOK, : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n## **JOINT OBJECTION OF THE DEBTOR, MEI GUO, AND HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS**\n\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), Mei Guo (\"Ms. Guo\"), a counterclaim defendant in the Adversary Proceeding captioned *HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC v. Ho Wan Kwok*, Adv. Pro. No. 22-05003 (the \"HK USA Adversary\") pending before this Court, and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), the plaintiff and a counterclaim defendant in the HK USA Adversary, by and through their undersigned counsel, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., hereby object to the Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Compelling Individual Debtor, Mei Guo, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, Hing Chi Ngok, Greenwich Land LLC, Lamp Capital LLC, and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas (Doc. No. 1046, the \"Motion\"). In support of their Objection the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK USA respectfully state as follows:\n\n1. The Motion continues the Chapter 11 Trustee's (the \"Trustee\") heretofore successful strategy of repeating the mantra that the Debtor is bad with the hope and expectation that the Court will ignore the actual merits of the Motion and grant the relief sought simply because the Trustee has sufficiently disparaged the Debtor.\n\n2. Indeed, the Motion ignores that the Trustee has indisputably obtained hundreds of\n\nthousands of pages of documents concerning the Debtor and various entities that the Trustee baselessly believes the Debtor controls or controlled, and that more documents will be forthcoming. These documents were produced and continue to be produced by professionals, primarily large law firms, who had provided services to, *inter alia,* the Debtor. The Debtor has done nothing to impede or obstruct the Trustee's document collection efforts.\n\n3. The Debtor's counsel told the Trustee's counsel during their first discovery meet and confer that the Debtor had a very limited number of documents in his personal possession, and that the vast majority of responsive documents would be with his professionals, a statement that has been proven to be true. Significantly, during this same meet and confer the Debtor's counsel suggested that there was no reason for the Debtor to approach his professionals, obtain the same documents that would be produced to the Trustee directly by the professionals pursuant to subpoenas served on them, and then produce those same exact documents to the Trustee a second time. The Trustee's counsel stated that he did not care who produced the documents as long as they were produced and they have been. Moreover, the Trustee actually acknowledges this agreement in the Motion, but only after accusing the Debtor of not seeking the production of documents in the possession of his professionals.\n\n4. The Debtor did have a limited number of documents in his personal possession, such as his personal tax returns, and those documents have also been produced.\n\n5. In short, there is simply nothing to compel. The Trustee's purported belief, which as articulated is based upon misrepresentations concerning the substance of several meets and confers, that the Debtor has not conducted a good faith search for documents without actual evidence that a good faith search has not been conducted is meaningless. Indeed, the Trustee contends that the Debtor's lack of responsive documents, and in particular electronically stored\n\ninformation, is dubious, but the Trustee's fails to support his assertion that, for example, the Debtor is lying when he says that he does not use email by coming forward with any email sent by or to the Debtor within the tens of thousands of emails that have been produced to the Trustee by the Debtor's professionals. The Trustee's belief certainly does not provide a basis for the entry of an order granting a motion to compel.\n\n6. Neither the Debtor, Ms. Guo, nor HK USA have refused to search for responsive documents. There were some objections propounded to specific documents requests, such as the requests that Ms. Guo produce all documents over a more than 10-year period related to her personal assets, her personal bank accounts, and her tax returns, even though there is no evidence, or even allegation, that the Debtor has ever transferred an asset or anything of value to Ms. Guo. Ms. Guo has rightly refused to produce those categories of document.\n\n7. The Trustee does not, however, focus his Motion on specific objections to specific document requests. Instead, the Trustees argues that he is entitled to all of the documents he seeks from the Debtor, Ms. Guo, and HK USA simply because he is, again, without even attempting to show, as it relates to Ms. Guo's personal financial information, that the Debtor has ever transferred a single asset of his to Ms. Guo.\n\n8. And it is not just Ms. Guo's personal financial information. The Trustee believes that he is entitled to every document, as broadly defined, regarding every asset of every one of the Debtor's immediate and extended family members, as well as every document regarding a litany of entities, many of which the Debtor has never even heard of. The Trustee's position is absurd.\n\n9. The Trustee tries to hide the absurdity of his position and deflect by once again mischaracterizing what was said during a meet and confer regarding a hypothetical Lady May 2. During that meet and confer the Debtor's counsel was simply asked if there was a Lady May 2\n\nwould the Debtor produce documents related to it. The response was that the Debtor would not produce documents related to the hypothetical Lady May 2 if the Debtor did not have any interest in the hypothetical Lady May 2. The Trustee's counsel now misrepresents the substance of the hypothetical adding numerous additional facts that were not stated in the hypothetical during the meet and confer. Obviously, if there was a Lady May 2 that was situated exactly as the Lady May with a similar finding from a New York Supreme Court, responsive documents related to that Hypothetical boat would be produced just like responsive documents related to the actual Lady May have been produced. Regardless, the fact that the Trustee has to resort to a misleading hypothetical rather than focus on the reality of the massive volume of documents that he is actually receiving is quite telling and underscores the weakness of the Motion.\n\n10. Lastly, as it relates to Ms. Guo and HK USA the Trustee must seek further discovery, if at all, in the HK USA Adversary. On September 23, 2022, the Trustee filed a massive 62-page, 141 paragraph counterclaim with more than 3,100 pages of exhibits in the HK USA Adversary (the \"Counterclaim\"). The Counterclaim, which was filed 21-days after Ms. Guo and HK USA served objections to the Rule 2004 subpoenas served upon them and 6-days after Ms. Guo and HK USA produced responsive documents to the same subpoenas, adds Ms. Guo as a counterclaim defendant and expands the scope of the HK adversary so significantly that the vast majority of the document requests set forth in the Rule 2004 subpoenas served on Ms. Guo and HK USA now seek documents related to the allegations of the Counterclaim. In addition, the Trustee has filed a prejudgment remedy application against HK USA and Ms. Guo and an application for preliminary injunction against Ms. Guo in the HK Adversary while at the same time seeking to compel Ms. Guo to produce substantial personal financial information in response to the Rule 2004 subpoena. As a matter of law, the Trustee may not circumvent the protections\n\nafforded to Ms. Guo and HK USA in the HK USA Adversary by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by seeking discovery related to the HK USA Adversary via Rule 2004. Thus, the Motion as to Ms. Guo and HK USA must be denied.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n11. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby commencing this bankruptcy case.\n\n12. On June 15, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum of Decision, *inter alia*, granting PAX's Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Partial Joinder to the UST's Motion for the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 183), to the extent that it sought the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 465.)\n\n13. On July 7, 2022, the UST filed a notice appointing the Trustee as Chapter 11 trustee (Doc. No. 514), and an Application for Order Approving Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 515) seeking the Court's approval of the appointment of the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered its Order Granting Appointment Of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 523), granting the appointment of the Trustee as Chapter 11 trustee in this case.\n\n14. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed his i) Motion for 2004 Examination of the Debtor (Doc. No. 636), ii) Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor (Doc. No. 637), and iii) Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with the Debtor (Doc. No. 638) (collectively the \"July Rule 2004 Exam Motions\"). In total through the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions the Trustee sought to issue a total of 34 subpoenas. Thereafter, on September 7, 2022, the Trustee filed his First Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor, Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor, and Relevant Banks (the \"September 2004 Motion\") (Doc. No. 839.) The September 2004 Motion sought and obtained leave to conduct an additional 25 Rule 2004 examinations and to issue an additional 25 subpoenas in connection with those examinations. Thus, in total the Trustee sought and obtained leave to conduct a total of 59 Rule 2004 examinations and to issue 59 subpoenas in connection therewith; the Debtor has no reason to believe that the Trustee has not served all 59 subpoenas, or at least the vast majority of them.\n\n15. On August 5, 2022, the Debtor filed the Debtor's Limited Objection to Rule 2004 Motions (Doc. No. 703) to preserve certain rights, including the right to assert objections to the requests for the production of documents that would be served with the subpoena attached to the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions after the subpoena was actually served. By orders dated August 16, 2022, this Court granted the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions. The August 16 order entered following an August 12, 2022 status conference at which the Court reminded the parties that following the service of the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions subpoenas the parties have \"whatever rights [they] have under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to th[e] subpoena[s]\". August 12, 2022, Transcript of Motion for 2004 Examination of the Debtor; Motion for 2004 Examination of Omnibus Re: Debtor's Professionals; Motion for 2004 Examination of Omnibus Re: Related Persons; Order Setting Status Conference Before the Honorable Julie A. Manning United States Bankruptcy Judge (\"August 12 Tran.\"), at 19-20.\n\n16. Each of the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK USA was served with a Rule 2004 subpoena through their respective counsel on August 19, 2022. Each of the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK USA\n\nserved timely objections to the document requests attached to the subpoenas, asserting objections to certain of the enumerated Instructions and Definitions included with the requests for production, as well as objections to certain of the requests for production. The objections of non-debtors Ms. Guo and HK USA were more fulsome than those of the Debtor.\n\n17. The Debtor agreed to produce, and through his professionals and former professionals is producing, the vast majority of documents requested by the Trustee in the requests for production. The Debtor did object to the production of certain categories of documents, primarily documents related to the assets of his \"family,\" which the Trustee defined to include \"the Debtor, the Debtor's Son, the Debtor's Daughter, and the Debtor's Purported Wife, and any other familial relation to the Debtor,\" but the Debtor does not have documents related to the assets of his family and has not withheld documents based on that objection. In fact, the Debtor has not withheld any specific document or category of documents from production based on a discovery objection other than a paucity of documents, primarily from the files of his professionals, based on attorney-client privilege pursuant to this Court's September 14, 2022, Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information (Doc. No. 856). The documents withheld on the basis of privilege have been logged in accordance with that same order.\n\n18. Ms. Guo and HK USA objected to certain of the requests served upon them that seek information concerning their personal assets and tax returns, and indicated that no responsive documents would be produced in response to those requests. Ms. Guo and HK USA produced documents responsive to requests related to HK USA and the Lady May. Other than documents related to their personal assets.HK USA and Ms. Guo have not withheld any responsive\n\ndocuments. HK USA owns the Lady May and nothing more so documents related to its assets were produced.\n\n19. Following the service of the respective objections counsel met with the Debtor on two separate occasions over video conference, first on September 14, 2022 and then on September 21, 2022, to discuss and explain the search to be undertaken for responsive documents. During the first of these meetings, which lasted more than one hour, counsel went through the requests with the debtor to identify the documents sought, read through the defined list of \"Associated Entities\" to determine whether the Debtor had ever heard of the entities, most of which he had not, and if he had— whether he had any documents related to the entities in his possession. The Debtor's counsel also read through the defined list of \"Associated Individuals\" with the Debtor to determine whether the Debtor knew the individuals, again with many he did not, and if so whether he had any documents related to the individuals in his possession.\n\n20. During this first meeting a discussion was also had regarding locations where responsive hard copy documents might be stored. The Debtor does not maintain an office or location for the storage of hard copy documents and does not maintain hard copy documents within his home. Responsive documents that may have existed in Hong Kong, where the Debtor maintained an office prior to fleeing in late 2014, have been seized by the Chinese government when it seized the Debtor's and certain of his family's assets in 2017. *See* Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions. (Doc. No. 107), at ¶17. The Debtor obviously does not have access to the documents seized by the Chinese government.\n\n21. The second video conference meeting with the Debtor lasted approximately one hour and focused on electronically stored information. During this meeting the Debtor was asked whether he had a laptop or desktop computer. He does not have one, does not use one, and does\n\nnot know how to do so. The Debtor was also asked whether he had or was aware of any server that could contain responsive electronically stored information. He was not. The Debtor was asked whether he uses personal electronic devices such as a phone or tablet. The Debtor stated that he has two iPhones that he uses for social media and text messaging, *e.g.* WhatsApp. The Debtor stated that his text messaging is related to his ongoing efforts to take down the CCP. The Debtor does not read English and his text messages are in his native Chinese. The Debtor stated that he does not use email to communicate. The Debtor provided counsel with the responsive documents that he had in his possession and they were produced, including documents related to Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC, the only entities in which the Debtor actually owned an interest as of the petition date—albeit he owned that interest in his capacity as a trustee.\n\n22. During this same time frame counsel conferred with Ms. Guo multiple times via telephone to discuss her search for responsive documents on behalf of herself and on behalf of HK USA of which she is the sole member. Ms. Guo searched her email and text messages and provided counsel with copies of text messages she located related to the Lady May, including her text messages with the captain of the Lady May, which the Trustee requested and now disparagingly states in the Motion with absolutely no basis were \"hand selected\". Ms. Guo also provided copies of non-disclosure agreements with the crew of the Lady May, and produced numerous emails and draft agreements related to the loan transaction that funded what has become commonly referred to in the Debtor's case as the Lady May Escrow. In addition, Ms. Guo's counsel reached out to counsel that represented Ms. Guo and HK USA in connection with the February 2022 contempt hearing in the PAX action that was then pending in New York State Supreme Court, obtained documents from Ms. Guo's former counsel, and produced them. Lastly, and most recently, Ms. Guo produced the statement of claim and exhibits from an arbitration commenced against her and\n\nHK USA by the lender that made the loan for the Lady May Escrow which it is now seeking to recover through arbitration.\n\n23. During the same time period that counsel was conferring with the Debtor and Ms. Guo regarding document production, counsel was also engaging in meets and confers with the Trustee's counsel to discuss discovery objections and document production.\n\n24. During the first meet and confer on September 9 the Trustee's counsel was told that the Debtor would not have a large volume of documents in his personal possession and that his documents would be with his professionals. The Debtor's counsel further stated that because the Trustee had subpoenaed the Debtor's professionals it was unnecessary for the Debtor to approach the same professionals to obtain the same files and produce them a second time. The Trustee's counsel initially balked but eventually agreed that he did not care who produced the documents as long as they were produced. *See* Motion at ¶42 (\"To be clear, to the extent an advisor who separately received a Subpoena produces all documents in its possession concerning the Individual Debtor, the Trustee is not asking that the Individual Debtor search for and reproduce duplicative documents, . . .\").\n\n25. During subsequent meet and confers the Trustee's counsel asked a number of questions about the Debtor's use of email, computers, and phones. The Debtor's counsel thereafter discussed the Trustee's counsel's questions with the Debtor and provided responses to the Trustee's counsel's questions.\n\n26. Throughout the meet and confer process the Trustee's counsel posed numerous hypotheticals including one where the Debtor owned one-hundred percent of Apple, Inc. and would therefore be required to produce every document related to Apple. The hypotheticals also included a hypothetical Lady May 2 and whether the Debtor would produce documents related to\n\na hypothetical Lady May 2—to which the Debtor's counsel rightly responded not if the Debtor did not have any interest in the hypothetical Lady May 2.\n\n27. During the final in the series of the meets and confers counsel went through each of the requests propounded to the Debtor and in nearly every instance the Debtor's counsel identified that the Debtor did not have any responsive documents in his possession. Thus, it was not and is not the case that the Debtor is refusing to produce responsive documents, it is simply that he does not have responsive documents in his possession to produce. The same is true for Ms. Guo and HK USA. Indeed, the Trustee implicitly acknowledges in the Motion that HK USA is unlikely to have any documents because \"HK USA has no income, bank account, directors, officers, or employees.\" *See* Motion, at 9.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n### **A. The Motion Should be Denied Because There is Nothing to Compel**\n\n28. The Trustee does not appear to be seeking the production of documents responsive to any particular request for production. [1](#page-10-0) Instead, the Trustee asks the Court to compel the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK USA to conduct additional searches for responsive documents despite the fact that there is no evidence that their previous searches have been insufficient or that there are any additional documents in their possession to produce, as opposed to the possession of the Debtor's professionals which are being produced.\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor, MS. Guo and HK USA do not know exactly what the Trustee is seeking to compel because he has failed to comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 7037-1 and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 which requires that memorandum related to motions to compel\n\n<sup>. . .</sup> shall contain a concise statement of the nature of the case and a specific verbatim listing of each of the items of discovery sought or opposed, and immediately following each specification shall set forth the reason why the item should be allowed or disallowed.\n\n29. \"Under ordinary circumstances, a party's good faith averment that the items sought simply do not exist, or are not in his possession, custody or control, should resolve the issue of failure of production.\" *Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd.*, 04 Civ. 1514 (PAC)(HBP), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41754, \\*8 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2008), (citation omitted). Moreover, \"a party is not obliged to produce, at the risk of sanctions, documents that it does not possess or cannot obtain.\" *Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C. v. Brady*, 19-CV-10236 (JMF), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29610, \\*14 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2021).[2](#page-11-0)\n\n30. Where, as here, a party claims that its adversary has not searched for and/or produced all responsive documents the party making that claim has to come forward with evidence to support the claim. *Margel* 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41754, at \\*8 (\"Although I appreciate defendants' concern about plaintiffs' production, I do not believe that there is any basis for an award of sanctions. Defendants do not point to any specific evidence suggesting that additional responsive documents exist and have not been produced. Litigants commonly suspect that they are not getting all the documents they have requested and that an adversary is holding something back.\").\n\n31. The Trustee does not identify a single piece of evidence to support his contention that there are additional responsive documents in the possession of the Debtor, Ms. Guo or HK USA that have not been produced.[3](#page-11-1)\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> In *Mintz Fraade* the court ordered the defendants to conduct further searches for responsive documents because defense counsel informed the court that the individual defendant, who was also the principal of the corporate defendant, was not cooperating with counsel in obtaining responsive documents and counsel moved to withdraw citing the defendants' \"fail[ure] to cooperate with [counsel] in . . . efforts to complete discovery.\" *Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C.*, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29610, at \\*4 (brackets and ellipsis in original). That extreme example of a situation where a court will compel further searches for responsive documents is obviously not this case.\n\n<span id=\"page-11-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> As discussed *supra*, the Debtor's counsel met with the Debtor on two separate occasions to discuss the categories of documents sought by the requests for production, the potential locations of responsive documents, and medium that could contain responsive electronically stored\n\n32. First, and as previously noted, the Trustee all but concedes that HK USA does not have any documents. *See* Motion, at 9. Moreover, the Trustee makes no effort whatsoever to show that Ms. Guo has additional responsive documents that she agreed to produce but has not produced.[4](#page-12-0)\n\n33. As for the Debtor, the Trustee contends that his statements concerning a lack of additional responsive documents in his possession are dubious at best, Motion, at 45, but the Trustee offers no evidence to support this purported belief. Indeed, the Trustee has not identified a single email to or from the Debtor within the tens or hundreds of thousands of emails that he has received from the Debtor's professionals, the vast majority of which would be subject to attorney client privilege but for the Debtor's Bankruptcy case and the Privilege Order. Surely if the Debtor used email he would be communicating with his attorneys via email and those emails would be included in the incredibly large universe of emails the Trustee has received from the Debtor's professionals.[5](#page-12-1)\n\ninformation. The Debtor is an individual who does not even own or use a computer, let alone have servers, an IT department, and back up tapes similar to what was at issue in *Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC,* 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Moreover, counsel has seen no evidence calling into question the veracity of the Debtor's representations regarding his lack of use of computers and email and the Trustee has not identified any such evidence to the Debtor's counsel despite having received thousands and likely tens of thousands of emails from the Debtor's professionals to which the Debtor's counsel has not even been privy. Lastly, under the circumstances it is entirely reasonable for counsel to rely on the Debtor to review his text messages for responsive documents because those text messages are in Chinese. *See Id.*, at 435 (noting that \"it is true that counsel need not supervise every step of the document production process and may rely on their clients in some respects\").\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> Ms. Guo and HK USA, through their counsel, have sought to obtain documents concerning the costs and expense of maintaining the Lady May on multiple occasions but to date have been unsuccessful in doing so.\n\n<span id=\"page-12-1\"></span><sup>5</sup> The Trustee knew at the time he filed the July Rule 2004 Motions that the vast majority of responsive documents would be produced by entities and individuals other than the Debtor and that is the reason that the Trustee served more than fifty (50) subpoenas. *See* August 12 Tran., at 12 (Trustee's counsel stating \"we think the targets of these motions are the types of people who are likely to have that information, whether it's advisors that were used in forming legal entities and protecting assets, whether it's relatives who hold those assets, or related companies, those are really the targets of our motion.\").\n\n34. The Trustee also points to an interview of the Debtor from five years ago where the Debtor is shown with multiple cell phones as evidence that the Debtor must have documents in his possession. The number of cell phones that the Debtor may or may not have had five years ago is irrelevant to what documents he has in his possession today. Moreover, the Debtor's counsel told the Trustee's counsel that the Debtor has two phones that he uses to post to social media and for text messaging. The Trustee is fully aware of the Debtor's social media activities, likely monitoring the Debtor's accounts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In fact, the Trustee's monitoring of the Debtor's social media activities caused the Trustee's counsel to call the Debtor's counsel very recently to ascertain the Debtor's Covid vaccine status for purposes of entry into a building for a deposition because the Trustee's counsel knew the Debtor's views on Covid vaccine from monitoring his social media accounts.\n\n35. With respect to text messages, the Debtor was instructed to search his text messages, which are in Chinese, for responsive documents after being instructed as to the types of documents sought by the requests for production served upon him. The Debtor has represented that he undertook that search and did not locate any responsive documents as his text messages relate to his efforts to take down the CCP.[6](#page-13-0)\n\n36. The Trustee points to references to WhatsApp messages cited in a February 6, 2016, affidavit filed by the Debtor in an action captioned *Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 as evidence that the Debtor has additional responsive documents in his\n\n<span id=\"page-13-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> The Debtor's ongoing efforts to take down the CCP are well chronicled and include songs that the Debtor has performed and which, according to the Trustee's counsel, have been available on iTunes. The Trustee's counsel contends that the Debtor must have documents related to his music on iTunes. The Debtor has represented that he does not create and release music for money, he does so as part of his effort to take down the CCP, and as a result does not receive royalties or have any related documents. The Debtor's counsel confirmed the Debtor's statements regarding the lack of documents and royalties with his music with other of the Debtor's personal counsel who is knowledgeable regarding the matter.\n\npossession. The WhatsApp messages referenced in the affidavit are 7 and 8 years old, and as the Trustee's counsel was told during one of the meet and confers the Debtor no longer has the referenced text messages in his possession—contrary to the Trustee's statement in the Motion, his counsel was never told that the text messages no longer exist. Indeed, the WhatsApp messages referenced in the 2016 affidavit are likely within the files of Boise Schiller, the law firm that represented Ace Decade Holding Limited in the litigation in which the affidavit was filed since its attorneys would have presumedly needed the WhatsApp messages to draft the affidavit which they almost certainly did.[7](#page-14-0)\n\n37. The Trustee subpoenaed the Debtor's files from Boise Schiller, which includes document requests related to Ace Decade. The Debtor has no reason to believe that the files were not produced. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Debtor could have obtained the Debtor's files from Boise Schiller because the Debtor's relationship with Boise Schiller ended with the parties involved in bitter litigation and the relationship has not improved.\n\n38. The Trustee also falsely claims that the Debtor, HK USA and Ms. Guo have been unwilling to produce documents in the files of advisors and agents. Ms. Guo, through her counsel, contacted her former counsel in the PAX New York action to obtain documents related to HK USA and the Lady May and those documents have been produced. Regardless, this statement is ridiculous in light of the barrage of subpoenas served by the Trustee, the lack of any evidence that the Debtor, Ms. Guo or HK USA have done anything to hinder or obstruct the subpoenaed parties from complying with the subpoenas, the massive amount of documents that have been produced in response to the subpoenas, and the agreement that the Debtor would not seek to obtain and\n\n<span id=\"page-14-0\"></span><sup>7</sup> Without any evidence whatsoever, and in an effort to again disparage the Debtor, the Trustee suggests that if the Debtor does not have the 2014 and 2015 WhatsApp messages in his personal possession, as opposed to in the possession of his professionals, he has likely spoliated evidence.\n\nproduce from professional firms the same documents that are being produced in response to the subpoenas.\n\n39. The Trustee contends that the Debtor has to seek documents from his professionals regardless of the issuance of subpoenas and production by the professionals because the requests served on the Debtor are different than those served on his advisors. Motion, at 21. The subpoena served on the Debtor and his professionals both broadly seek documents related to, *inter alia*, the Debtor's purported assets and as defined Related Entities. The subpoena served on the Debtor does include a greater number of request than the subpoenas served on the professional firms but the additional requests are generally specific to the Debtor and the professional firms would not have the documents sought by those requests, including:\n\n8. All Documents regarding any credit cards used by You, including without limitation monthly statements or other Documents sufficient to show all purchases, payments, and other transactions related thereto.\n\n12. All communications with Qu Guo Jiao regarding any Assets, liabilities, financial interests, economic health, financial statements of the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or any Associated Entity.\n\n13. All communications with Daniel Podhaskie regarding any Assets, liabilities, financial interests, economic health, financial statements of the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or any Associated Entity.\n\n16. Tax returns for the Debtor, each Individual member of the Debtor's Family, and any Associated Entity from the years 2014 to the present.\n\n29. All passports or similar Documents authorizing cross-border travel issued by any sovereign state, nation, city-state, or autonomous region to You, including but not limited to any expired or unused Documents, and all pages of such passports or similar Documents.\n\n*See* The Debtor's Responses and Objections to the Chapter 11 Trustee's Requests for the\n\nProduction of Documents included with the Rule 2004 Examination Subpoenas Served Upon the\n\nDebtor on August 19, 2022, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n40. Regardless of the differences in the requests, the Trustee offers no evidence that the\n\nsubpoenaed professionals have produced anything less than their respective complete file related\n\nto the Debtor. Moreover, and significantly, the Trustee's counsel has been speaking and negotiating with the subpoenaed professionals regarding the scope of document productions. Indeed, the Debtor knows from statements made during hearings before this Court that the Trustee specifically negotiated search terms with Brown Rudnick and as such the Trustee controlled the scope of the information that was being produced to him by Brown Rudnick. The Trustee has most certainly negotiated and provided search terms to other of the subpoenaed professionals and likewise controlled the scope of the information that he has received.\n\n41. It would be nonsensical for the Debtor to go to each of the professionals that have already produced responsive documents to confirm that all responsive documents have been produced when the Trustee has dictated to those firms what he believes is responsive and received document productions based on parameters that he established.\n\n42. Likewise, it would have been very difficult if not impossible for the Debtor to undertake the exercise of providing search terms to his professionals to search for responsive documents in light of the fact that the Trustee clearly knows what he is looking for and what search terms are necessary to obtain that information. Indeed, if the Debtor had gone to his professionals, provided search terms, and then produced documents based on the results of the searches using those terms the Trustee would be moving to compel because the Debtor's search terms were deficient and yielded incomplete results.\n\n43. Lastly, the Trustee contends that the Debtor, Ms. Guo and HK must be required to search for and produce responsive documents within the more than ten year time period, *i.e.,* from February 5, 2012 to the present, set forth in the subpoena's requests because those documents are relevant to potential fraudulent transfer claims. The Trustee makes no effort whatsoever to identify the law that would apply to claims arising from fraudulent transfers, if any, made by the Debtor\n\nduring the 2012-2014 time period while he lived in Hong Kong, and whether the applicable law would even permit a ten or even eight year old fraudulent transfer claim to proceed. Thus, the trustee's demanded time frame is unreasonable and neither the Debtor nor Ms. Guo should be compelled to search for documents that pre-date the Debtor fleeing China in late 2014. [8](#page-17-0) Responsive documents have been produced and continue to be produced for the shorter, though still very lengthy, time period of nearly eight years, *i.e.,* from the date the Debtor fled China, which the Debtor's and Ms. Guo's counsel offered as a compromise.[9](#page-17-1)\n\n44. In short, there is no evidence that the Debtor, HK USA or Ms. Guo has failed to search for and produce responsive documents. Thus, there is nothing to compel and the Motion should be denied.[10](#page-17-2)\n\n## **B. Ms. Guo and HK USA Should Not be Compelled to Produce Documents Regarding Their Personal Assets**\n\n45. The scope of Rule 2004 examinations is broad but not limitless. *In re Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Gallup*, 513 B.R. 761, 764 (Bankr. D. NM 2014) (\"There are limits however [to a Rule 2004 exam]. An examination of a witness as to matters having no relationship to the debtor's affairs or no effect on the administration of his estate is improper.\"); *In re Refco, Inc.*, Case No. 06 C 5529, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4993, \\*9 (N.D. Ill, Jan 16, 2007) (\"Although the scope of the examination permitted under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is broad it is not without limits. The examination of a witness as to matters having no relationship to the debtor's\n\n<span id=\"page-17-0\"></span><sup>8</sup> Nonetheless, the Debtor is not withholding documents on the basis of this objection.\n\n<span id=\"page-17-1\"></span><sup>9</sup> HK USA was not formed until September 2018 and it does not have documents dating back to 2012.\n\n<span id=\"page-17-2\"></span><sup>10</sup> The Trustee relies on *CFTC v. Main & Prospect Capital, LLC*, 2020 WL 11303655 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020) as support for the ridiculously broad relief it seeks against the Debtor. The Court granted the broad relief requested in *Main Prospect Capital* in substantial part because the defendant did not oppose the plaintiff's motion to compel.\n\naffairs or no effect on the administration of the estate is improper.\") (citations omitted). Indeed, \"[i]t is clear that Rule 2004 may not be used as a device to launch into a wholesale investigation of a non-debtor's private business affairs.\" *In re Wilcher*, 56 B.R. 428, 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985). *See also In re Matthews* No. 18-mc-80-LPS; No. 18-mc-153-LPS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178364, \\*5 (D. Del., Oct. 17, 2018) (\"But [the trustee] does not have unlimited power to investigate anything he wishes without articulating a proper basis for the examination.\").\n\n46. The Trustee has served very broad discovery on Ms. Guo and HK USA seeking information regarding their personal assets, including, by way of example only:\n\n14. Documents sufficient to show all of Your Assets and sources of income or funding.\n\n16. Copies of Your tax returns.\n\n17. Documents sufficient to show all bank accounts and investment accounts within Your possession or control, including the balances of and transfers to and from each such account.\n\n18. All Documents regarding any credit cards used by You, including without limitation monthly statements or other Documents sufficient to show all purchases related thereto for the benefit of the Debtor or an Associated Entity.\n\n*See* September 2, 2022, Non-Party Mei Guo's Responses and Objections to the Chapter 11\n\nTrustee's Requests for the Production of Documents Included with the Rule 2004 Examination\n\nSubpoena Served Upon Ms. Guo on August 19, 2022, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit\n\nB. These same requests were served on HK USA, although for the majority of the requests it does\n\nnot have any responsive documents to produce. *See* Motion, at 9.\n\n47. The Trustee also seeks the personal financial information of Ms. Guo through other\n\nrequests which also seek documents related to the Debtor, such as:\n\n10. All Documents regarding any gifts, benefits or loans, to, from or on behalf of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or the Associated Entities, including without limitation Documents sufficient to show the amounts of such gifts, benefits, or loans; the purposes for which such gifts, benefits, or loans were used; when the gifts, benefits, or loans were provided; and the terms of any loans, all representations and warranties made in connection with any loans, the interest rate on any loans, and all evidence of payments of any loans.\n\n11. All Documents concerning any trust or similar instrument set up by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or an Associated Entity, including without limitation Documents sufficient to show when the trust(s) was created, by whom it was created, for whose benefit it was created, and the corpus of the trust.\n\n*Id.* The requests require Ms. Guo to produce all types of documents that have absolutely nothing to do with the Debtor or the Debtor's Estate for a more than 10-year period. Indeed, read literally Request 10 would require Ms. Guo to produce every document regarding every gift that she has given to any person over the past 10-years, including thank you cards received by the gift's recipient. Surely, Ms. Guo, a non-debtor, cannot be compelled to produce those types of documents. Neither Ms. Guo nor HK objected to producing documents related to assets of the Debtor or assets of the Debtor's Estate, but did and do object to producing their own personal financial information and the Trustee is not entitled to that information.\n\n48. The Trustee has failed to allege, let alone demonstrate, any proper basis for an investigation into Ms. Guo's personal financial information. *In re Matthews*, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178364, \\*5 (\"But [the trustee] does not have unlimited power to investigate anything he wishes without articulating a proper basis for the examination.\"). There is no allegation that the Debtor ever transferred anything of value to Ms. Guo or HK USA. The Trustee's argument that he does not need any basis to obtain Ms. Guo's and HK USA's personal financial information because the Debtor theoretically may have made transfers to them. If the Trustee's view of the law was correct the Trustee would have the power to subpoena any person within this Court's broad jurisdiction to obtain personal financial information to satisfy himself that the subpoenaed party does not have assets of the Debtor. That is obviously not the law.\n\n49. Without an articulated good faith basis, which in this case is woefully lacking, the Trustee is not entitled to \"launch into a wholesale investigation of a non-debtor's private business\n\naffairs.\" *In re Wilcher*, 56 B.R. at 434. Thus, to the extent the Motion seeks to compel the production of the personal financial information of Ms. Guo and HK USA the Motion should be denied.\n\n# **C. Any Further Discovery of Ms. Guo and HK USA Must Be Taken Through the HK Adversary Pursuant to the Protections of the Federal Rules**\n\n50. It is axiomatic that \"'once an adversary proceeding or contested matter is commenced, discovery should be pursued under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not by Rule 2004,' *In re Enron Corp.*, 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002), *In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996) ('The well recognized rule is that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced, discovery is made pursuant to the Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 *et seq.*, rather than by a Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 examination.')….\" *In re SunEdison, Inc.*, 572 B.R. 482, 490 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017). *See also*, *In re Cambridge Analytica LLC*, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) (\"There is a well-recognized rule that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter is commenced, discovery should be pursued under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not Rule 2004.\"); *In re Ecam Publ'ns, Inc.*, 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) (\"Once an adversary proceeding or another contested matter has been initiated, parties must proceed with discovery for that litigation pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\").\n\n51. The HK Adversary was commenced in April 2022 with HK USA as the Plaintiff. Ms. Guo and HK USA were each served with a Rule 2004 Exam subpoena through their respective counsel on August 19, 2022. At that time Ms. Guo was not a party to the HK Adversary and the matter at issue in that action was limited to the narrow question of who owned the Lady May.\n\n52. Ms. Guo and HK USA served objections to the document requests included with the subpoenas served upon them on September 2, 2022, and produced documents on September 16, 2022, with Ms. Guo making supplemental productions thereafter.\n\n53. The Trustee filed his extensive Counterclaim in the HK Adversary and thereby impleaded Ms. Gou as a counterclaim defendant on September 23, 2022. Based on the breadth of the Counterclaim's allegations and the exhibits attached thereto the Trustee had been preparing his Counterclaim long before it was filed and likely before he issued the subpoenas to Ms. Guo and HK USA. Despite the knowledge that a Counterclaim would be filed that would add Ms. Guo as a defendant and greatly expand the scope of the HK Adversary by adding numerous allegations concerning the Debtor and entities he allegedly controls the Trustee represented in his \"Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor (Doc. No. 638), that \"this is not the classic situation where an adversary plaintiff, through Rule 2004, seeks to undermine the protections provided by the Bankruptcy Rules governing discovery in adversary proceedings.\" *Id.*, at 19, n.25. That is exactly what the Trustee is seeking to do.\n\n54. The Counterclaim's allegations related to the Debtor focus on many of the same matters for which the Trustee seeks discovery from Ms. Guo and HK USA via the Rule 2004 Exam subpoenas. Most egregiously, the Trustee has filed a prejudgment remedy application against Ms. Guo and HK USA seeking to attach their respective assets and an injunction application against Ms. Guo effectively seeking the same relief while at the same time moving to compel the production of a wide swath of information concerning, *inter alia*, Ms. Guo's and HK USA's personal assets via Rule 2004.\n\n55. Ms. Guo and HK USA are entitled to the protections of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *See In re Enron Corp.*, 281 B.R. 836, at 841 (\"Based on Rule 2004's substantive differences, courts have expressed concern that Rule 2004 examinations not be used as a tactic to circumvent the safeguards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\"). The Trustee cannot be permitted to end run those rules by using Rule 2004 to obtain discovery that is clearly intended to be used in the Adversary Proceeding and which the Trustee would not be entitled to obtain but for his use of Rule 2004. Thus, the Motion to Compel as to Ms. Guo and HK USA should be denied and the Trustee should be ordered to pursue any additional discovery as to them, including the discovery sought via the Motion, in the HK Adversary.\n\n#### **D. The Debtor's Complete Passport is Irrelevant**\n\n56. The Trustee seeks the production of the Debtor's complete passport because according to the Trustee knowing where the Debtor traveled could inform the Trustee as to where the Debtor has assets. The Trustee's logic is utterly flawed. Even if the Debtor had assets it does not follow that because the Debtor traveled somewhere he has assets in that location. Indeed, taking the Trustee's argument to its logical conclusion the Trustee would be entitled to monitor the Debtor's movements 24 hours a day 7 days a week on the oft chance that the Debtor's travels lead the Trustee to the Debtor's allegedly hidden assets. The Debtor is a debtor in bankruptcy, not an escaped criminal, and the Trustee is a bankruptcy trustee, not a bounty hunter. The Trustee is not entitled to the Debtor's complete passport and his efforts to compel its production should be rejected. [11](#page-22-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-22-0\"></span><sup>11</sup> The Debtor produced the first page of his passport only because it was appended to the Debtor's tax returns that were produced.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Debtor, Ms. Guo, and HK USA respectfully request that the Court\n\ndeny the Motion and grant them such other and further relief as justice requires.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 14th day of November, 2022.\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK, ADVERSARY PROCEEDING PLAINTIFF, COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT AND MOVANT, HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, LLC, AND ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT AND MOVANT MEI GUO**\n\n*/s/ James M. Moriarty*  Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5485 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 14th day of November, 2022, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ James M. Moriarty*  James M. Moriarty (ct21876)","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分部（United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division）\n\n关于：第11章\n债务人\nHO WON KWOK（郭文贵） 案号：Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人、Mei Guo（郭美）以及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）对第11章受托人关于强制作出遵循第2004条传票行为之动议的联合异议\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）、本院审理中的标题为“HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 诉 Ho Wan Kwok”对抗性诉讼案（Adv. Pro. No. 22-05003，下称“HK USA对抗性诉讼”）的反诉被告 Mei Guo（郭美）（下称“郭女士”），以及HK USA对抗性诉讼的原告兼反诉被告 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）（下称“HK USA”），由其下述签字律师事务所 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 代表，特此对第11章受托人关于作出命令强制个人债务人、郭女士、HK USA、Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）、Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治土地有限公司）、Lamp Capital LLC（灯塔资本有限公司）及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）遵循第2004条传票的动议（Doc. No. 1046，下称“动议”）提出异议。为支持其异议，债务人、郭女士和 HK USA 谨陈述如下：\n\n1. 该动议延续了第11章受托人（下称“受托人”）迄今为止屡试不爽的策略，即反复念叨“债务人很坏”的套话，寄希望并期待法院会忽视动议本身的实际是非曲直，仅仅因为受托人已经对债务人进行了充分的贬损就批准其所请求的救济。\n\n2. 事实上，该动议忽视了受托人无可争辩地已经获得了数十万页涉及债务人以及受托人毫无根据地认为由债务人控制或曾经控制的各实体的文件，并且还将获得更多文件。这些文件由曾经为债务人等主体提供服务的专业人士（主要是大型律师事务所）所提供并将继续提供。债务人未采取任何行动阻碍或妨碍受托人的文件收集工作。\n\n3. 债务人的律师在双方第一次证据开示碰头协商会议期间即告知受托人的律师，债务人个人持有的文件数量非常有限，绝大多数应答性文件都在其专业人士手中，这一陈述已被证明属实。值得注意的是，在同一次碰头协商会议期间，债务人的律师提出，债务人完全没有理由去找其专业人士获取同样的文件，然后再将这些专业人士根据向其送达的传票直接向受托人提供的完全相同的文件第二次提供给受托人。受托人的律师当时表示，只要文件被提供出来，他不在乎由谁提供，而这些文件确实已经被提供了。此外，受托人在动议中实际上承认了这一协议，但却是在指责债务人没有寻求调取其专业人士所持有的文件之后才予以承认的。\n\n4. 债务人个人确实持有有限数量的文件，例如其个人纳税申报表，而这些文件也已经被提供了。\n\n5. 简而言之，根本不存在任何需要强制的事由。受托人所谓的确信——其表述是基于对数次碰头协商实质内容的歪曲陈述——即在没有实际证据证明未进行善意搜寻的情况下，认定债务人未对文件进行善意搜寻，这种确信是毫无意义的。事实上，受托人声称债务人缺乏应答性文件（特别是在电子存储信息方面）是可疑的，但是受托人未能为其主张提供支持，例如受托人称债务人说自己不使用电子邮件是在说谎，但在债务人的专业人士向受托人提供的数万封电子邮件中，受托人却拿不出一封由债务人发出或发送给债务人的电子邮件。受托人的所谓确信绝不能成为作出批准强制动议之命令的依据。\n\n6. 无论是债务人、郭女士还是 HK USA，均未拒绝搜寻应答性文件。各方仅对特定的文件调取请求提出了异议，例如要求郭女士提供超过10年期间内与其个人资产、个人银行账户及其纳税申报表相关的所有文件的请求，尽管没有任何证据、甚至没有任何指控表明债务人曾向郭女士转移过资产或任何有价值的物品。郭女士完全有权且正当地拒绝提供这些类别的文件。\n\n7. 然而，受托人并未将其动议聚焦于针对特定文件调取请求的具体异议上。相反，受托人主张其有权从债务人、郭女士和 HK USA 处获取其所寻求的所有文件，原因仅仅是因为他认为自己有权获取，并且受托人再次完全没有试图证明（就郭女士的个人财务信息而言）债务人曾向郭女士转移过哪怕一项属于债务人的资产。\n\n8. 而且这不仅仅涉及郭女士的个人财务信息。受托人认为，其有权获取有关债务人直系和旁系大家庭每位成员的每一项资产的每一份文件（采用最宽泛的定义），以及有关一系列实体的每一份文件，而其中许多实体债务人甚至从未听说过。受托人的立场是荒谬的。\n\n9. 受托人试图掩盖其立场的荒谬性，并通过再次曲解碰头协商期间关于假想的“Lady May 2”（梅艳芳2号）游艇的对话来进行转移视线。在那次碰头协商期间，债务人的律师只是被问及如果存在一艘“Lady May 2”，债务人是否会提供与其相关的文档。当时的回答是，如果债务人在假想的“Lady May 2”中没有任何权益，债务人就不会提供与这艘假想的“Lady May 2”相关的文档。受托人的律师现在歪曲了该假想情况的实质内容，增加了碰头协商期间在假想情况中并未陈述的诸多额外事实。显而易见，如果存在一艘处境与“Lady May”完全相同且具有纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）类似裁定的“Lady May 2”，那么与该假想游艇相关的应答性文件自然会像实际的“Lady May”相关应答性文件一样被提供出来。无论如何，受托人不得不诉诸误导性的假想情况，而不是正视其目前实际正在收到的大量文件的现实，这一事实非常发人深省，并凸显了该动议的软弱无力。\n\n10. 最后，就郭女士和 HK USA 而言，受托人若要寻求进一步的证据开示，也必须在 HK USA 对抗性诉讼中寻求。2022年9月23日，受托人在 HK USA 对抗性诉讼中提交了一份篇幅长达62页、包含141个段落并附有3,100多页证据附件的巨额反诉（下称“反诉”）。该反诉是在郭女士和 HK USA 就向其送达的第2004条传票提出异议21天后、以及郭女士和 HK USA 就相同传票提供应答性文件6天后提交的，该反诉将郭女士列为反诉被告，并大幅扩大了 HK 对抗性诉讼的范围，以至于向郭女士和 HK USA 送达的第2004条传票中所列的绝大多数文件调取请求，现在寻求的都是与反诉指控相关的文档。此外，受托人在 HK 对抗性诉讼中对 HK USA 和郭女士提交了判决前救济申请，并对郭女士提交了初步禁令申请，同时却还在试图强迫郭女士针对第2004条传票提供大量的个人财务信息。从法律层面而言，受托人不得通过依第2004条寻求与 HK USA 对抗性诉讼相关的证据开示，来规避《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure）和《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure）在 HK USA 对抗性诉讼中赋予郭女士和 HK USA 的权利保护。因此，针对郭女士和 HK USA 的动议必须予以驳回。\n\n背景\n\n11. 2022年2月15日（下称“申请日”），债务人根据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第11章自愿提交了破产救济申请，从而启动了本破产案件。\n\n12. 2022年6月15日，本院作出一份《裁决备忘录》，在 PAX（太盟 / PAX）的《驳回动议》或替代性方案中对 UST（美国受托人 / United States Trustee）关于指定第11章受托人之动议的部分附议（Doc. No. 183）寻求指定第11章受托人的范围内，批准了该请求（Doc. No. 465）。\n\n13. 2022年7月7日，UST 提交了一份关于指定受托人为第11章受托人的通知（Doc. No. 514），以及一份《关于批准指定第11章受托人命令的申请》（Doc. No. 515），请求法院批准对该受托人的指定。2022年7月8日，法院作出了《关于批准指定第11章受托人的命令》（Doc. No. 523），批准指定该受托人为本案的第11章受托人。\n\n14. 2022年7月28日，受托人提交了：i) 《关于对债务人进行2004条调查的动议》（Doc. No. 636）；ii) 《第11章受托人关于根据破产规则第2004条及本地规则第2004-1条作出命令准许针对债务人的各法律和财务顾问进行证据开示的综合动议》（Doc. No. 637）；以及 iii) 《第11章受托人关于根据破产规则第2004条及本地规则第2004-1条作出命令准许针对与债务人关联的各实体和个人进行证据开示的综合动议》（Doc. No. 638）（统称“7月份第2004条调查动议”）。受托人通过7月份第2004条调查动议总共寻求签发34份传票。此后，于2022年9月7日，受托人提交了其《第11章受托人关于根据破产规则第2004条及本地规则第2004-1条作出命令准许针对债务人的其他法律和财务顾问、与债务人关联的实体和个人以及相关银行进行证据开示的第一份补充综合动议》（下称“9月份2004条动议”）（Doc. No. 839）。9月份2004条动议申请并获得了进行额外25次第2004条调查以及签发与这些调查相关的额外25份传票的许可。因此，受托人总共申请并获得了进行总计59次第2004条调查以及签发与之相关的59份传票的许可；债务人完全有理由相信受托人已经送达了全部59份传票，或者至少是其中的绝大多数。\n\n15. 2022年8月5日，债务人提交了《债务人对第2004条动议的有限异议》（Doc. No. 703），以保留某些权利，包括在附随于7月份第2004条调查动议的传票被实际送达之后，针对随传票一同送达的文件提供请求提出异议的权利。根据日期为2022年8月16日的各项命令，本院批准了7月份第2004条调查动议。8月16日的命令是在2022年8月12日举行的案件进展状态会议之后作出的，在该会议上，法院提醒各方，在7月份第2004条调查动议的传票送达之后，各方“就该等传票享有《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》所规定的任何权利”。2022年8月12日，在联邦破产法官 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下面前举行的《关于对债务人进行2004条调查的动议；关于对债务人专业人士进行2004条调查的综合动议；关于对关联人员进行2004条调查的综合动议；安排案件进展状态会议的命令》庭审笔录（下称“8月12日笔录”），第19-20页。\n\n16. 2022年8月19日，债务人、Ms. Guo（郭女士）及 HK USA（香港美国公司）各自通过其各自的律师收到了《破产程序规则》第 2004 条传票（Rule 2004 subpoena）。债务人、郭女士及香港美国公司各自对传票所附的调取文件请求及时提出了异议，对出示文件请求中包含的某些列举的说明与定义提出了异议，并对某些具体的出示文件请求提出了异议。非债务人郭女士和香港美国公司的异议比债务人的异议更为详尽。\n\n17. 债务人同意出示，并且正在通过其专业人士及前专业人士出示破产受托人（Trustee）在出示文件请求中要求的大绝大多数文件。债务人确实对出示某些类别的特定文件提出了异议，主要是与其“家人”资产相关的特定文件，受托人将“家人”定义为包括“债务人、债务人之子、债务人之女、债务人的声称妻子，以及与债务人的任何其他亲属关系”，但债务人并不持有与其家人资产相关的文件，且并未基于该项异议扣留任何文件。事实上，债务人除依据本法院 2022年9月14日作出的《关于对涉及第 2004 条传票文件及信息之律师-委托人特权与工作成果保护控制权的同意裁定》（Doc. No. 856），基于律师-委托人特权扣留了主要来自其专业人士档案的极少数文件之外，并未基于证据开示异议扣留任何特定文件或任何类别的文件。基于特权扣留的文件已依照该同一裁定进行了登记。\n\n18. 郭女士和香港美国公司对送达给她们的某些索取其个人资产和纳税申报表信息的请求提出了异议，并表明不会针对这些请求出示任何响应性文件。郭女士和香港美国公司出示了对与香港美国公司及 Lady May（梅号）游艇相关请求具有响应性的文件。除与其个人资产相关的文件外，香港美国公司和郭女士未扣留任何响应性文件。香港美国公司仅拥有梅号游艇而别无其他，因此出示了与其资产相关的文件。\n\n19. 在送达各自的异议后，律师先后于 2022年9月14日和 2022年9月21日两次通过视频会议与债务人会面，讨论并解释为搜寻响应性文件而应开展的工作。在第一次历时一小时以上的会面中，律师与债务人一起逐条核对了请求以确定所索取的文件，通读了“关联实体”（Associated Entities）的定义名单以确认债务人是否曾听闻这些实体（其中大部分他未曾听闻），如果听闻过——其手中是否持有与这些实体相关的任何文件。债务人的律师还与债务人一起通读了“关联个人”（Associated Individuals）的定义名单，以确认债务人是否认识这些人（同样，其中许多人他并不认识），如果认识，其手中是否持有与这些人相关的任何文件。\n\n20. 在这第一次会面期间，还讨论了可能存放响应性纸质文件的地点。债务人并未设立用于存放纸质文件的办公室或场所，也未在家中保存纸质文件。在香港可能曾存在的响应性文件（债务人在 2014 年底逃离前曾在香港设有办公室），已在中国政府于 2017 年查封债务人及其部分家族资产时一并被中国政府扣押。参见 Mr. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵先生）支持第 11 章案件及某些动议的声明（Doc. No. 107）第 17 段。债务人显然无法接触到被中国政府扣押的文件。\n\n21. 与债务人的第二次视频会议历时约一小时，主要聚焦于电子存储信息。在本次会面期间，债务人被询问是否拥有笔记本电脑或台式电脑。他没有电脑，不使用电脑，也不会使用电脑。债务人还被询问是否拥有或知悉可能包含响应性电子存储信息的任何服务器。他并未拥有也不知悉。债务人被询问是否使用手机或平板电脑等个人电子设备。债务人陈述称他拥有两部 iPhone 手机，用于社交媒体和短信交流，例如 WhatsApp。债务人陈述称他的短信交流与其持续开展的推翻中共（CCP）的行动有关。债务人不会读英文，其短信均使用其母语中文。债务人陈述称他不使用电子邮件进行沟通。债务人向律师提供了其持有的响应性文件并已予以出示，包括与 Genever Holdings Corporation 和 Genever Holdings, LLC 相关的特定文件，这两家实体是债务人截至申请救济日（petition date）实际拥有权益的仅有实体——尽管他是以受托人（trustee）身份拥有该等权益。\n\n22. 在同一时间段内，律师多次通过电话与郭女士进行磋商，讨论她代表其本人以及代表由其担任唯一成员的香港美国公司搜寻响应性文件的情况。郭女士搜寻了她的电子邮件和短信，并向律师提供了她找到的与梅号游艇相关的短信副本，包括她与梅号船长的短信，受托人曾索取该等短信，如今却在动议中毫无根据且贬损性地声称这些短信是“精心挑选的”。郭女士还提供了与梅号船员签订的保密协议副本，并出示了与为债务人案件中通常被称为“梅号托管资金”（Lady May Escrow）提供资金的贷款交易相关的多封电子邮件和协议草案。此外，郭女士的律师联系了在当时待决于 New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的 PAX 诉讼中代表郭女士和香港美国公司处理 2022年2月藐视法庭听证会的律师，从郭女士的前任律师处取得了文件并予以出示。最后且也是最近，郭女士出示了由为梅号托管资金提供贷款的出借人对她和香港美国公司提起的仲裁案的权利主张书及证据附件，该出借人目前正试图通过仲裁追回该笔贷款。\n\n23. 在律师就文件出示事宜与债务人和郭女士进行磋商的同一时期，律师也在与受托人的律师进行会晤与磋商（meets and confers），以讨论证据开示异议和文件出示问题。\n\n24. 在 9月9日 的第一次会晤磋商中，受托人的律师被告知债务人个人手中不会有大量文件，他的文件都在其专业人士手中。债务人的律师进一步表示，由于受托人已向债务人的专业人士发出了传票，债务人无需再联系同一批专业人士获取相同的档案并进行第二次出示。受托人的律师起初表示犹豫，但最终同意他不在乎谁出示了文件，只要文件被出示即可。参见动议第 42 段（“澄清一下，只要单独收到传票的顾问出示了其持有的关于个人债务人的所有文件，受托人并不要求个人债务人搜寻并重复出示重复的文件……”）。\n\n25. 在随后的会晤磋商中，受托人的律师就债务人使用电子邮件、电脑和手机的情况询问了若干问题。债务人的律师此后与债务人讨论了受托人律师的问题，并对受托人律师的问题作出了答复。\n\n26. 在整个会晤磋商过程中，受托人的律师提出了众多假设情形，其中包括一个假定债务人拥有 Apple, Inc.（苹果公司）百分之百的股权，因此需要出示与苹果公司相关的每一份文件。假设情形还包括假设的“梅号2号”（Lady May 2），以及债务人是否会出示与假设的梅号2号相关的文件——对此债务人的律师正确地回应道，如果债务人在假设的梅号2号中没有任何权益，则不会出示。\n\n27. 在这一系列会晤磋商的最后一次会议中，律师逐一审查了向债务人提出的每一项请求，几乎在每一种情况下，债务人的律师都明确指出债务人手中没有任何响应性文件。因此，过去和现在都不是债务人拒绝出示响应性文件的情况，仅仅是他手中没有可供出示的响应性文件。郭女士和香港美国公司的情况也是如此。事实上，受托人在动议中含蓄地承认香港美国公司不大可能持有任何文件，因为“香港美国公司没有收入、银行账户、董事、高级职员或雇员”。参见动议第 9 页。\n\n论证\n\nA. 动议应予驳回，因为不存在任何可予强令出示的内容\n\n28. 受托人似乎并未在寻求出示对任何特定出示文件请求具有响应性的文件。相反，受托人请求法院强令债务人、郭女士及香港美国公司对响应性文件开展额外搜寻，尽管并无任何证据表明她们先前的搜寻是不充分的，或者表明她们手中（相对于债务人的专业人士手中正在出示的文件而言）持有任何可供出示的额外文件。\n\n1 债务人、郭女士和香港美国公司并不清楚受托人究竟在寻求强令出示什么，因为他未能遵守《本地破产规则》第 7037-1 条及《康涅狄格区联邦地区法院本地民事诉讼规则》（D. Conn. L. Civ. R.）第 37 条的规定，该等规则要求与强令动议相关的备忘录\n\n……应载有对案件性质的简要陈述，以及对所寻求或反对的每一项证据开示事项的具体逐字列举，且在每一项具体说明之后应立即阐明该事项应予准许或不予准许的理由。\n\n29. “在通常情况下，当事人善意声明所寻求的物品根本不存在，或者不在其占有、羁押或控制之下，即应解决未予出示的问题。”Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., 04 Civ. 1514 (PAC)(HBP), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41754, *8 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地区法院）, May 29, 2008)（引文省略）。此外，“当事人无义务冒着受到制裁的风险，出示其并未占有或无法获取的文件。”Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C. v. Brady, 19-CV-10236 (JMF), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29610, *14 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2021)。\n\n30. 在像本案这样一方当事人声称其对方当事人未搜寻及/或未出示所有响应性文件的情况下，提出该主张的一方必须拿出证据来支持该主张。Margel 案，2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41754，第 *8 页（“尽管我理解被告对原告出示文件的担忧，但我认为没有任何给予制裁的依据。被告并未指出任何表明存在额外响应性文件且尚未出示的具体证据。诉讼当事人通常会怀疑自己没有获得所索取的全部文件，并怀疑对方有所隐瞒。”）。\n\n31. 受托人没有指出哪怕任何一项证据来支持其关于债务人、郭女士或香港美国公司手中持有尚未出示的额外响应性文件的主张。\n\n2 在 Mintz Fraade 一案中，法院命令被告对响应性文件进行进一步检索，因为辩护律师通知法院，作为个人被告同时也是公司被告负责人的当事人不配合律师获取响应性文件，且律师以被告「未能在……完成证据开示的努力中与[律师]合作」为由申请退出代理。Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C.，2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29610，第 *4 页（括号与省略号为原文所有）。法院强令对响应性文件进行进一步检索的那种极端情形，显然与本案不同。\n\n3 如前文所述，Debtor（债务人）的律师曾两次分别与债务人会面，讨论出示文件请求所寻求的文件类别、响应性文件的潜在存放位置，以及可能包含响应性电子存储\n\n32. 首先，且如前文所述，Trustee（受托人）几乎承认 HK USA（HK美国公司）没有任何文件。参见动议，第 9 页。此外，受托人完全没有做出任何努力来证明 Guo（郭）女士持有其同意出示但尚未出示的额外响应性文件。[4]\n\n33. 至于债务人，受托人主张债务人关于其手中缺乏额外响应性文件的陈述充其量是可疑的，动议，第 45 页，但受托人未提供任何证据来支持这一所谓的看法。事实上，在受托人从债务人的专业人士处收到的成千上万封电子邮件中，受托人没有指出任何一封发给或发自债务人的电子邮件，若非由于债务人的破产案件和特权令，其中绝大多数都将受到律师与当事人保密特权的保护。如果债务人确实使用电子邮件，他必定会通过电子邮件与他的律师沟通，而这些电子邮件必定会包含在受托人从债务人的专业人士处收到的极其庞大的电子邮件全集之中。[5]\n\n信息的介质。债务人是一个甚至不拥有或使用电脑的个人，更不用说拥有类似于 Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 一案中所涉及的服务器、IT部门和备份磁带了。此外，律师未看到任何能够对债务人关于其不使用电脑和电子邮件的陈述真实性提出质疑的证据，且尽管受托人从债务人的专业人士处收到了数千乃至可能数万封连债务人律师都未曾得见的电子邮件，受托人也未向债务人律师指出任何此类证据。最后，在此种情况下，律师依赖债务人自行审查其短信以获取响应性文件是完全合理的，因为那些短信是中文的。参见同上，第 435 页（指出「诚然，律师无需监督文件出示程序的每一步，且在某些方面可以信赖其当事人」）。\n\n4 郭女士和 HK USA 通过其律师曾多次试图获取有关维护 Lady May 号游艇的成本和费用的文件，但迄今为止未能成功。\n\n5 受托人在提交7月份第 2004 条规则动议时就已知晓，绝大多数响应性文件将由债务人以外的实体和个人出示，这正是受托人送达了五十（50）多份传票的原因。参见 8月12日笔录，第 12 页（受托人律师陈述称「我们认为这些动议的目标是那些可能拥有此类信息的人群，无论是在设立法律实体和保护资产中聘用的顾问，还是持有这些资产的亲属，或是关联公司，这些才是我们动议的真正目标。」）。\n\n34. 受托人还指出五年前对债务人的一次采访，其中显示债务人持有多部手机，并以此作为债务人手中必定存有文件的证据。债务人五年前可能拥有或可能没有拥有的手机数量，与他今天手中存有什么文件毫无关联。此外，债务人的律师曾告诉受托人的律师，债务人拥有两部手机，用于在社交媒体上发帖和发送短信。受托人完全清楚债务人的社交媒体活动，可能每周7天、每天24小时都在监控债务人的账号。事实上，受托人对债务人社交媒体活动的监控，导致受托人的律师就在最近还致电债务人的律师，以核实债务人的新冠疫苗接种情况，以便进入大楼进行录音录像宣誓证词陈述，因为受托人的律师通过监控债务人的社交媒体账号了解到了他对新冠疫苗的看法。\n\n35. 关于短信，债务人在收到向其送达的出示文件请求中所寻求的文件类型的指示后，被指示在其使用中文的短信中检索响应性文件。债务人已表示他进行了该项检索，并且没有找到任何响应性文件，因为他的短信与其推翻 CCP（中共）的努力相关。[6]\n\n36. 受托人指出债务人在 Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG（案号：Index No. 653316/2015）一案中于 2016年2月6日 提交的宣誓书中所提及的 WhatsApp 消息，作为债务人手中存有额外响应性文件的证据。\n\n6 债务人正在进行的推翻中共的努力有充分的记录记载，包括债务人演唱的歌曲，根据受托人律师的说法，这些歌曲曾在 iTunes 上架。受托人的律师主张债务人必定存有与其在 iTunes 上的音乐相关的文档。债务人已表示他创作和发布音乐并非为了金钱，他这样做是其推翻中共努力的一部分，因此并不收取版税，也没有任何相关文件。债务人的律师与了解该事项的债务人的其他个人律师核实了债务人关于其音乐缺乏文件和版税的陈述。\n\n该宣誓书中提及的 WhatsApp 消息已有7到8年之久，且正如在一次协商会议中所告知受托人律师的那样，债务人手中不再保留所提及的短信——与受托人在动议中的陈述相反，其律师从未被告知这些短信已不复存在。事实上，2016年宣誓书中提及的 WhatsApp 消息很可能存放在 Boise Schiller 律师事务所的卷宗中，该律所是在提交该宣誓书的诉讼中代表 Ace Decade Holding Limited 的律师事务所，因为其律师推定会需要这些 WhatsApp 消息来起草宣誓书，而他们几乎肯定起草了该宣誓书。[7]\n\n37. 受托人向 Boise Schiller 调取了债务人的卷宗，其中包括与 Ace Decade 相关的调取文件请求。债务人没有理由认为这些卷宗未被出示。此外，债务人极不可能从 Boise Schiller 处获得债务人的卷宗，因为债务人与 Boise Schiller 的关系在一场激烈的诉讼中终止，且双方关系并未好转。\n\n38. 受托人还虚假地声称债务人、HK USA 和郭女士一直不愿出示顾问和代理人卷宗中的文件。郭女士通过其律师联系了她在 PAX New York 诉讼案中的前任律师，以获取与 HK USA 和 Lady May 号相关的文档，并且这些文档已经被出示。无论如何，鉴于受托人送达的大量传票、没有任何证据表明债务人、郭女士或 HK USA 曾采取任何行动阻碍或妨碍被传票人遵守传票、针对传票已出示了海量文件，以及双方已同意债务人不会寻求从专业机构处获取并\n\n7 在没有任何证据的情况下，为了再次贬损债务人，受托人暗示，如果债务人个人手中（而非其专业人士手中）没有保留 2014年 和 2015年 的 WhatsApp 消息，他很可能毁损了证据。\n\n出示那些正根据传票被出示的相同文件，该陈述是荒谬的。\n\n39. 受托人主张，无论传票的签发以及专业人士的出示情况如何，债务人都必须向其专业人士索取文件，因为向债务人送达的请求与向其顾问送达的请求不同。动议，第 21 页。向债务人及其专业人士送达的传票均广泛寻求与（其中包括）债务人所谓的资产以及界定的关联实体相关的文件。向债务人送达的传票确实比向专业机构送达的传票包含更多数量的请求，但这些额外的请求通常是针对债务人个人的，专业机构不会持有这些请求所寻求的文件，包括：\n\n8. 有关您所使用的任何信用卡的所有文件，包括但不限于足以显示与之相关的所有购买、付款和其他交易的月度账单或其他文件。\n\n12. 与 Qu Guo Jiao 就债务人、债务人家属或任何关联实体的任何资产、负债、财务利益、经济状况、财务报表有关的所有通信。\n\n13. 与 Daniel Podhaskie 就债务人、债务人家属或任何关联实体的任何资产、负债、财务利益、经济状况、财务报表有关的所有通信。\n\n16. 债务人、债务人家属的每位个人成员以及任何关联实体自 2014年 至今的纳税申报表。\n\n29. 任何主权国家、民族国家、城邦或自治区分配给您的授权跨境旅行的所有护照或类似文件，包括但不限于任何已过期或未使用的文件，以及此类护照或类似文件的所有页面。\n\n参见债务人对 2022年8月19日 向债务人送达的第 2004 条规则审查传票中所附的 Chapter 11（第 11 章）受托人出示文件请求的答复和异议，其副本作为证据 A 附于本文件之后。\n\n40. 无论请求之间存在何种差异，受托人均未提供任何证据证明被传票的专业人士所出示的内容少于其各自与债务人相关的全部卷宗。此外，且重要的是，受托人的律师一直在与被传票的专业人士就文件出示的范围进行沟通和谈判。事实上，债务人从在本法院举行的听证会上的陈述中获知，受托人明确与 Brown Rudnick 协商了检索词，因此受托人控制了 Brown Rudnick 向其出示的信息范围。受托人几乎肯定与其他被传票的专业人士协商并提供了检索词，同样控制了他所收到的信息的范围。\n\n41. 在受托人已经向这些机构指明其认为具有响应性的内容，并根据其建立的参数收到了出示的文件的情况下，再让债务人前往已出示过响应性文件的每家专业机构去确认是否所有响应性文件都已出示，将是毫无意义的。\n\n42. 同样，鉴于受托人（Trustee）显然知晓其正在寻找何种信息以及获取该信息需要何种检索词，要求债务人（Debtor）向其专业人员提供检索词以检索响应性文件，即便并非不可能，也极为困难。事实上，如果债务人前往其专业人员处、提供了检索词，并随后根据使用这些词的检索结果提交了文件，受托人亦会以债务人的检索词存在缺陷且产生的结果不完整为由提出强制作出动议。\n\n43. 最后，受托人主张，必须要求债务人、Ms. Guo（郭美）以及 HK 检索并提交传票要求中所载明的大于十年期间（即自 2012 年 2 月 5 日至今）内的响应性文件，因为这些文件与潜在的欺诈性转让主张相关。受托人根本未作任何努力去查明适用于债务人于 2012 年至 2014 年居住在香港期间所作出的欺诈性转让（若有）所引发主张的法律，亦未查明适用法律是否甚至允许针对已有十年乃至八年之久的欺诈性转让主张继续进行。因此，受托人所要求的时间范围是不合理的，债务人和郭女士均不应被强迫检索早于债务人于 2014 年底逃离中国之前的文件。[8] 针对近八年这一较短但仍非常冗长的时间段（即自债务人逃离中国之日起），响应性文件已经提交并将继续提交，此乃债务人和郭女士的律师作为妥协方案所提出的。[9]\n\n44. 简而言之，并无证据表明债务人、HK USA 或郭女士未能检索并提交响应性文件。因此，并无任何可强制作出的事项，该动议应予驳回。[10]\n\n8. 尽管如此，债务人并未基于该项异议扣留文件。\n\n9. HK USA 直至 2018 年 9 月才成立，且不持有可追溯至 2012 年的文件。\n\n10. 受托人依赖 CFTC v. Main & Prospect Capital, LLC, 2020 WL 11303655 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020)（加利福尼亚中区联邦地区法院）作为其针对债务人寻求荒谬宽泛救济的支持。该法院之所以在 Main & Prospect Capital 案中批准所请求的宽泛救济，实质上在很大程度上是因为被告未对原告的强制作出动议提出异议。\n\nB. 不应强迫郭女士和 HK USA 提交有关其个人资产的文件\n\n45. Rule 2004（《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条）调查的范围虽然宽泛，但并非没有限制。参见 In re Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Gallup, 513 B.R. 761, 764 (Bankr. D. NM 2014)（新墨西哥区破产法院）（“然而[对 Rule 2004 调查而言]存在限制。就与债务人事务无关或对管理其破产财产没有影响的事项对证人进行调查是不正当的。”）；In re Refco, Inc., 案号 06 C 5529, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4993, *9 (N.D. Ill, Jan 16, 2007)（伊利诺伊北区联邦地区法院）（“尽管根据《破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条允许的调查范围是宽泛的，但并非没有限制。就与债务人事务无关或对管理破产财产没有影响的事项对证人进行调查是不正当的。”）（引文省略）。事实上，“显而易见的是，第 2004 条不得被用作对非债务人的私人商业事务展开全面调查的工具。”In re Wilcher, 56 B.R. 428, 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985)（伊利诺伊北区破产法院）。亦见 In re Matthews 案号 18-mc-80-LPS; 案号 18-mc-153-LPS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178364, *5 (D. Del., Oct. 17, 2018)（特拉华区联邦地区法院）（“但是[受托人]并无无限权力在未阐明调查的正当依据的情况下调查其希望调查的任何事项。”）。\n\n46. 受托人已向郭女士和 HK USA 送达了极为宽泛的证据开示请求，寻求有关其个人资产的信息，仅举数例如下：\n\n14. 足以显示您的全部资产以及收入或资金来源的文件。\n\n16. 您的纳税申报表副本。\n\n17. 足以显示由您占有或控制的所有银行账户和投资账户的文件，包括每个此类账户的余额以及转入和转出的款项。\n\n18. 有关您使用的任何信用卡的所有文件，包括但不限于月度账单或其他足以显示为债务人或关联实体的利益而进行的与此相关的所有消费的文件。\n\n参见 2022 年 9 月 2 日《非当事人郭美对 2022 年 8 月 19 日向郭女士送达的 Rule 2004 调查传票所附第 11 章受托人提交文件请求的回应与异议》，其副本作为附件 B 附于本文件。这些相同的请求亦送达给了 HK USA，尽管对于绝大多数请求而言，其并没有任何响应性文件可供提交。参见《动议》第 9 页。\n\n47. 受托人还通过其他同样寻求与债务人相关文件的请求，来寻求郭女士的个人财务信息，例如：\n\n10. 有关向债务人、债务人破产财产、债务人家族或关联实体提供、由其提供或代表其提供的任何赠与、利益或贷款的所有文件，包括但不限于足以显示此类赠与、利益或贷款的金额；此类赠与、利益或贷款所用于的目的；提供赠与、利益或贷款的时间；以及任何贷款的条款、就任何贷款作出的所有陈述与保证、任何贷款的利率以及任何贷款偿付的所有证明的文件。\n\n11. 有关由债务人、债务人破产财产、债务人家族或关联实体设立、代表其设立或为其利益设立的任何信托或类似法律文书的所有文件，包括但不限于足以显示该信托何时设立、由谁设立、为谁的利益设立以及该信托的财产本金的文件。\n\n出处同上。这些请求要求郭女士提交与债务人或债务人破产财产完全无关的长达 10 多年期间的所有类型的文件。事实上，照字面意思理解，请求 10 将要求郭女士提交关于她在过去 10 年中向任何人赠送的每一份礼物的每一份文件，包括由礼物接收者寄回的感谢卡。显然，郭女士作为非债务人，不能被强迫提交这些类型的文件。郭女士和 HK 均未对提交与债务人资产或债务人破产财产资产相关的文件提出异议，但过去和现在均反对提交其自身的个人财务信息，且受托人无权获取该信息。\n\n48. 受托人未能主张、更谈不上证明对郭女士个人财务信息进行调查的任何正当依据。In re Matthews, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178364, *5（“但是[受托人]并无无限权力在未阐明调查的正当依据的情况下调查其希望调查的任何事项。”）。并无任何关于债务人曾向郭女士或 HK USA 转让过任何有价值物品的指控。受托人主张其不需要任何依据即可获取郭女士和 HK USA 的个人财务信息，理由是债务人理论上可能向他们作出了转让。如果受托人对法律的理解是正确的，那么受托人将有权向本法院宽泛管辖范围内的任何人发出传票以获取个人财务信息，从而使自己确信被传票人并未持有债务人的资产。这显然不是法律规定。\n\n49. 在没有阐明善意依据的情况下（而在本案中这极度匮乏），受托人无权“对非债务人的私人商业事务展开全面调查。”In re Wilcher, 56 B.R. at 434。因此，在《动议》寻求强迫提交郭女士和 HK USA 个人财务信息的范围内，该《动议》应予驳回。\n\nC. 对郭女士和 HK USA 的任何进一步证据开示必须依据联邦规则的保护通过 HK 附随诉讼进行\n\n50. 显而易见的是，“‘一旦附随诉讼或争议事项开始，证据开示应当依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure）而非依据第 2004 条进行’，In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)（纽约南区破产法院），In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)（纽约北区破产法院）（‘公认的规则是，一旦附随诉讼或争议事项已经开始，证据开示应依据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 et seq. 进行，而非通过 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 调查。’）……”。In re SunEdison, Inc., 572 B.R. 482, 490 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)。亦见 In re Cambridge Analytica LLC, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)（“存在一项公认的规则，即一旦附随诉讼或争议事项开始，证据开示应当依据适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》而非第 2004 条进行。”）；In re Ecam Publ'ns, Inc., 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)（“一旦提起附随诉讼或另一争议事项，当事人必须依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行该诉讼的证据开示。”）。\n\n51. HK 附随诉讼（HK Adversary）于 2022 年 4 月提起，由 HK USA 作为原告。郭女士和 HK USA 于 2022 年 8 月 19 日分别通过其各自的律师被送达了 Rule 2004 调查传票。当时郭女士并非 HK 附随诉讼的当事人，且该诉讼中有争议的事项仅限于谁拥有 Lady May（梅号游艇）这一狭窄问题。\n\n52. 郭女士和 HK USA 于 2022 年 9 月 2 日就送达给他们的传票所附的文件请求提出了异议，并于 2022 年 9 月 16 日提交了文件，此后郭女士还进行了补充提交。\n\n53. 受托人于 2022 年 9 月 23 日在 HK 附随诉讼中提起了篇幅庞大的反诉，从而将郭女士追加为反诉被告。基于反诉指控的广度及其所附附件，受托人在反诉提起前很久就一直在准备其反诉，且可能在其向郭女士和 HK USA 发出传票之前就已在准备。尽管明知将提起反诉追加郭女士为被告并通过增加关于债务人及其据称控制的实体的众多指控来极大扩展 HK 附随诉讼的范围，受托人仍在其《第 11 章受托人依据破产诉讼规则第 2004 条及本地规则第 2004-1 条请求作出授权就与债务人关联的各类实体及个人进行证据开示的命令的综合动议》（文件编号 638）中陈述称，“这并非附随诉讼原告通过第 2004 条企图削弱规制附随诉讼中证据开示的破产诉讼规则所提供保护的典型情形。”出处同上，第 19 页，附注 25。而这恰恰就是受托人企图做的事情。\n\n54. 反诉中与债务人相关的指控集中于受托人通过 Rule 2004 调查传票向郭女士和 HK USA 寻求证据开示的许多相同事项。最恶劣的是，受托人针对郭女士和 HK USA 提起了判决前救济申请以查封其各自资产，并针对郭女士提起了实质上寻求相同救济的禁令申请，同时还提出强制作出动议，以通过第 2004 条强迫提交涉及郭女士和 HK USA 个人资产等（inter alia）大范围信息。\n\n55. 郭女士及 HK USA（香港美国）有权获得《Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（联邦破产诉讼程序规则）》和《Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼程序规则）》的保护。参见 In re Enron Corp.（安然公司破产案），281 B.R. 836，第 841 页（“基于第 2004 条规则的实质性差异，法院已表达了关切，即第 2004 条规则的调查不得被用作规避《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》保障措施的策略。”）。绝不能允许受托人通过利用第 2004 条规则获取明显意图用于对抗性诉讼（Adversary Proceeding）的证据开示，从而绕开上述规则，若非利用第 2004 条规则，受托人本无权获得该等证据开示。因此，针对郭女士及 HK USA 的强制开示动议应予以驳回，并应责令受托人在 HK Adversary（香港对抗性诉讼）中寻求针对他们的任何额外证据开示，包括通过本动议所寻求的证据开示。\n\nD. 债务人的完整护照与本案无关\n\n56. 受托人寻求取得债务人的完整护照，因为根据受托人的说法，知悉债务人的旅行轨迹可以让受托人了解债务人在何处拥有资产。受托人的逻辑完全存在缺陷。即使债务人拥有资产，也不能必然得出因为债务人去过某地，他在该地就拥有资产的结论。事实上，若将受托人的论点推导至其逻辑终点，受托人将有权每周 7 天、每天 24 小时监控债务人的一举一动，仅仅寄希望于债务人的行踪可能会碰巧引导受托人找到债务人据称隐匿的资产。债务人是破产程序中的债务人，而不是逃犯；受托人是破产受托人，而不是赏金猎人。受托人无权获取债务人的完整护照，其强制作出披露的企图应予以驳回。11\n\n11 债务人仅提供了其护照的首页，原因仅在于该页作为附件附在已披露的债务人纳税申报表中。\n\n综上所述，债务人、郭女士及 HK USA 谨请法院\n\n驳回本动议，并依公平正义所必需向其授予其他及进一步的救济。\n\n日期：2022年11月14日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），对抗性诉讼原告、反诉被告兼动议人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司），以及对抗性诉讼反诉被告兼动议人 Mei Guo（郭美）\n\n/s/ James M. Moriarty\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nJames M. Moriarty (ct21876)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5485\n电子邮箱：aromney@zeislaw.com\nJmoriarty@zeislaw.com\n\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于 2022年11月14日，上述文书的一份副本已通过电子方式归档。此归档通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运作以电子邮件形式发送给所有各方当事人，或按照电子归档通知上的指示，通过邮寄方式发送给任何无法接收电子归档的人员。各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅此份归档文件。\n\n/s/ James M. Moriarty\nJames M. Moriarty (ct21876)","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":8183,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:08:51"}