{"id":"court_sdny_1541_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":1541,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2023-03-13","title":"SDNY ECF 1541","summary_zh":"撤销传票动议 —— 美国破产法院康州地区，Ho Wan Kwok 等破产案 22-50073，ECF #1541（2023年3月13日）。喜马拉雅投资有限责任公司主张遭破产受托人错误指控，该实体与破产债务人无关联；法院认定传票不合理、侵扰性，予以撤销并颁布保护令。","summary_en":"Motion to quash subpoena — United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073, ECF #1541 (March 13, 2023). Himalaya Investment LLC, an Arizona entity unrelated to debtor, challenges subpoena as wrongly directed; court finds subpoena unreasonable and oppressive, grants motion to quash and issues protective order.","body_en":"Richard N. Freeth Freeth & Associates, LLC 260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor New York, New York 10016 (917) 775-7082\n\nAttorneys for Himalaya Investment LLC\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nIn Re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al. Chapter 11\n\nCase No.: 22-50073(JAM)\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\n## **NOTICE OF HIMALAYA INVESTMENT LLC'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA**\n\nDebtor.\n\nTO: Patrick R. Linsey, Esq. NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church St., 13th Floor New Haven, CT 05610 Attorneys for Trustee\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut\n\nHimalaya Investment LLC (the \"Movant\"), an Arizona registered limited liability company, by and through undersigned counsel, Richard N. Freeth, hereby files this motion (the \"Motion\") for entry of an order, to quash the subpoena issued by the Trustee in the above-captioned matter, dated January 24, 2023 (the \"Subpoena\"), attached hereto as \"Exhibit A,\" and represents in support hereof as follows:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n**1.** The Trustee, in disregard of the Federal Rules regarding the serving of subpoenas upon non-parties, has sent an overbroad and unduly burdensome set of demands, and demand -- on an erroneous party -- to appear at a counsel's offices in New York, NY, to the Movant -- a limited liability company registered in Arizona, owned by an Arizona resident, and its only business address in Arizona. Notably, more than 100 miles from this Honorable Court. On this basis alone the subpoena must be quashed.\n\n**2.** Further, the Trustee, or his Counsel, have failed to perform to that level of professionalism expected of Federally appointed trustees, in that they failed to perform sufficient due diligence to confirm the identity of the Movant before serving them with an overbroad and unduly burdensome set of discovery demands, as the Movant is in no way connected to the Debtor, or the Creditors, or any asset, claim or item subject to the proceedings in this action.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n**3.** This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334(b). Venue of these cases and this Motion in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (2).\n\n**4.** The legal predicates for the relief requested herein are Rule 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\").\n\n## **FACTS**\n\n**5.** Himalaya Investment LLC is composed of one Member, Jiaming Liu,1 who also serves as the Manager and Organizer.\n\n**6.** The Movant's sole principal does not have any knowledge or information regarding the business(es) of the Debtor at any time prior to the Petition Date or at present.\n\n**7.** The Movant has had no prior contact with any of the parties.\n\n**8.** Mr. Liu, the sole member of the Movant, immigrated from China to the USA in December 2010 at the age of 23.\n\n**9.** In the last two years, Mr. Liu has worked as a delivery driver with a monthly income at around \\$3000.\n\n<sup>1</sup> Mr. Liu has previously moved for the same relief, but for himself personally. Counsel for the Trustee has suggested that the subpoena served on Mr. Liu for the LLC are not covered by the first motion filed by your Undersigned. Therefore, despite efforts to save the filing of yet another motion, Mr. Liu is compelled to file the instant motion as a formality in light of the fact that the Trustee served a separate subpoena on Mr. Liu's LLC and has a short while ago indicated that he, through Trustee's Counsel, is unwilling to negotiate to resolve the issues surrounding these two subpoenas with Undersigned Counsel as one issue, and will in this instance stand on formalities.\n\n**10.** On December 22, 2022, Mr. Liu received a two-pound package of nearly four hundred pages of documents from Defendants. Mr. Liu thought the delivery was a mistake.\n\n**11.** Then, on January 20, 2023, Mr. Liu received a FedEx delivery of a Connecticut Bankruptcy Court order, dated January 13, 2023, which provided for limitations against certain individuals and entities from engaging in protests against certain parties involved in this proceeding, and other related individuals and entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n**12.** On January 23, 2023, Mr. Liu made a phone call to 203-821-2000. He was connected to the Trustee's office at the offices of Paul Hastings. Mr. Liu tried to explain to the Trustee's office that he was not the person they were looking for, that his company was not the company the trustee should go after, and that the trustee's office must have made a mistake.\n\n**13.** Rather than listen to Mr. Liu, the Trustee's lawyer's office confirmed Mr. Liu's name and address, but otherwise did not answer any further questions, nor acknowledge Mr. Liu's protestation that he was not connected to these proceedings, or the entities or individuals involved, in any way.\n\n**14.** On the very next day, on January 24, 2022, around 2:00 pm MST, Mr. Liu was served with the subpoena by a court officer from Maricopa County Superior Court, Tonya Arruda.\n\n**15.** As a result of this repeated and gratuitous service of a massive set of documents on Mr. Liu, he started to panic. He could not focus his attention for the remaining of the day and becoming fearful, anxious and disoriented. Indeed, during this period, while operating his vehicle, a 2015 Toyota Prius near his residence in Scottsdale Arizona, Mr. Liu was unable to focus his attention because of his concerns on being subpoenaed. As a result of such disorientation, Mr. Liu failed to yield from a stop sign and hit the vehicle from the opposing direction.\n\n**16.** The Movant's principal suspects that he and his LLC were served the respective Subpoena because Mr. Liu employed the word \"Himalaya\" (the highest and maybe most famous mountain range in the world). The Movant was registered Himalaya Investment LLC in June 2020. The Movant does not know Ho Wan Kwok. Movant does not follow the Whistleblower Movement, with which Ho Wan Kwok is associated. Even though service of the subpoenas on Mr. Liu, and on the Movant, was improper, Mr. Liu and the Movant have indicated to the Trustee, through its Counsel, that Mr. Liu is willing, in lieu of being deposed and etc., to provide an affidavit indicating that he does not know any of the persons or entities listed in the subpoenas, and has no documents responsive to any of the requests. It would appear that this is not acceptable to the Trustee.\n\n#### **RECIPIENT SHOULD BE AWARDED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS**\n\n**17.** The Court should impose sanctions against the Trustee under Federal Rule 45 because he did not take any reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense to Movant. Under Federal Rule 45(d)(1), \"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.\" Further, \"[t]he 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.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). \"Under Rule 45(d)(1), a court must conduct a two-part inquiry to determine: (1) whether the challenged subpoena imposed an undue burden or expense on the person(s) subject thereto; and (2) if so, what, if any, 'reasonable steps' the subpoenaing party and its counsel took to avoid imposing such a burden.\" Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197754, at \\*14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2015) (imposing sanctions because the subpoenas \"were not reasonably tailored to produce information relevant to [the]\" case and they should not have been issued). \"The burden falls upon the serving party to prove that it has complied with this mandate.\" In re Faiella, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1452, at \\*13 (Bankr. D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2008).\n\n**18.** Here, the Trustee took no steps to avoid imposing an undue burden. It was utter disregard to the Movant as a person, and disrespect for his time, and energy, and financial situation.\n\n**19.** The Movant even called the Trustee's firm to explain how they had the wrong person, and he was utterly ignored. Rather than check their information, the Trustee has the Movant served with the same mass of documents via in-person service.\n\n4\n\n**20.** Here, the only due diligence criteria used by the Trustee and or Trustee's Counsel to serve these subpoenas would appear to have been the use of the name of most famous mountain chain in the world in a corporate entity. That is all. As a result, they intend to put someone under oath and compel him to answer invasive personal questions, spending his time and resources, and delve into his non-public business affairs. Who do these people think they are? What's the real motivation here? Intimidation of Mr. Liu for some other reason? Is it racially motivated? Your Undersigned can only speculate at this time.\n\n**21.** Sanctions under Federal Rule 45(d)(1) are meant to protect parties from the misuse of subpoenas. \"Sanctions are properly imposed, and attorney's fees are awarded where\" the party improperly issuing the subpoena \"refused to withdraw it, requiring the non-party to institute a motion to quash.\" Breaking Media, Inc. v. Jowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67473, at \\*18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021).\n\n**22.** The undersigned contacted the law offices of Newbert, Pepe & Monteith, listed at the attorney representing the Trustee, February 15, 2023 and February 20, 2023 in an effort to negotiate a stipulation in lieu of this motion, and Trustee's counsel declined to participate in any meaningful way, thus obligating the filing of this motion.\n\nDated: March 13, 2023 Freeth & Associates, LLC\n\nBy:\n\nRichard N. Freeth\n\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10016 (917)775-7082\n\nAttorneys for Himalaya Investment LLC\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1541 Filed 03/13/23 Entered 03/13/23 15:16:31 Page 6 of 6\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n*--------------------------------------------------------------------X*\n\nIn Re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al. Chapter 11\n\nCase No.: 22-50073(JAM)\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nDebtor.\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\nThis matter having come on before the Court on the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed on behalf of Himalaya Investment LLC. The parties appeared by and through their respective counsel of record.\n\nThe Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, including all of the records, files, and proceedings herein, finds that the Subpoena is unreasonable, oppressive, and without merit.\n\nIT IS ORDERED that the Subpoena dated January 24, 2023, and served on Himalaya Investment LLC, is QUASHED. THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED.","body_zh":"Richard N. Freeth\nFreeth & Associates, LLC\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor\nNew York, New York 10016\n(917) 775-7082\n\nHimalaya Investment LLC 代理律师\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\nHIMALAYA INVESTMENT LLC 撤销传票动议之通知\n\n债务人。\n\n致：Patrick R. Linsey, Esq.\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church St., 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 05610\n受托人代理律师\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\nHimalaya Investment LLC（下称“动议人”），一家在亚利桑那州注册的有限责任公司，由下述署名律师 Richard N. Freeth 代表，特此提出本动议（下称“本动议”），请求作出裁定，以撤销受托人在上述标题案件中于 2023 年 1 月 24 日签发的传票（下称“该传票”，作为“附件 A”附于本文件），并为此陈述理由如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人罔顾有关向非当事人送达传票的《联邦民事诉讼规则》，向动议人——一家在亚利桑那州注册、由亚利桑那州居民拥有、且其唯一营业地址位于亚利桑那州的有限责任公司——发出了范围过宽且负担过重的要求清单，并要求——向错误的当事人要求——前往位于纽约州纽约市的一家律师事务所出庭。显而易见，该地点距离本受尊敬的法院超过 100 英里。仅凭这一点，该传票就必须予以撤销。\n\n2. 此外，受托人或其代理律师未能达到联邦指定受托人应有的专业水准，因为他们在向动议人送达范围过宽且负担过重的证据开示要求之前，未能进行充分的尽职调查以核实动议人的身份，盖因动议人与债务人、债权人，或本诉讼程序所涉之任何资产、主张或标的物均无任何关联。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n3. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334(b)，本法院对本案具有管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，本案及本动议在本司法管辖区的审判地是适当的。依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)，本案属于核心程序。\n\n4. 本文所请求之救济的法律依据为《联邦破产诉讼规则》（下称“《破产规则》”）第 9016 条及《联邦民事诉讼规则》（下称“《联邦规则》”）第 45 条。\n\n事实\n\n5. Himalaya Investment LLC 由唯一成员 Jiaming Liu（刘佳明）1 组成，其同时担任经理（Manager）及设立人（Organizer）。\n\n6. 动议人的唯一负责人对于债务人在申请破产日前或目前的业务概不知情，亦无任何相关信息。\n\n7. 动议人此前与任何当事人均无接触。\n\n8. 刘先生作为动议人的唯一成员，于 2010 年 12 月以 23 岁之龄自中国移民至美国。\n\n9. 在过去两年中，刘先生一直从事外卖送货司机工作，月收入约为 $3000。\n\n1 刘先生此前曾以个人名义提出过相同的救济动议。受托人的代理律师表示，向刘先生个人送达的有关有限责任公司的传票并未涵盖在下述署名律师提交的第一份动议中。因此，尽管极力避免再次提交动议，但鉴于受托人向刘先生的有限责任公司单独送达了一份传票，且不久前表示其（通过受托人代理律师）不愿与下述署名律师将这两份传票的相关问题作为一个整体问题进行协商解决，并在此情况下坚持走形式程序，刘先生不得不以走形式的方式提交本动议。\n\n10. 2022 年 12 月 22 日，刘先生收到了来自被告的一份重达两磅、近四百页的文件包裹。刘先生以为这属于投递错误。\n\n11. 随后，在 2023 年 1 月 20 日，刘先生通过联邦快递收到了一份日期为 2023 年 1 月 13 日的康涅狄格区破产法院裁定，该裁定限制某些个人和实体对参与本程序的某些当事人以及与中国共产党有关联的其他相关个人和实体发起抗议活动。\n\n12. 2023 年 1 月 23 日，刘先生致电 203-821-2000。电话接通至位于 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）办事处的受托人办公室。刘先生试图向受托人办公室解释，他不是他们要找的人，他的公司不是受托人应该追查的公司，受托人办公室肯定是弄错了。\n\n13. 受托人的律师办公室非但没有听取刘先生的陈述，反而核对了刘先生的姓名和地址，但对其他任何问题均未予解答，亦未理会刘先生关于其与本案程序或所涉实体或个人毫无关联的申辩。\n\n14. 就在次日，即 2022 年 1 月 24 日北美山区标准时间下午 2:00 左右，来自 Maricopa County Superior Court（马里科帕县高等法院）的法院执行官员 Tonya Arruda 向刘先生送达了传票。\n\n15. 这一连串针对刘先生重复且无理送达大量文件的行为导致他开始恐慌。他在当天余下的时间里无法集中注意力，变得恐惧、焦虑和心神不宁。事实上，在此期间，刘先生在亚利桑那州斯科茨代尔的住所附近驾驶其车辆（一辆 2015 年款丰田普锐斯）时，因担心被传唤而无法集中注意力。由于这种精神恍惚状态，刘先生未能按停车标志让行，撞上了对向行驶的车辆。\n\n16. 动议人的负责人怀疑，他及其有限责任公司之所以被送达各自的传票，是因为刘先生使用了“Himalaya”（喜马拉雅，世界上最高、也许是最著名的山脉）这个词。动议人于 2020 年 6 月注册为 Himalaya Investment LLC。动议人并不认识 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。动议人也不关注与郭文贵相关的爆料革命（Whistleblower Movement）。尽管向刘先生及动议人送达传票是不当的，但刘先生和动议人已通过其代理律师向受托人表示，为了替代接受出庭作证等程序，刘先生愿意提供一份宣誓书，声明其不认识传票中列出的任何个人或实体，并且没有任何符合任何调取要求的文件。看来受托人对此并不接受。\n\n应向接收人裁定给付律师费和诉讼费用\n\n17. 法院应依据《联邦规则》第 45 条对受托人实施制裁，因为他未采取任何合理措施来避免给动议人造成过重负担或费用。根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45(d)(1) 条，“负责签发和送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，避免给受传票传唤之人造成过重负担或费用。”此外，“要求履行义务之所在地区的法院必须强制执行该项职责，并对未能履行的当事人或律师施以适当制裁——包括误工收入损失和合理的律师费。”Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)。“根据第 45(d)(1) 条，法院必须进行两项审查以确定：(1) 受质疑的传票是否给受传唤之人造成了过重负担或费用；以及 (2) 如果是，发出传票的当事人及其律师采取了何种‘合理措施’（如有）以避免造成此类负担。”Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197754, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2015)（实施制裁，因为传票“并非为了产生与[该]案相关的信息而进行了合理的针对性剪裁”，且根本不应签发）。“证明其已遵守该项指令的举证责任由送达方承担。”In re Faiella, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1452, at *13 (Bankr. D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2008)。\n\n18. 在本案中，受托人没有采取任何措施来避免造成过重负担。这是对动议人人格的彻底蔑视，也是对其时间、精力以及财务状况的不尊重。\n\n19. 动议人甚至致电受托人的律师事务所，解释他们找错了人，但他被彻底无视了。受托人没有去核实其信息，反而让动议人通过当面送达的方式接收了同样堆积如山的文件。\n\n20. 在本案中，受托人和/或受托人代理律师用于送达这些传票的唯一尽职调查标准，似乎就是在公司实体名称中使用了世界上最著名山脉的名字。仅此而已。结果就是，他们打算强迫他人宣誓作证，强迫其回答具有侵犯性的个人问题，消耗其时间和资源，并调查其非公开的商业事务。这些人以为他们是谁？这背后的真实动机是什么？是出于某种其他原因恐吓刘先生吗？是出于种族动机吗？下述署名律师目前只能予以推测。\n\n21. 《联邦规则》第 45(d)(1) 条规定的制裁旨在保护当事人免受滥用传票之害。“在不当签发传票的一方‘拒绝撤回传票，迫使非当事人提起撤销动议时’，施以制裁并判给律师费是正当的。”Breaking Media, Inc. v. Jowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67473, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021)。\n\n22. 署名律师于 2023 年 2 月 15 日和 2023 年 2 月 20 日联系了作为受托人代理律师列名的 Newbert, Pepe & Monteith 律师事务所，试图通过协商达成一项约定以替代提起本动议，但受托人的代理律师拒绝以任何有意义的方式参与，从而迫使提交本动议。\n\n日期：2023 年 3 月 13 日\nFreeth & Associates, LLC\n\n签署人：\n\nRichard N. Freeth\n\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.\nNew York, NY 10016\n(917)775-7082\n\nHimalaya Investment LLC 代理律师\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1541 提交于 03/13/23 录入于 03/13/23 15:16:31 第 6 页，共 6 页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n_________________\n\n债务人。\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\n本案系因代表 Himalaya Investment LLC 提起的撤销传票动议而提交本法院审理。各方当事人均已由其各自的记录在案代理律师代表出庭。\n\n法院经审议各方当事人提交的文件，包括本案的所有记录、卷宗及诉讼程序，认定该传票是不合理的、压迫性的且缺乏依据的。\n\n兹裁定：于 2023 年 1 月 24 日签发并送达至 Himalaya Investment LLC 的传票予以撤销。保护令动议予以准许。","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1772,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:27:37"}