{"id":"court_sdny_2098_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":2098,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 2098","summary_zh":"破产诉讼异议书 —— 美国康州破产法院，Ho Wan Kwok等人破产案，案号22-50073，ECF 2098（2023年8月18日）。Greenwich Land, LLC及其负责人Hing Chi Ngok对破产管理人提出的第2004规则发现动议提出异议，主张该等发现应在相关对抗诉讼框架内进行，而非管理人单方秘密查证。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy adversary proceeding objection — United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, Ho Wan Kwok bankruptcy case, Case No. 22-50073, ECF 2098 (August 18, 2023). Greenwich Land, LLC and Hing Chi Ngok objected to the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion for Rule 2004 discovery, arguing such discovery should proceed in the related adversary proceeding under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not through unilateral trustee inquiry.","body_en":"### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nx : : : : : : :\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.\n\n# **GREENWICH LAND, LLC'S AND HING CHI NGOK'S OBJECTION TO THE CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR RULE 2004 DISCOVERY**\n\nParties-in-Interest and Defendants in Adversary Proceeding No. 23-05005 (the \"Adversary Proceeding\") Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\") and Hing Chi Ngok (\"Ms. Guo\" and together with Greenwich Land, \"Defendants\") respectfully submit this objection to Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins' (the \"Trustee\") Sixth Supplemental Omnibus Motion for Entry of an Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Authorizing Discovery (the \"Rule 2004 Motion\") (ECF 2079).\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. The Trustee filed the Adversary Proceeding against Defendants alleging Ms. Guo is not the real owner of Greenwich Land, but rather that her husband the Debtor Ho Wan Kwok (\"Debtor\") is the true equitable owner. The Trustee obtained an *ex parte* attachment and *ex parte* temporary restraining order against Defendants in the Adversary Proceeding based on his sworn certification that he possessed sufficient evidence for the extraordinary relief.\n\n2. Despite this prior representation, the Trustee now seeks permission to serve twenty (20) Rule 2004 subpoenas for discovery directly related to the Adversary Proceeding, namely documents and communications with or concerning Ms. Guo or Greenwich Land, and discovery related to assets of Ms. Guo or Greenwich Land that the Trustee alleges in the Adversary Proceeding are property of the Debtor's estate, including real property located at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut (the \"Taconic Property\"), and 33 Ferncliff Road, Cos Cob, Connecticut (the \"Ferncliff Property\"). These are the precise properties and issues the Trustee used as the basis for the Adversary Proceeding. *See* Adversary Proceeding (ECF 1), at ¶¶2-4, 10- 11, 27-53, 55.\n\n3. Having commenced the Adversary Proceeding against Defendants, all discovery related to the Trustee's allegations against Defendants, including without limitation financial discovery related to Greenwich Land and Ms. Guo, and requests for discovery related to the Taconic Property, the Ferncliff Property, or any other of Defendants' assets the Trustee contends are Estate property must be conducted in the Adversary Proceeding pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\").\n\n4. Similarly, all discovery related to claims that fall within the scope of the Adversary Proceeding, including the Trustee's claim under Delaware law that Greenwich Land is the Debtor's alter ego, must be conducted within the confines of the Adversary Proceeding and subject to the safeguards provided by the Federal Rules, including Defendants' participatory rights. The purpose of Rule 2004 is to allow the Trustee to determine whether to initiate an adversary proceeding, not a means for the Trustee to conduct a secret fishing expedition in search of evidence he hopes to use against Defendants in the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee cannot circumvent the Federal Rules and cannot continue to conceal evidence from Defendants.\n\n5. During the parties' meet-and-confers the Trustee confirmed that he will not produce responsive non-privileged documents to Defendants if those documents were produced to the Trustee in response to a Rule 2004 subpoena. The Trustee contends that he is entitled to assert work-product privilege over a third party's documents related to or concerning Defendants and\n\nDefendants' assets. The Trustee further contends that he is vested with the right to selectively \"waive\" privilege over a self-selected set of documents produced by third parties. The Trustee is wrong as a matter of law. The work-product privilege is limited to materials prepared by counsel, which contain counsel's legal analysis, conclusions, theory or strategy. The work-product privilege does not extend to non-privileged documents produced by third parties pursuant to publicly filed subpoenas, including the proposed subpoenas the Trustee publicly filed as exhibits to his Rule 2004 Motion. *See* Rule 2004 Motion, Exs. B and C-1 to C-20. A publicly filed subpoena is not protected work-product, nor are documents produced by a third party in response to such a subpoena. The Trustee is conducting traditional discovery in the guise of a Rule 2004 \"investigation\" to justify his untenable position that he is entitled to conceal relevant and responsive discovery from Defendants.\n\n6. Further, the Trustee is using the Rule 2004 Motion to conduct discovery beyond the expedited discovery timetable set forth in the Court's scheduling order in the Adversary Proceeding (the \"Scheduling Order\"). *See* Adversary Proceeding (ECF 56). The Scheduling Order provides that all \"Written Discovery Requests…shall be served by the Parties on or before June 13, 2023,\" and that \"supplemental Written Discovery Requests\" may be served \"based on newly discovered information or developments in the litigation.\" *Id*., ¶2. Further, the \"deadline for the completion of all fact discovery, including deposition discovery and Written Discovery Requests…shall be September 5, 2023.\" *Id*., ¶3. The Rule 2004 Motion flouts the Scheduling Order. The Trustee asks the Court to ignore the Scheduling Order and grant the Trustee an indefinite extension to conduct unilateral discovery into Defendants' assets and finances well beyond the discovery cut-off date, in secret, and outside of Defendants' purview. The Trustee is bound by the same rules and orders as Defendants. Having imposed a compressed discovery schedule on the parties in the Adversary Proceeding just months ago (the deadline for which is September 5, 2023), the Court should not now endorse the Trustee's unilateral demand to engage in an open-ended Rule 2004 fishing expedition for evidence against Defendants for use in the Adversary Proceeding.\n\n7. Contrary to the Trustee's belief, Rule 2004 does not give the Trustee the unfettered right to conduct shadow discovery related to the exact same assets and issues that are the subject of the Adversary Proceeding. Virtually every single discovery request contained in the Trustee's twenty (20) proposed Rule 2004 subpoenas seeks documents and information related to Greenwich Land, Ms. Guo, the Taconic Property and the Ferncliff Property. The Trustee offers no explanation for why discovery related to parties, assets and issues the Trustee alleges are relevant to the Adversary Proceeding are the proper subject of a Rule 2004 subpoena.\n\n8. The Court should deny the Rule 2004 Motion in its entirety and order the Trustee to proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules. In the alternative, the Trustee should be ordered to disclose to Defendants all documents related to Greenwich Land, Ms. Guo, and any issue the Trustee raised in the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee is misguided in his belief that he is above the Federal Rules, or that he is entitled to create new rules to conceal material and responsive discovery from parties the Trustee has sued in the Adversary Proceeding. The Court should not endorse the Trustee's continued abuse of Rule 2004 and the Federal Rules. The Trustee is a civil litigant and should be held to the same rules and standards as every other civil litigant in every civil litigation.\n\n#### **RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n9. The Trustee commenced this Adversary Proceeding on March 27, 2023 (*see*  Adversary Proceeding, ECF 1). The same day, the Trustee made his *ex parte* PJR Application\n\npursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-278e(a) (\"PJR Application\") (*id*., ECF 11), and *ex parte* PI Motion (including for a TRO) (*id*., ECF 12). The PJR Application and PI Motion both seek similar relief to attach the Taconic Property and to enjoin Defendants from taking any action to encumber or transfer the Taconic Property. (*id*., ECF 4, ¶2 (PJR Application); ECF 12, ¶¶1-2 (Motion)). On March 28, 2023, the Court entered the Trustee's proposed order and granted the PJR Application (the \"PJR Order\" (*id*., ECF 15)). The same day, the Court granted the Trustee's Motion for an *ex parte* temporary restraining order (\"TRO\") and set a hearing on the Trustee's PI Motion (*id*., ECF 14), which hearing is now scheduled to commence on May 30, 2023.\n\n10. On August 11, 2023, the Trustee filed his Rule 2004 Motion, attaching twenty (20) proposed Rule 2004 subpoenas (the \"Proposed Subpoenas\"). *See* Rule 2004 Motion, Exs. B and C-1 to C-20. The Proposed Subpoenas confirm that the Trustee is seeking discovery related to Defendants and the subject matter of the Adversary Proceeding.\n\n11. The Proposed Subpoenas include the following defined terms related to Defendants and assets the Trustee alleges in the Adversary Proceeding are Estate assets:\n\n- a. \"Debtor's Purported Wife means Hing Chi Ngok (a/k/a Hing Chi Ng, Yu Qingzhi, 岳庆芝, or any other alias), together with her employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on her behalf.\" *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, Ex. C-1, p.8.\n- b. \"Debtor's Family means, collectively, the Debtor, the Debtor's Son, the Debtor's Daughter, and the Debtor's Purported Wife, and any other familial relation to the Debtor.\" *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, Ex. C-1, p.8.\n- c. The term \"Associated Individuals\" is defined to include \"all individuals\" that: (1) \"hold, control, have custody over, or discretion over assets owned,\n\ncontrolled, or enjoyed\" by Ms. Guo; or (2) \"have been employees, directors, other otherwise are affiliated with\" Greenwich Land \"together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing.\" *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, Ex. C-1, pp.8-9.\n\nd. The term \"Associated Entities\" is defined to include \"individually and collectively, all organizations or Entities of any type that (1) have been owned controlled, or invested in by\" Ms. Guo; or (2) \"have an interest, whether directly or indirectly, in any assets owned, controlled or enjoyed by\" Ms. Guo, \"together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing.\" *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, Ex. C-1, p.9.\n\n12. All discovery related to Ms. Guo and Greenwich Land must be conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules and in the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee cannot use the guise of Rule 2004 discovery to conceal evidence related to Ms. Guo and Greenwich Land from Ms. Guo and Greenwich Land.\n\n13. In addition, the Proposed Subpoenas include dozens of requests targeted at Defendants and Defendants' assets that are the subject of the Adversary Proceeding, including the Taconic Property and Ferncliff Property. Below are a handful of such examples.\n\n> a. Each Proposed Subpoena includes requests targeted at Ms. Guo, who the Trustee disingenuously defines as the \"Debtor's Purported Wife,\" although the Trustee has been aware for months that Ms. Guo has been legally married to the Debtor for decades. *See, e.g.,* Rule 2004 Motion, pp. 34, 53, 72, 89, 106, 123, 140, 157, 174, 193, 210, 230, 249, 268, 285, 305, 324, 344, 364, 384. The Trustee's continued attacks against Ms. Guo's marriage, which appear to stem\n\nfrom a misapprehension of fact or lack of respect for marriages conducted under foreign law, have no purpose other than to demean and humiliate Ms. Guo.\n\n- b. The Proposed Subpoenas to (1) 17 Miles, LLC and (2) GS Security Solutions Inc. seek the following documents and information: \"All documents regarding any property ever occupied or used by the Debtor, including without limitation…the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 373 Taconic Rd. [and] the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 33 Ferncliff Rd….\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp.40 (Request No. 6), 180 (Request No. 6).\n- c. The Proposed Subpoenas to (1) Ana C. Izquiedo-Henn; (2) Limarie Reyes; (3) Linwan \"Irene\" Feng; (4) Ross Heinemeyer; (5) Zhuoer \"Joe\" Wang seek the following documents and information: \"All Documents regarding any property ever occupied or used by the Debtor, including without limitation the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 373 Taconic Rd. [and] the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 33 Ferncliff Rd….\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp.59 (Request No. 7), 236 (Request No. 7), 255 (Request No. 7), 311 (Request No. 7); 390 (Request No. 7).\n- d. The Proposed Subpoenas to (1) Axos Bank and/or Axos Financial, Inc.; (2) Bank of Montreal; (3) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and/or CIBC Ind. (d/b/a/ CIBC); (4) Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (d/b/a/ Charles Schwab); (5) Comerica Incorporated (d/b/a Comerica Bank); (6) East West Bank and/or East West Bancorp, Inc.; (7) Investors Bank and/or Citizens Financial Group, Inc.; (8) Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (d/b/a Morgan Stanley) (collectively\n\nthe \"Bank Subpoenas\") define the \"2004 Discovery Targets\" to include \"Greenwich Land LLC,\" of which Ms. Guo is the sole member. *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 72, 89, 106, 123, 140, 157, 193, 268.\n\n- e. Each of the Bank Subpoenas then includes the following requests for documents and information:\n\t- i. \"All Documents related to any account held by, controlled by, on behalf of, or otherwise related to…[Greenwich Land], including any and all account statements, authorizations, power of attorney, trusts, instructions or forms, copies of cancelled checks, correspondence, and wire transfers and related correspondence and instructions.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 76, 89, 93, 110, 127, 144, 161, 197, 272.\n\t- ii. \"All documents related to any funds, securities, property, or assets belonging to, held by, controlled by, on behalf of, or otherwise related to…[Greenwich Land], including any and all account statements, authorizations, powers of attorney, trusts, instructions or forms, copies of cancelled checks, correspondence, and wire transfers and related correspondence and instructions.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 76, 89, 93, 110, 127, 144, 161, 197, 272.\n\t- iii. \"All Documents related to any business, commerce or financial transactions, including but not limited to any loan, line of credit, bailment, deposit, swap, securities transactions, mortgage, or ISDA, with…[Greenwich Land] including any and all account statements, authorizations, powers of attorney, trusts, instructions or forms, copies\n\nof cancelled checks, correspondence, and wire transfers and related correspondence and instructions.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 76, 89, 93, 110, 127, 144, 161, 197, 272.\n\n- iv. \"All Documents relating to any wire transfer activity relating to [Greenwich Land] regardless of the existence of any accounts, including but not limited to all wire transfer receipts, account numbers, balances, authorizations, identification information related to the parties to the transfer, correspondence, instructions, or other records.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 76-77, 93-94, 110-111, 127-128, 144-145, 161-162, 197- 198, 272-273.\n- v. \"All Documents related to any correspondence and communications between you and [Greenwich Land].\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 77, 94, 111, 128, 145, 162, 198, 273.\n- vi. \"All Documents related to any account with [Greenwich Land] relating to opening of the account, authorized users of the account and maintenance of the account.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 77, 94, 111, 128, 145, 162, 198, 273.\n- vii. \"All Documents related to any anti-money laundering, know-yourcustomer, or other compliance activity relating to [Greenwich Land], including but not limited to any information provided by any of [Greenwich Land], or learned by You.\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 77, 94, 111, 128, 145, 162, 198, 273.\n- viii. \"All Documents relating to any communications with any regulator from any country, including but not limited to the Bank of England, the United States Federal Reserve, the S.E.C., the CFTC, FINRA, China Securities Regulatory Commission, People's Bank of China, Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority relating to…[Greenwich Land].\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp. 72, 89, 106, 123, 140, 157, 193, 268.\n- f. The Proposed Subpoenas to (1) Joshua I. Sherman; (2) Nicholas F. Savio; (3) Savio Law LLC; (4) V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A.; (5) Victor Cerda each request: \"All Documents regarding…the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut, at 373 Taconic Rd.; the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut, at 33 Ferncliff Rd.;…and any financial interest that the Debtor or the Debtor's estate possesses in [Greenwich Land].\" *See* Rule 2004 Motion at pp.216 (Request No. 10), 291 (Request No. 10), 330 (Request No. 10), 350 (Request No. 10), 370 (Request No. 10).\n\n14. In addition, the Trustee acknowledges that his Rule 2004 Motion targets individuals and entities specifically for their purported knowledge related to Greenwich Land. *See* Rule 2004 Motion, p. 5. For example, the Trustee argues that Mr. Nicholas F. Savio and his law firm Savio Law LLC purportedly \"transferred millions of dollars to, among others, bank accounts controlled by Greenwich Land LLC….[and] [a]s such, Savio may have information, documents and records relating to Debtor and his business and financial affairs and transactions, which will aid the Trustee in his investigations.\" *Id*. There is no basis for the Trustee to seek information related to Greenwich Land outside the Adversary Proceeding. The speculative possibility that the requested discovery—if it exists—may have a collateral use is not good cause to justify broad Rule 2004 discovery.\n\n15. All documents and information produced in response to the above referenced Proposed Subpoenas are plainly directed at the core issues raised in the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee's proposed discovery is obviously intended to be used against Defendants in the Adversary Proceeding. The scope of the Proposed Subpoenas necessarily involve issues that form the crux of the Trustee's Adversary Proceeding, namely Ms. Guo, Greenwich Land, the Taconic Property and Ferncliff Property. All discovery related to Defendants and assets the Trustee alleges are Estate assets must be conducted within the confines of the Adversary Proceeding and pursuant to the Federal Rules. The Trustee has no cognizable basis to evade the Federal Rules. The Trustee should not be authorized to continue to violate Defendants' rights under the Federal Rules and Constitutional right to due process.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n16. \"Relevance alone is not sufficient to justify a Rule 2004 request. A party seeking to conduct a Rule 2004 examination must also show good cause, such as the proposed examination is necessary to establish the claim of the party seeking the examination, or denial of such request would cause the examiner undue hardship or injustice.\" *In re Sunedison, Inc*., 572 B.R. 482, 489 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017).\n\n17. The Court's prior order granting the Trustee's Fifth Supplemental Omnibus Motion for 2004 Examination (ECF 1891) focused on whether the target of a Rule 2004 subpoena is a party to a pending proceeding, but this narrow reading of the caselaw overlooks the key issue of scope and misapprehends the purpose of Rule 2004 discovery. *See* ECF 1891, p. 3.\n\n18. First, Rule 2004 is a *pre*-litigation device used to determine whether there are grounds to bring an adversary proceeding, not to conduct shadow discovery to obtain evidence for use in a pending adversary proceeding. *See In re Enron Corp*., 281 B.R. 836, 840-841 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (\"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\"). \"[O]nce an adversary proceeding or contested matter is commenced, discovery should be pursued under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not by Rule 2004.\" *Id*.; *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\").\n\n19. \"The pending proceeding rule is based on the different safeguards that attend Rule 2004 and civil litigation discovery, and reflects a concern that a party to litigation could circumvent his adversary's rights by using Rule 2004 rather than civil discovery to obtain documents or information relevant to the lawsuit.\" *In re Sunedison, Inc*., 572 B.R. at 489. The Trustee's continued pursuit of Rule 2004 discovery regarding the Taconic Property, the Ferncliff Property, Greenwich Land, and Ms. Guo—*months* after the Trustee commenced the Adversary Proceeding in March 2023—exemplifies improper, prohibited use of Rule 2004 discovery.\n\n20. Second, although the identity of the target of a Rule 2004 subpoena may be a relevant consideration, equally relevant is the scope and purpose of the Rule 2004 subpoena, including whether the movant seeks discovery on issues related to a pending adversary proceeding—which is precisely the Trustee's scope and purpose here. *See In re Baroni*, 2017 WL 4404141, \\*14 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) (\"Once an adversary proceeding is pending, the\n\nuse of Rule 2004 as a discovery mechanism related to the issues in the adversary proceeding is improper\"); *In re Alem*, 2013 WL 4840486, \\*1 (Bankr. D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2013) (\"Rule 2004 relief is generally unavailable to parties seeking to obtain discovery relating to pending litigation\").\n\n21. Indeed, \"[d]iscovery of evidence *related* to the pending proceeding must be accomplished in accord with the more restrictive provisions of [the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure]….Thus a trustee, like a creditor, must look to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 *et seq*. after an adversary proceeding is commenced for discovery as to both entities affected by the proceeding and issues addressed in the proceeding.\" *In re Bennett Funding Group Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 29 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996) (emphasis in original) (denying Rule 2004 motion where the \"subpoena as drafted by the Trustee would necessarily involve issues and parties within the scope of the adversary proceeding already initiated by the Trustee, and therefore the Trustee is limited to discovery…in accordance with…Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 *et seq*.\").\n\n22. Thus, it is \"more appropriate to focus on the relationship between the requesting party and the information and parties the examination has targeted\" rather than looking solely at whether the target of a Rule 2004 subpoena is a party to a pending proceeding. *In re Bennett Funding*, 203 B.R. at 30; *see also In re Southeastern Materials, Inc.*, 2010 WL 5128608, \\*3 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 2010) (\"In addition to parties 'involved in or affected by' a pending adversary proceeding,\" the rule against Rule 2004 discovery \"also applies to issues involved in ongoing litigation\").\n\n23. Where, as here, the discovery the Trustee seeks concerns \"issues addressed in the [adversary] proceeding,\" the proper course is to conduct discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules. *In re Bennett Funding*, 203 B.R. at 29. For example, \"where a party seeks to depose another party or a witness on an issue which is the subject of a pending adversary proceeding, the\n\nexamination cannot be conducted pursuant to Rule 2004, but must be conducted pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\" *In re 2435 Plainfield Ave., Inc.*, 223 B.R. 440, 456 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1998) (quashing Rule 2004 subpoenas served on non-debtors who were not a party to an adversary proceeding). A cramped reading that only limits Rule 2004 discovery against direct parties to an adversary proceeding, but permits broad discovery related to the subject matter and issues raised in an adversary proceeding violates the purpose and spirit of Rule 2004. *Id*. (\"Because the debtor seeks to depose Township officials on issues which are the subject of a pending adversary proceeding, the deposition cannot be conducted pursuant to Rule 2004, but must be conducted pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\").\n\n24. Furthermore, no evidence obtained pursuant to Rule 2004 subpoenas served after the Trustee filed the Adversary Proceeding should be admissible in the Adversary Proceeding. *See In re Anderson*, 17-adv-03008 (AMN) 2022 WL 1165002, \\*4-5 (Bankr. D. Conn. April 19, 2022) (holding that Rule 2004 examination transcripts of unavailable witnesses were inadmissible hearsay in an adversary proceeding commenced after the Rule 2004 examinations); *see also Geico Indemnity Co. v. Dionisio*, 12-cv-01137, 2016 WL 74390, \\*6 (D. Conn. Jan. 6, 2016) (testimony from separate lawsuit inadmissible where party in the present action did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness during the prior testimony).\n\n25. In the Adversary Proceeding, the Trustee seeks to dispossess Ms. Guo of her only residence, the Taconic Property. As detailed above, several of the Trustee's proposed discovery requests seek information directly related to the Taconic Property as well as Defendants' finances and other purported assets the Trustee contends are Estate property. *See supra* at ¶¶11-14. If the Trustee seeks information related to the Taconic Property, or any other discovery related to Defendants, the Trustee should pursue discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules.\n\n26. The Rule 2004 Motion should be denied on equitable grounds as well. The Trustee initially sought an expedited discovery schedule that set June 30, 2023, as the deadline to complete fact discovery. *See* **Exhibit 1** (June 1, 2023 Email to Clerk.). During the parties' meet and confer the Trustee rejected Defendants' request to set a reasonable scheduling order and repeatedly stated that he saw no need for much, if any, fact discovery. In fact, under the Trustee's proposed schedule, motions for summary judgment would have already been fully briefed and submitted, and trial in the Adversary Proceeding would have commenced less than one month from now, the week of September 11, 2023. *Id*.\n\n27. The Trustee now requests indefinite extension of time to conduct unilateral discovery related to Defendants and the Adversary Proceeding, months beyond the Trustee's proposed discovery deadline, and weeks and possibly months beyond the Court-ordered September 5, 2023 discovery cut-off date. The Court should see through the Trustee's transparent abuse of the discovery process and avoid a fundamentally unfair situation where the Trustee is conducting unilateral discovery concerning the Adversary Proceeding in the weeks before—and potentially *during*—trial in the Adversary Proceeding.\n\n28. The filing of the Adversary Proceeding itself eliminated the Trustee's ability to take Rule 2004 discovery concerning the subject matter of the Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee already obtained an attachment and injunction over the Taconic Property on an *ex parte* basis, relying on his sworn certification that he had sufficient evidence to warrant such drastic relief. Given how advanced the Trustee represents he is in his investigation concerning the subject matter of the Adversary Proceeding, it is even more egregious that he seeks to take additional secret discovery without Defendants' involvement and without being subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\n29. Defendants are entitled to participate in any discovery concerning the Adversary Proceeding, and that discovery must be governed by the Federal Rules. Moreover, to the extent the Trustee proceeds with discovery under Rule 2004 without Defendants' involvement, none of it should be admissible in the Adversary Proceeding. *In re Anderson*, 2022 WL 1165002, \\*5 (transcripts of 2004 examination were inadmissible hearsay where the examinations were not taken within the adversary proceeding and the parties to the adversary proceeding did not have a full and fair opportunity to participate and cross examine).\n\n#### **RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\n30. Defendants' objection to the Rule 2004 Motion is without prejudice to their pending Motion to Withdraw the Reference of the Adversary Proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court, and their position that the Bankruptcy Court lacks jurisdiction over the Adversary Proceeding. Defendants reserve all of their rights and remedies.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n31. The Court should deny the Trustee's Rule 2004 Motion. Defendants are entitled to participate in discovery for the Adversary Proceeding, which lawsuit carries enormous consequences for Ms. Guo and Greenwich Land. The Court should not permit the Trustee to carry on a fishing expedition outside of the Adversary Proceeding and without the guardrails provided under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants' declaration of their meet and confer efforts is **Exhibit 2**.\n\nDated: August 18, 2023 Stamford, Connecticut\n\n# **MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN PLLC**\n\n By: */s/ Christopher J. Major* Christopher J. Major, Esq. Austin D. Kim, Esq. 125 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 655-3500 Email: cjm@msf-law.com adk@msf-law.com\n\n *Attorneys for Greenwich Land, LLC and Hing Chi Ngok*\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on the 18th day of August, 2023, I caused the foregoing to be filed and\n\nserved on all appearing parties in this case via the Court's Electronic Case Filing System.\n\n By: */s/ Christopher J. Major* Christopher J. Major, Esq.","body_zh":"United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\nx : : : : : : :\n\n案件涉及：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等，\n\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nGreenwich Land, LLC 与 Hing Chi Ngok 对第11章受托人依据第2004条规则申请证据开示之第六次补充综合动议的异议\n\n第23-05005号对抗性诉讼（以下简称“对抗性诉讼”）中的利害关系方兼被告Greenwich Land, LLC（以下简称“Greenwich Land”）及Hing Chi Ngok（郭女士，与Greenwich Land合称“被告”），谨此对第11章受托人Luc A. Despins（以下简称“受托人”）提交的《关于依据破产规则第2004条准予证据开示之裁定/命令的第六次补充综合动议》（以下简称“《第2004条规则动议》”）（ECF 2079）提出异议。\n\n引言\n\n1. 受托人对被告提起了对抗性诉讼，声称郭女士并非Greenwich Land的真正所有人，而她的丈夫即债务人郭文贵（以下简称“债务人”）才是真正的衡平法所有人。受托人基于其关于其掌握支持该非常规救济之充分证据的宣誓证明，在对抗性诉讼中针对被告取得了单方财产扣押令及单方临时限制令。\n\n2. 尽管受托人此前曾作出上述陈述，但他现在却寻求许可送达二十（20）份第2004条规则传票，以进行与对抗性诉讼直接相关的证据开示，即涉及或关于郭女士或Greenwich Land的文件与通信，以及关于受托人在对抗性诉讼中声称属于债务人破产财产的郭女士或Greenwich Land资产的证据开示，包括位于373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林威治塔科尼克路373号）的房地产（以下简称“Taconic房产”）以及33 Ferncliff Road, Cos Cob, Connecticut（康涅狄格州科斯科布芬克利夫路33号）的房地产（以下简称“Ferncliff房产”）。这些正是受托人用作提起对抗性诉讼依据的确切财产和争议事项。参见对抗性诉讼（ECF 1）第2-4段、第10-11段、第27-53段、第55段。\n\n3. 既然已对被告提起了对抗性诉讼，所有与受托人对被告的指控相关的证据开示——包括但不限于涉及Greenwich Land和郭女士的财务证据开示，以及针对Taconic房产、Ferncliff房产或受托人主张属于破产财产的被告任何其他资产的证据开示请求——均必须依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（以下简称“《联邦规则》”）在对抗性诉讼中进行。\n\n4. 同样，所有涉及属于对抗性诉讼范围内主张的证据开示，包括受托人依据特拉华州法律主张Greenwich Land是债务人“另一个自我”（alter ego）的主张，均必须在对抗性诉讼的范围内进行，并受《联邦规则》所提供的程序保障约束，包括被告的参与权。第2004条规则的目的在于允许受托人确定是否提起对抗性诉讼，而非供受托人进行秘密摸底调查（fishing expedition）以搜寻其希望在对抗性诉讼中用于指控被告之证据的手段。受托人不得规避《联邦规则》，也不得继续向被告隐瞒证据。\n\n5. 在双方的磋商会谈（meet-and-confers）中，受托人确认，如果非特权应答文件是因响应第2004条规则传票而向受托人提供的，受托人将不会向被告出示这些文件。受托人主张，他有权对涉及或关于被告及被告资产的第三方文件主张律师工作成果特权（work-product privilege）。受托人进一步主张，他有权选择性地对其自行选定的一套由第三方出示的文件“放弃”特权。受托人的主张在法律上是错误的。工作成果特权仅限于由律师准备的、包含律师法律分析、结论、理论或策略的材料。工作成果特权并不延伸至第三方根据公开提交的传票所出示的非特权文件，包括受托人作为其《第2004条规则动议》附件公开提交的拟议传票。参见《第2004条规则动议》附件B及附件C-1至C-20。公开提交的传票不是受保护的工作成果，第三方为响应此类传票而出示的文件亦非工作成果。受托人正在以第2004条规则“调查”为名进行传统的证据开示，以此来为其企图向被告隐瞒相关及应答性证据开示材料的站不住脚的立场进行辩护。\n\n6. 此外，受托人正在利用《第2004条规则动议》进行超出本法院在对抗性诉讼中的日程安排裁定/命令（以下简称“《日程安排裁定/命令》”）所规定的加急证据开示时间表的证据开示。参见对抗性诉讼（ECF 56）。《日程安排裁定/命令》规定，所有“书面证据开示请求……应由各方在2023年6月13日或之前送达”，并且可以“基于新发现的信息或诉讼进展”送达“补充书面证据开示请求”。同上，第2段。此外，“完成所有事实证据开示（包括宣誓录供证据开示和书面证据开示请求）的截止日期……应为2023年9月5日”。同上，第3段。《第2004条规则动议》无视了《日程安排裁定/命令》。受托人要求法院忽视《日程安排裁定/命令》，并准予受托人无限期延期，以便其在证据开示截止日期之后很久，在暗中且超出被告审查范围之外，对被告的资产和财务状况进行单方面的证据开示。受托人受到与被告相同的规则和裁定/命令的约束。法院就在几个月前刚刚对对抗性诉讼的各方施加了紧缩的证据开示日程表（其截止日期为2023年9月5日），现在法院不应认可受托人单方面要求进行无终止期限的第2004条规则摸底调查以搜寻不利于被告并用于对抗性诉讼之证据的要求。\n\n7. 与受托人的看法相反，第2004条规则并未赋予受托人不受限制的权利去针对完全相同的资产和属于对抗性诉讼标的之争议事项进行暗中证据开示。受托人拟议的二十（20）份第2004条规则传票中包含的几乎每一项证据开示请求，都在寻求与Greenwich Land、郭女士、Taconic房产和Ferncliff房产相关的文件和信息。受托人没有给出任何解释，说明为什么与受托人声称与对抗性诉讼相关的各方、资产和争议事项有关的证据开示，属于第2004条规则传票的适当标的。\n\n8. 法院应全盘驳回《第2004条规则动议》，并命令受托人依照《联邦规则》进行程序。或者，应命令受托人向被告披露与Greenwich Land、郭女士以及受托人在对抗性诉讼中提出的任何争议事项相关的所有文件。受托人认为自己可以凌驾于《联邦规则》之上，或者认为自己有权制定新规则以向其在对抗性诉讼中起诉的当事方隐瞒实质性和应答性证据开示材料，这种看法是错误的。法院不应支持受托人继续滥用第2004条规则和《联邦规则》。受托人是一名民事诉讼当事人，应当受到与所有民事诉讼中所有其他民事诉讼当事人相同的规则和标准的约束。\n\n相关事实背景\n\n9. 受托人于2023年3月27日提起了本对抗性诉讼（参见对抗性诉讼，ECF 1）。同日，受托人依据《康涅狄格州普通法典》（Conn. Gen. Stat.）§52-278e(a)提出了其单方判决前救济申请（以下简称“PJR申请”）（同上，ECF 11），以及单方初步禁令动议（包括申请临时限制令）（同上，ECF 12）。PJR申请和初步禁令动议均寻求类似的救济，即扣押Taconic房产并禁止被告采取任何行动对Taconic房产设定负担或进行转让。（同上，ECF 4，第2段（PJR申请）；ECF 12，第1-2段（动议））。2023年3月28日，法院签署了受托人的拟议裁定/命令并准予了PJR申请（即《PJR裁定/命令》（同上，ECF 15））。同日，法院准予了受托人关于单方临时限制令（“TRO”）的动议，并就受托人的初步禁令动议确定了听证会日期（同上，ECF 14），该听证会现定于2023年5月30日开始。\n\n10. 2023年8月11日，受托人提交了其《第2004条规则动议》，并附上了二十（20）份拟议的第2004条规则传票（以下简称“《拟议传票》”）。参见《第2004条规则动议》附件B及附件C-1至C-20。《拟议传票》证实，受托人正在寻求与被告以及对抗性诉讼标的事项相关的证据开示。\n\n11. 《拟议传票》包含了以下与被告以及受托人在对抗性诉讼中声称属于破产财产之资产相关的定义术语：\n\na. “债务人的声称妻子系指Hing Chi Ngok（又名Hing Chi Ng、Yu Qingzhi、岳庆芝或任何其他别名），连同其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事的人。”参见例如《第2004条规则动议》附件C-1，第8页。\n\nb. “债务人家族系指债务人、债务人之子、债务人之女以及债务人的声称妻子，以及与债务人的任何其他亲属关系者之统称。”参见例如《第2004条规则动议》附件C-1，第8页。\n\nc. “关联个人”一词被定义为包括满足以下条件的“所有个人”：(1) “持有、控制、保管或支配由郭女士所拥有、控制或享有的资产”；或 (2) “曾是Greenwich Land的雇员、董事或以其他方式隶属于Greenwich Land，连同前述任何一方各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事的人。”参见例如《第2004条规则动议》附件C-1，第8-9页。\n\nd. “关联实体”一词被定义为包括“个别及统称的、满足以下条件的任何类型的所有组织或实体：(1) 曾由郭女士拥有、控制或投资；或 (2) 直接或间接地在由郭女士拥有、控制或享有的任何资产中享有权益，连同前述任何一方各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事的人。”参见例如《第2004条规则动议》附件C-1，第9页。\n\n12. 所有与郭女士和Greenwich Land相关的证据开示均必须依照《联邦规则》并在对抗性诉讼中进行。受托人不能以第2004条规则证据开示为幌子，向郭女士和Greenwich Land隐瞒与郭女士和Greenwich Land相关的证据。\n\n13. 此外，《拟议传票》包含了数十项针对被告及属于对抗性诉讼标的的被告资产（包括Taconic房产和Ferncliff房产）的请求。以下为其中的部分示例。\n\na. 每份《拟议传票》都包含了针对郭女士的请求，受托人虚伪地将郭女士定义为“债务人的声称妻子”，尽管受托人几个月来一直清楚郭女士与债务人已合法结婚数十年。参见例如《第2004条规则动议》第34、53、72、89、106、123、140、157、174、193、210、230、249、268、285、305、324、344、364、384页。受托人对郭女士婚姻的持续攻击（这似乎源于对事实的误解或对根据外国法律缔结之婚姻的不尊重），除了贬低和羞辱郭女士之外别无目的。\n\n- b. 拟向 (1) 17 Miles, LLC（17英里有限责任公司）及 (2) GS Security Solutions Inc.（GS安全解决方案公司）发出的传票寻求以下文件和信息：“有关债务人曾占用或使用的任何财产的所有文件，包括但不限于……位于 Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林威治）373 Taconic Rd. 的住宅物业 [以及] 位于康涅狄格州格林威治 33 Ferncliff Rd. 的住宅物业……”。参见 Rule 2004 Motion（《第2004条动议》）第40页（请求第6项）、第180页（请求第6项）。\n\n- c. 拟向 (1) Ana C. Izquiedo-Henn（安娜·C·伊斯基耶多-亨）；(2) Limarie Reyes（利马莉·雷耶斯）；(3) Linwan \"Irene\" Feng（冯林婉“艾琳”）；(4) Ross Heinemeyer（罗斯·海涅迈尔）；(5) Zhuoer \"Joe\" Wang（王卓尔“乔”）发出的传票寻求以下文件和信息：“有关债务人曾占用或使用的任何财产的所有文件，包括但不限于位于康涅狄格州格林威治 373 Taconic Rd. 的住宅物业 [以及] 位于康涅狄格州格林威治 33 Ferncliff Rd. 的住宅物业……”。参见《第2004条动议》第59页（请求第7项）、第236页（请求第7项）、第255页（请求第7项）、第311页（请求第7项）；第390页（请求第7项）。\n\n- d. 拟向 (1) Axos Bank（阿克索斯银行）和/或 Axos Financial, Inc.（阿克索斯金融公司）；(2) Bank of Montreal（蒙特利尔银行）；(3) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce（加拿大帝国商业银行）和/或 CIBC Ind.（以 CIBC 名义开展业务）；(4) Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.（嘉信理财公司）（以 Charles Schwab 名义开展业务）；(5) Comerica Incorporated（科美利加公司）（以 Comerica Bank 名义开展业务）；(6) East West Bank（华美银行）和/或 East West Bancorp, Inc.（华美银行股份有限公司）；(7) Investors Bank（投资者银行）和/或 Citizens Financial Group, Inc.（公民金融集团股份有限公司）；(8) Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC（摩根士丹利史密斯巴尼有限责任公司）（以 Morgan Stanley 名义开展业务）（统称“银行传票”）发出的传票，将“2004条证据开示目标”界定为包括“Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）”，Ms. Guo（郭女士）系该公司的唯一成员。参见《第2004条动议》第72、89、106、123、140、157、193、268页。\n\n- e. 每份银行传票随后均包含以下文件和信息请求：\n\t- i. “与由……[格林威治土地公司] 持有、控制、代表其持有或控制、或以其他方式与其相关之任何账户相关的所有文件，包括任何及所有对账单、授权书、委托代理书、信托、指示或表格、作废支票副本、往来信函以及电汇和相关往来信函及指示。”参见《第2004条动议》第76、89、93、110、127、144、161、197、272页。\n\t- ii. “与属于……[格林威治土地公司]、由其持有、控制、代表其持有或控制、或以其他方式与其相关的任何资金、证券、财产或资产相关的所有文件，包括任何及所有对账单、授权书、委托代理书、信托、指示或表格、作废支票副本、往来信函以及电汇和相关往来信函及指示。”参见《第2004条动议》第76、89、93、110、127、144、161、197、272页。\n\t- iii. “与……[格林威治土地公司] 进行的任何商业、贸易或金融交易（包括但不限于任何贷款、信用额度、寄托、存款、掉期、证券交易、抵押或 ISDA）相关的所有文件，包括任何及所有对账单、授权书、委托代理书、信托、指示或表格、作废支票副本、往来信函以及电汇和相关往来信函及指示。”参见《第2004条动议》第76、89、93、110、127、144、161、197、272页。\n\n- iv. “不论是否存在任何账户，与 [格林威治土地公司] 相关的任何电汇活动相关的所有文件，包括但不限于所有电汇收据、账号、余额、授权、与转账各方相关的身份识别信息、往来信函、指示或其他记录。”参见《第2004条动议》第76-77、93-94、110-111、127-128、144-145、161-162、197-198、272-273页。\n\n- v. “与贵方和 [格林威治土地公司] 之间的任何往来信函和通信相关的所有文件。”参见《第2004条动议》第77、94、111、128、145、162、198、273页。\n\n- vi. “与在 [格林威治土地公司] 处开立的任何账户相关的、涉及开户、账户授权用户及账户维护的所有文件。”参见《第2004条动议》第77、94、111、128、145、162、198、273页。\n\n- vii. “与涉及 [格林威治土地公司] 的任何反洗钱、了解你的客户或其他合规活动相关的所有文件，包括但不限于由 [格林威治土地公司] 中任何一方提供、或由贵方获悉的任何信息。”参见《第2004条动议》第77、94、111、128、145、162、198、273页。\n\n- viii. “与就……[格林威治土地公司] 与来自任何国家的任何监管机构进行的任何通信相关的所有文件，包括但不限于 Bank of England（英格兰银行）、United States Federal Reserve（美国联邦储备系统）、S.E.C.（美国证券交易委员会）、CFTC（美国商品期货交易委员会）、FINRA（美国金融业监管局）、China Securities Regulatory Commission（中国证券监督管理委员会）、People's Bank of China（中国人民银行）、Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission（香港证券及期货事务监察委员会）以及 Hong Kong Monetary Authority（香港金融管理局）。”参见《第2004条动议》第72、89、106、123、140、157、193、268页。\n\n- f. 拟向 (1) Joshua I. Sherman（约书亚·I·谢尔曼）；(2) Nicholas F. Savio（尼古拉斯·F·萨维奥）；(3) Savio Law LLC（萨维奥律师事务所）；(4) V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A.（V.X. 塞尔达律师事务所）；(5) Victor Cerda（维克多·塞尔达）发出的传票分别请求：“有关……位于康涅狄格州格林威治 373 Taconic Rd. 的住宅物业；位于康涅狄格州格林威治 33 Ferncliff Rd. 的住宅物业；……以及债务人或债务人破产财团在 [格林威治土地公司] 中拥有的任何财务权益的所有文件。”参见《第2004条动议》第216页（请求第10项）、第291页（请求第10项）、第330页（请求第10项）、第350页（请求第10项）、第370页（请求第10项）。\n\n14. 此外，Trustee（受托人）承认，其《第2004条动议》专门针对特定个人和实体，理由是他们据称掌握与格林威治土地公司相关的知情情况。参见《第2004条动议》第5页。例如，受托人主张 Nicholas F. Savio 先生及其所属的萨维奥律师事务所据称“向包括格林威治土地有限责任公司控制的银行账户等转移了数百万美元……[并且] 因此，Savio 可能掌握与债务人及其商业和财务事务及交易相关的证据、文件和记录，这将有助于受托人开展调查。”同上。受托人在 Adversary Proceeding（对抗性程序）之外寻求与格林威治土地公司相关的信息毫无依据。所请求开示的信息（即便存在）可能具有附带用途这种推测性可能性，并非证明广泛适用第2004条证据开示正当合理的充分理由。\n\n15. 响应上述拟发传票而提交的所有文件和信息，均明确针对对抗性程序中提出的核心争议问题。受托人提议的证据开示显然意在对抗性程序中用于对抗 Defendants（被告）。拟发传票的范围必然涉及构成受托人对抗性程序核心的问题，即郭女士、格林威治土地公司、塔科尼克物业和芬克利夫物业。与被告以及受托人主张属于 Estate（破产财团）资产相关的全部证据开示，均必须在对抗性程序的范围内并依照 Federal Rules（《联邦规则》）进行。受托人没有任何法律认可的理由规避《联邦规则》。不应授权受托人继续侵犯被告在《联邦规则》项下的权利以及正当程序的宪法权利。\n\nARGUMENT（论证）\n\n16. “仅凭相关性并不足以证明提出第2004条请求的正当性。寻求进行第2004条询问的一方还必须证明存在充分理由，例如拟进行的询问对于确立寻求询问方的索赔主张是必要的，或者拒绝该请求将给询问方造成不当困境或不公。”In re Sunedison, Inc., 572 B.R. 482, 489 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)（纽约南区联邦破产法院2017年）。\n\n17. 法院此前批准受托人关于进行2004条询问的第五次补充综合动议的命令（ECF 1891）重点关注第2004条传票的目标是否为未决程序的当事人，但这种对判例法的狭隘解读忽略了范围这一关键问题，并误解了第2004条证据开示的目的。参见 ECF 1891 第3页。\n\n18. 首先，第2004条是一种诉前程序工具，用于确定是否存在提起对抗性程序的理由，而非用于开展影子证据开示以获取用于未决对抗性程序的证据。参见 In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836, 840-841 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002)（“基于第2004条的实质性差异，法院已表达担忧，即第2004条询问不得被用作规避《联邦民事诉讼规则》保护措施的策略”）。“一旦对抗性程序或争议事项启动，证据开示应依照《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行，而非依照第2004条。”同上；亦见 In re Cambridge Analytica LLC, 600 B.R. 750, 752 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019)（“有一项公认的规则，即一旦对抗性程序或争议事项启动，证据开示应依照适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行，而非第2004条”）。\n\n19. “未决程序规则基于伴随第2004条和民事诉讼证据开示的不同保护措施，反映了一种担忧，即诉讼当事人可能通过使用第2004条而非民事证据开示来获取与诉讼相关的文件或信息，从而规避其对手的权利。”In re Sunedison, Inc., 572 B.R. at 489。在受托人于2023年3月启动对抗性程序数月之后，受托人仍继续就塔科尼克物业、芬克利夫物业、格林威治土地公司和郭女士寻求第2004条证据开示，这正是对第2004条证据开示的不当且被禁止使用的典型体现。\n\n20. 其次，尽管第2004条传票目标的身份可能是一个相关的考虑因素，但第2004条传票的范围和目的同样相关，包括动议人是否就与未决对抗性程序相关的问题寻求证据开示——而这恰恰是受托人此处的范围和目的。参见 In re Baroni, 2017 WL 4404141, *14 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017)（加利福尼亚中区联邦破产法院2017年9月29日）（“一旦对抗性程序处于未决状态，将第2004条用作与对抗性程序中争议问题相关的证据开示机制即属不当”）；In re Alem, 2013 WL 4840486, *1 (Bankr. D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2013)（哥伦比亚特区联邦破产法院2013年9月11日）（“寻求获取与未决诉讼相关证据开示的当事人通常无法获得第2004条救济”）。\n\n21. 事实上，“与未决程序相关之证据的开示，必须依照 [Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（《联邦破产诉讼规则》）] 更为严格的规定完成……因此，在对抗性程序启动后，受托人与债权人一样，必须依据 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 et seq.（《联邦破产诉讼规则》第7026条及以下各条），针对受该程序影响的实体及该程序中涉及的争议问题进行证据开示。”In re Bennett Funding Group Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 29 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)（纽约北区联邦破产法院1996年）（强调为原文所加）（驳回第2004条动议，因“受托人拟定的传票必然涉及受托人已提起的对抗性程序范围内的问题和当事人，因此受托人仅限于……依照……Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 et seq. 进行证据开示”）。\n\n22. 因此，“重点关注请求方与该询问所针对的信息及当事人之间的关系更为恰当”，而不是仅仅着眼于第2004条传票的目标是否为未决程序的当事人。In re Bennett Funding, 203 B.R. at 30；亦见 In re Southeastern Materials, Inc., 2010 WL 5128608, *3 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 2010)（北卡罗来纳中区联邦破产法院2010年12月10日）（“除了‘卷入或受影响于’未决对抗性程序的当事人之外”，禁止第2004条证据开示的规则“亦适用于正在进行的诉讼所涉及的问题”）。\n\n23. 当受托人所寻求的证据开示涉及“对抗性诉讼中所涉及的问题”时（如此处所示），正确的做法是依据《联邦规则》进行证据开示。In re Bennett Funding, 203 B.R. at 29。例如，“当一方当事人试图就作为未决对抗性诉讼标的之问题对另一方当事人或证人进行口供宣誓笔录调查（deposition）时，该调查不能依据第2004条规则进行，而必须依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行。”In re 2435 Plainfield Ave., Inc., 223 B.R. 440, 456 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1998)（撤销向并非对抗性诉讼当事人的非债务人送达的第2004条规则传票）。狭隘地理解为仅限制针对对抗性诉讼直接当事人的第2004条规则证据开示，却允许就对抗性诉讼中提出的标的事项和问题进行广泛的证据开示，这违反了第2004条规则的目的和精神。Id.（“由于债务人试图就作为未决对抗性诉讼标的之问题对镇政府官员进行口供宣誓笔录调查，该口供宣誓笔录调查不能依据第2004条规则进行，而必须依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》进行”）。\n\n24. 此外，依据在受托人提起对抗性诉讼之后送达的第2004条规则传票所获得的任何证据，均不得在对抗性诉讼中采纳为证据。See In re Anderson, 17-adv-03008 (AMN) 2022 WL 1165002, *4-5 (Bankr. D. Conn. April 19, 2022)（裁定在第2004条规则调查后提起的对抗性诉讼中，无法出庭证人的第2004条规则调查笔录属于不可采信的传闻证据）；see also Geico Indemnity Co. v. Dionisio, 12-cv-01137, 2016 WL 74390, *6 (D. Conn. Jan. 6, 2016)（当本案当事人在先前的证言采集中没有机会对证人进行交叉询问时，来自另案诉讼的证言不可采信）。\n\n25. 在对抗性诉讼中，受托人试图剥夺Guo女士（郭女士）唯一的住所Taconic Property（塔科尼克房产）。如上文详述，受托人拟议的若干证据开示请求旨在寻求与Taconic房产直接相关的信息，以及被告的财务状况和受托人主张属于破产财团财产的其他所谓资产。See supra at ¶¶11-14。如果受托人寻求与Taconic房产相关的信息，或与被告相关的任何其他证据开示，受托人应依据《联邦规则》进行证据开示。\n\n26. 基于衡平法理由，第2004条规则动议亦应予以驳回。受托人最初寻求一项加急证据开示时间表，将2023年6月30日定为完成事实证据开示的截止日期。See Exhibit 1（2023年6月1日致书记官的电子邮件）。在双方当事人进行会商（meet and confer）期间，受托人拒绝了被告确立合理日程安排命令的请求，并反复表示他认为几乎（如果有的话）不需要进行实质性的事实证据开示。事实上，根据受托人拟议的时间表，简易判决动议本应已经完全提交了书面辩论意见，对抗性诉讼的庭审本应在距今不到一个月的时间内（即2023年9月11日当周）开始。Id.。\n\n27. 受托人现在却请求无限期延长与被告及对抗性诉讼相关的单方面证据开示时间，这比受托人拟议的证据开示截止日期晚了数月，并且比法院命令的2023年9月5日证据开示截止日期晚了数周乃至数月。法院应当识破受托人对证据开示程序的明显滥用，并避免出现根本不公正的局面，即受托人在对抗性诉讼庭审前数周——甚至可能在庭审期间——进行涉及对抗性诉讼的单方面证据开示。\n\n28. 提起对抗性诉讼这一行为本身就消除了受托人就对抗性诉讼标的事项进行第2004条规则证据开示的能力。受托人此前依据其宣誓证明已拥有足够证据证明该等严厉救济的合理性，通过单方申请（ex parte）的方式获得了对Taconic房产的查封令与禁令。鉴于受托人声称其对对抗性诉讼标的事项的调查已达到如此深入的程度，其企图在没有被告参与且不受《联邦民事诉讼规则》约束的情况下进行额外的秘密证据开示，就更显得恶劣。\n\n29. 被告有权参与涉及对抗性诉讼的任何证据开示，且该等证据开示必须受《联邦规则》管辖。此外，只要受托人在没有被告参与的情况下依据第2004条规则进行证据开示，其中的任何内容均不得在对抗性诉讼中采纳为证据。In re Anderson, 2022 WL 1165002, *5（当2004条调查并非在对抗性诉讼中进行，且对抗性诉讼当事人未获得充分且公平的参与和交叉询问机会时，2004条调查笔录属于不可采信的传闻证据）。\n\n保留权利\n\n30. 被告对第2004条规则动议的异议，不影响其向破产法院提起的关于撤回对抗性诉讼移送审理的未决动议，亦不影响其认为破产法院对对抗性诉讼缺乏管辖权的立场。被告保留其所有权利和救济措施。\n\n结论\n\n31. 法院应驳回受托人的第2004条规则动议。被告有权参与对抗性诉讼的证据开示，该诉讼对郭女士和Greenwich Land, LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）具有极其重大的影响。法院不应允许受托人在对抗性诉讼之外且在没有《联邦民事诉讼规则》所规定保障措施的情况下进行摸索式调查（fishing expedition）。被告关于其会商努力的声明见Exhibit 2。\n\n日期：2023年8月18日 于康涅狄格州斯坦福\n\nMEISTER SEELIG & FEIN PLLC\n\n签署人：/s/ Christopher J. Major\nChristopher J. Major, 律师\nAustin D. Kim, 律师\n125 Park Avenue, 7th Floor\nNew York, NY 10017\n电话：(212) 655-3500\n电子邮件：cjm@msf-law.com\nadk@msf-law.com\n\nGreenwich Land, LLC及Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）的代理律师\n\n送达证书\n\n我特此证明，于2023年8月18日，我已促成通过本法院的电子案件卷宗系统（Electronic Case Filing System）将前述文书归档并送达至本案中所有已出庭的当事人。\n\n签署人：/s/ Christopher J. Major\nChristopher J. Major, 律师","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4589,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:38:07"}