{"id":"court_ctb_1017_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1017,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                             | :      |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.1                                                    | :<br>: |                         |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n\n# **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S RESPONSE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS REGARDING MOTION BY BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP FOR APPROVAL OF PROCEDURE FOR PROCEDURE IN RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA**\n\nLuc A. Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Debtor's estate (the \"Trustee\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds and reserves the Trustee's rights with respect to the *Motion by Baker & Hostler LLP for Approval of Procedure for Production in Response to Subpoena* (the \"Motion\") [ECF No. 998] filed by Baker & Hostetler LLP (\"Baker\"). More specifically, the Trustee consents to entry of the proposed order requested by Baker in its Motion, provided, however, that the Trustee's consent is based on certain representations made by Baker and is subject to the Trustee's reservation of rights, all of which are described herein.\n\n## **RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURE**\n\n1. As discussed by the Trustee in the Application seeking an order authorizing a Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 examination of certain of the Debtor's professionals (the \"Advisors PJR Motion\") [ECF No. 637], the Trustee believes that Baker has relevant documents and information concerning, among other topics, potential assets of the Debtor's estate\n\n<sup>1</sup> Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n(the \"Estate\"). Baker has represented the Debtor in the New York state court litigation involving the Debtor's largest scheduled unsecured creditor, PAX, and is party to an executory engagement letter with the Debtor. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Ho Wan Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). The contempt proceedings in the New York state court litigation were critical to returning the *Lady May* to Connecticut waters. Baker may possess documents and information relevant to that litigation as well as to the location and provenance of other Estate property. The Court granted the Advisors PJR Motion on August 16, 2022 [ECF No. 756].\n\n2. On August 22, 2022, pursuant to the Court's order, the Trustee served Baker via process server with a subpoena (the \"Rule 2004 Subpoena\") requesting the production of documents and information. Following service of the Rule 2004 Subpoena, Baker requested several extensions of its deadlines to serve its responses and objections (originally September 5, 2022) (the \"Response Deadline\") and to produce documents (originally September 21, 2022) (the \"Production Deadline\"). The Trustee's counsel communicated extensively with Baker in an effort to secure voluntary compliance with minimum delay. During these discussions, the Trustee consented to extend the Response Deadline through October 10, 2022, and the Trustee consented to continue the Production Deadline through today, October 21, 2022.\n\n3. On October 10, 2022, Baker served its Responses and Objections to the Trustee's Rule 2004 Subpoena (the \"R&Os\").\n\n4. Baker commenced its production to the Trustee yesterday, October 20, 2022, and the Trustee understands from Baker that the vast majority of its production will be made prior to the hearing scheduled on its Motion (*i.e.*, October 25, 2022).\n\n2\n\n### **THE CONSENTED TO PRIVILEGE ORDER**\n\n5. On September 14, 2022, the Court entered the consensually negotiated and agreed upon order governing control of privilege (the \"Privilege Order\") [ECF No. 856], the purpose of which was to expedite the investigation process by clearly setting out which privileged documents were under the control of the Trustee and which remained controlled by the Debtor. (Privilege Order, ¶ 6.).\n\n6. Pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Privilege Order, the Debtor has only a limited ability to seek to withhold documents as privileged on the grounds that disclosure would cause him personal harm (\"Personal Harm Documents,\" and each, a \"Personal Harm Document\") (*Id.,* ¶ 7). Specifically,\n\n> to the extent the Debtor believes in good faith that particular documents or information . . . could result in *personal harm* to the Debtor if disclosed to the Trustee, then (i) *the Debtor's counsel* [*i.e.*, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.] *shall, within 10 days of the applicable production deadline* . . . log all such documents . . . and/or identify all such non-documentary information in a manner necessary to support the claim of privilege including with sufficient information to prima facie identify the basis for asserting the potential for personal harm[, however,] . . . that the disclosure of documents or information in question could result in the Trustee identifying potential assets of the estate, or could constitute evidence relating to the ownership or control of assets by the Debtor, *shall not* constitute \"personal harm to the Debtor\" sufficient to withhold documents or information pursuant to [paragraph 7], regardless of any position or opinion of the Debtor regarding the ownership or control of such assets.\n\n*Id.* (emphasis added).\n\n## **THE MOTION AND BAKER'S REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO**\n\n7. On October 19, 2022, Baker filed the Motion, requesting that the Court approve a procedure whereunder Baker would produce documents in compliance with the Rule 2004 Subpoena. More specifically, and among other things, the Motion requests that with respect to documents that Baker believes may be Personal Harm Documents subject to paragraph 7 of the Privilege Order (the \"Review Documents\"), Baker be permitted to provide such documents to the Debtor and his counsel for expeditious review to determine whether the Debtor asserts that they are Personal Harm Documents that should be logged and withheld from production. In the meantime, Baker would produce to the Trustee all documents that are not Review Documents.\n\n8. In connection with Baker's Motion, the Trustee asked Baker to identify, among other things, how many documents Baker intended to withhold from its immediate production and when Baker's immediate production and when Baker would commence its production of documents that are not Review Documents.\n\n9. In response, Baker represented to the Trustee:\n\na. Baker has completed its review of the vast majority of approximately 58,000 known documents responsive to the search terms agreed upon between the Trustee and Baker, and is prepared to produce most of such documents to the Trustee without delay (*i.e.*, prior to the hearing on its Motion) subject to the limited exceptions described below;\n\nb. To date in its review, Baker has identified approximately 700 Review Documents which it proposes to provide to the Debtor and Debtor's counsel for review to determine whether to assert that they are Personal Harm Documents; and\n\nc. There are limited quantities of documents that Baker has not been able to review or complete its review for certain specified reasons (*i.e.*, approximately 300 documents that have not yet been reviewed due to a technical error, 90 documents that are pending review because they are written in a foreign language, documents on compact discs that must be uploaded to Baker's electronic discovery platform, and documents provided by another law firm that must be obtained through another electronic discovery\n\nplatform, and certain internal Baker communications concerning its production in this matter as to which Baker may assert its own privilege), all of which Baker will review as soon as possible and either produce to the Trustee, assert its own privilege, or, in the case of further identified Review Documents, provide to the Debtor and Debtor's counsel for expeditious review.\n\n10. Baker's Motion does not request to extend its Production Deadline or the Debtor's deadline (*i.e.*, ten days from the Production Deadline) to assert any privilege that the Debtor believes he retains under the Privilege Order with respect to any responsive documents.\n\n### **THE TRUSTEE'S RESPONSE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS**\n\n11. Based upon the foregoing representations, and subject to the reservation of rights as discussed below, the Trustee does not object to entry of Baker's proposed order.\n\n12. Apart from consenting to the procedures expressly provided under Baker's proposed order, the Trustee otherwise reserves all rights with respect to the Rule 2004 Subpoena, including, without limitation:\n\na. To enforce the Production Deadline and the Debtor's deadline to assert privilege pursuant to the Privilege Order;\n\nb. To oppose any future request to extend the foregoing deadlines;\n\nc. To seek appropriate relief from the Court if any of the representations made by Baker (as set forth above) are not accurate;\n\nd. To dispute any assertions of privilege by Baker or the Debtor; and\n\ne. To otherwise assert and all rights under the Court's orders and under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, all local rules, the Bankruptcy Code, and any other relevant law.\n\nDated: October 21, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nLUC A. DESPINS,\nCHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， :\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 :\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n第11章破产受托人就 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 申请批准响应传票之提供程序动议的答复及权利保留\n\nLuc A. Despins 作为获任命的债务人破产财产（下称「破产财产」）第11章受托人（下称「受托人」），特通过其下述署名律师，就 Baker & Hostetler LLP（贝克·豪斯泰特勒律师事务所，下称「Baker」）提交的《Baker & Hostetler LLP 申请批准响应传票之提供程序的动议》（下称「动议」）[ECF No. 998] 作出答复并保留受托人的权利。更具体而言，受托人同意法院签署并录入 Baker 在其动议中所请求的拟议裁定，但前提是，受托人的同意基于 Baker 所作的某些陈述，并受限于受托人的权利保留，上述所有内容均在本文中予以说明。\n\n相关事实与程序\n\n1. 正如受托人在申请授权对债务人的某些专业人士进行《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》第2004条调查的申请书（下称「顾问 PJR 动议」）[ECF No. 637] 中所述，受托人认为 Baker 拥有关于债务人破产财产潜在资产等主题的相关文件和信息\n\n1 尽管债务人的法定姓名为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），但他也被称为 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及拥有其他众多化名。债务人纳税人识别号的后四位是 9595。\n\n。Baker 曾代表债务人参与涉及债务人申报的最大无担保债权人 PAX 的纽约州法院诉讼，且是与债务人签订待履行聘用函的当事方。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Ho Wan Kwok（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司诉郭文贵案），案卷号 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)。纽约州法院诉讼中的藐视法庭程序对于将 Lady May（梅号游艇）带回康涅狄格州水域至关重要。Baker 可能持有与该诉讼以及其他破产财产财产的位置和出处相关的文件和信息。法院于 2022年8月16日 批准了顾问 PJR 动议 [ECF No. 756]。\n\n2. 2022年8月22日，根据法院的裁定，受托人通过送达员向 Baker 送达了一份要求提供文件和信息的传票（下称「第2004条传票」）。在第2004条传票送达后，Baker 多次请求延长其送达答复与异议的截止日期（原定为 2022年9月5日）（下称「答复截止日期」）以及提供文件的截止日期（原定为 2022年9月21日）（下称「提供截止日期」）。受托人的律师与 Baker 进行了广泛沟通，力求在尽量减少拖延的情况下确保自愿遵守。在这些讨论中，受托人同意将答复截止日期延长至 2022年10月10日，且受托人同意将提供截止日期顺延至今，即 2022年10月21日。\n\n3. 2022年10月10日，Baker 送达了其对受托人第2004条传票的答复与异议（下称「R&Os」）。\n\n4. Baker 已于昨天（即 2022年10月20日）开始向受托人提供文件，且受托人从 Baker 处得知，其提供的大部分文件将在其动议预定的听证会（即 2022年10月25日）之前完成。\n\n经同意的特权裁定\n\n5. 2022年9月14日，法院签署并录入了经协商一致达成关于特权控制的裁定（下称「特权裁定」）[ECF No. 856]，其目的是通过明确列出哪些特权文件受受托人控制、哪些仍由债务人控制，从而加快调查进程。（特权裁定，第6段）。\n\n6. 根据特权裁定第7段，债务人以披露会导致其个人受损为由寻求扣留文件作为特权保护的能力受到严格限制（下称「个人受损文件」，每一份称为「个人受损文件」）（同上，第7段）。具体而言，\n\n在债务人善意地认为特定文件或信息……若披露给受托人可能导致债务人受到个人损害的范围内，则 (i) 债务人的律师 [即 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.] 应在适用的提供截止日期起10天内……将所有此类文件记入特权清单……和/或以支持特权主张所必需的方式确定所有此类非文件信息，包括提供足以初步证明主张潜在个人损害依据的充分信息[；但是，]……所涉文件或信息的披露可能导致受托人发现破产财产的潜在资产，或可能构成与债务人对资产的所有权或控制权相关的证据，均不构成足以根据[第7段]扣留文件或信息的「对债务人的个人损害」，无论债务人关于此类资产的所有权或控制权持何种立场或意见。\n\n同上（强调为后加）。\n\n动议及 BAKER 对此所作的陈述\n\n7. 2022年10月19日，Baker 提交了动议，请求法院批准一项程序，Baker 将依据该程序提供文件以遵守第2004条传票。更具体而言，除其他事项外，动议请求：对于 Baker 认为可能属于受特权裁定第7段约束的个人受损文件（下称「待审阅文件」），允许 Baker 将此类文件提供给债务人及其律师进行快速审阅，以确定债务人是否主张其为应记入清单并拒绝提供的个人受损文件。与此同时，Baker 将向受托人提供所有不属于待审阅文件的文件。\n\n8. 鉴于 Baker 的动议，受托人要求 Baker 说明（除其他事项外）Baker 打算在其立即提供中扣留多少份文件，以及 Baker 何时开始提供不属于待审阅文件的文件。\n\n9. 作为回应，Baker 向受托人陈述如下：\n\na. Baker 已完成对符合受托人与 Baker 商定的检索词的约 58,000 份已知响应性文件中的绝大部分的审阅，并准备毫不拖延地（即在其动议听证会之前）向受托人提供此类绝大部分文件，但下文所述的有限例外情况除外；\n\nb. 迄今为止在其审阅中，Baker 已识别出约 700 份待审阅文件，并提议将这些文件提供给债务人及债务人律师进行审阅，以确定是否主张其为个人受损文件；且\n\nc. 由于某些特定原因，Baker 尚无法审阅或完成审阅的文件数量有限（即：因技术错误尚未审阅的约 300 份文件；因使用外语书写而尚待审阅的 90 份文件；必须上传至 Baker 电子证据开示光盘上的文件；必须通过另一电子证据开示平台获取的由另一家律师事务所提供的文件；以及关于其在本案中提供文件的某些 Baker 内部通信，Baker 可能会对其主张自身的特权），Baker 将尽快审阅所有这些文件，并向受托人提供、主张其自身的特权，或者在进一步识别出待审阅文件的情况下，提供给债务人及债务人律师以供快速审阅。\n\n10. Baker 的动议并未请求延长其提供截止日期，亦未请求延长债务人就任何响应性文件主张其认为根据特权裁定仍保留的任何特权的截止日期（即自提供截止日期起十天）。\n\n受托人的答复与权利保留\n\n11. 基于上述陈述，并在下述权利保留的前提下，受托人对录入 Baker 的拟议裁定不持异议。\n\n12. 除同意 Baker 拟议裁定明确规定的程序外，受托人保留就第2004条传票的所有其他权利，包括但不限于：\n\na. 执行提供截止日期以及债务人根据特权裁定主张特权的截止日期；\n\nb. 反对未来任何延长上述截止日期的请求；\n\nc. 如果 Baker 作出的任何陈述（如上所述）不准确，向法院寻求适当的救济；\n\nd. 对 Baker 或债务人的任何特权主张提出异议；以及\n\ne. 根据法院的各项裁定以及《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》、《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》、所有本地规则、《破产法典》及任何其他相关法律，以其他方式主张一切权利。\n\n日期：2022年10月21日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（申请本案特许出庭律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（申请本案特许出庭律师）\nDouglass Barron（申请本案特许出庭律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":637,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":756,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":998,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1562,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:57:08"}