{"id":"court_ctb_1023_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1023,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","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| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                          | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| 1<br>Debtors.                                                    | :<br>:      | Jointly Administered    |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |\n\n### **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA TO WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY AND CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL**\n\nLuc A. Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Individual Debtor's estate (the \"Trustee\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d), incorporated herein by Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") 2004 and 9016, hereby objects (the \"Objection\") to the *Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoena to Williams & Connolly* (the \"Motion to Quash\") [Docket No. 1002] filed by Williams & Connolly LLP (\"W&C\") and cross-moves to compel W&C's compliance with the Trustee's Rule 2004 Subpoena (defined below). W&C may not escape its obligations to comply with the Trustee's subpoena and cooperate in discovery by demanding the Trustee instead seek discovery from the Individual Debtor – particularly here, where the Individual Debtor claims that he is not in possession of documents that W&C admits it has retained. In support of this Objection, the Trustee respectfully states the following:\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Individual Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n#### **RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE**\n\n1. On September 14, 2022, the Court entered the consensually negotiated and agreed upon order governing control of privilege (the \"Privilege Order\") [Docket 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\n2. 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\n3. As discussed by the Trustee in the *First Supplemental Omnibus Motion for Entry of an Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor, Entities and Individuals Affiliated with the Debtor, and Relevant Banks* (the \"Rule 2004 Motion\") [Docket No. 839], the Trustee believes that W&C has relevant documents and information concerning, among other topics, potential assets of the Individual Debtor's estate (the \"Estate\"). More specifically, W&C assisted the Individual Debtor in connection with the incorporation of the Genever BVI Debtor. The Genever BVI Debtor wholly owns Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever US\"), which in turn wholly owns a condominium in the Sherry Netherland Hotel in Manhattan, allegedly purchased in 2015 for approximately \\$70 million (the \"Condominium\").<sup>2</sup> W&C therefore is likely to have documents relevant to corporate entities that may be, or be in possession of, Estate property (as well as property of the Genever BVI estate).\n\n4. The Court granted the Rule 2004 Motion on September 21, 2022 [Docket No. 866].\n\n5. On September 22, 2022, pursuant to the Court's order, the Trustee served W&C with a subpoena (the \"Rule 2004 Subpoena\") requesting the production of documents and information. W&C's deadline to respond or object (\"R&Os\") to the Rule 2004 Subpoena was October 6, 2022 (the \"Response Deadline\") and W&C's deadline to produce documents is today, October 24, 2022<sup>3</sup> (the \"Production Deadline\").\n\n6. Trustee's counsel has communicated with counsel for W&C to encourage voluntary compliance with the Rule 2004 Subpoena with minimum delay. On September 22, 2022, Trustee's counsel sent the Privilege Order to W&C's counsel.\n\n7. On September 29, 2022, Trustee's counsel spoke by telephone with W&C's counsel. On this call, W&C's counsel stated that W&C had provided certain documents responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena (*i.e.*, W&C's \"client file\") to other prior counsel for the\n\n<sup>2</sup> It is possible that W&C has represented the Individual Debtor, the Genever BVI Debtor, or related entities and individuals, as to other relevant subject matter, and thus the Rule 2004 Subpoena is not limited to the subject matter described above. (A copy of the Rule 2004 Subpoena is attached to the Motion to Quash as Exhibit 1.) Counsel for the Trustee has asked counsel for W&C as to which matters W&C has advised the Individual Debtor and associated entities and individuals, and W&C's counsel has thus far declined to provide this information.\n\n<sup>3</sup> Thirty days from September 22, 2022, is October 22, 2022, a Saturday. Accordingly, the subpoena sets October 24, 2022, at 10 a.m. as its date and time for compliance.\n\nIndividual Debtor (Aaron Mitchell) in January 2021 (*i.e.*, more than one year prior to the filing of the Individual Debtor's chapter 11 petition) and proposed that the Trustee thus obtain documents responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena from the Individual Debtor rather than from W&C. Counsel for the Trustee stated that the Trustee requires production be made by W&C for reasons discussed in this Objection. Counsel for the Trustee also said that the Individual Debtor (through his current counsel, *i.e.*, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.), has claimed that the Individual Debtor is not in possession of most documents concerning his business dealings and that the Trustee should obtain them from his prior counsel. Prior to the end of the call, W&C's counsel stated that W&C would speak with the Individual Debtor's current counsel about the foregoing matters.\n\n8. The Trustee did not hear further from W&C prior to the filing of the Motion to Quash. Notwithstanding the Response Deadline and the Production Deadline, W&C neither served R&Os on the Trustee by the Response Deadline, nor, as of the filing of this Objection, has W&C produced documents responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena.\n\n9. Counsel for the Trustee contacted counsel for W&C after W&C filed the Motion to Quash, on October 20, 2022, and the parties' respective counsel spoke further on October 24, 2022, to determine whether the issues in the Motion to Quash and in this Objection could be narrowed or resolved. 4\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n10. On October 20, 2022, W&C filed the Motion to Quash, requesting that the Court quash the Rule 2004 Subpoena as to all but a few of the requests set forth in the Rule 2004\n\n<sup>4</sup> While District of Connecticut Local Rule of Civil Procedure 37 does not expressly apply to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, to the extent that the Court would hold this rule to apply, undersigned counsel states upon penalty of perjury that the statements in ¶¶ 7-9 are true and correct.\n\nSubpoena's appended request for production (the \"RFP\"), *i.e.*, requests 1-2, 6-13, and 15-21 (collectively, the \"Disputed Requests\").\n\n11. The Motion to Quash is solely premised on W&C's contention that, because W&C transmitted the Individual Debtor's \"client file\" to other counsel previously employed by the Individual Debtor in January 2021, it would be unduly burdensome to require W&C to comply with the Rule 2004 Subpoena (including by conducting a privilege review) as it pertains to the Disputed Requests and the Trustee should instead obtain such documents and information from the Individual Debtor himself. This position fails for multiple reasons.\n\n12. First, the Motion to Quash incorrectly assumes that the Disputed Requests are limited to the documents and information in W&C's \"client file.\" The Rule 2004 Subpoena and its RFP are not so limited, nor has the Trustee ever suggested such a limitation. To the contrary, the instructions contained in the RFP expressly state, among other things, that the RFP extends to \"all Documents: (a) in [W&C's] possession, custody, or control; or (b) in the possession, custody, or control of anyone acting on [W&C's] behalf, including [W&C's] counsel or other representatives and advisors. Each Document shall be produced in its entirety.\"\n\n13. W&C does not explain in its Motion to Quash what is and is not in its \"client file,\" however, W&C acknowledged (in a meet-and-confer with counsel for the Trustee) that at least some documents responsive to the Disputed RFPs fall outside of this document set. The Trustee requires that W&C produce *all* documents within its possession, custody, or control responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena; not simply those documents that it claims to have previously produced to one of the Individual Debtor's other prior counsel.\n\n14. Further, as W&C is aware and as discussed above, the Individual Debtor has taken the position that he possesses very few documents relevant to his own business dealings and that\n\n-5-\n\nthe Trustee must instead obtain them from third parties including his prior counsel. While the Trustee disagrees with this position, to move the Trustee's investigation forward with the minimum delay, the Trustee has subpoenaed, among others, many of the Individual Debtor's former advisors, including W&C. Under such circumstances, allowing the Individual Debtor and his former counsel to point fingers at one another rather than complying with subpoenas and cooperating in discovery would grind many aspects of the Trustee's investigation to a halt.<sup>5</sup>\n\n15. The Motion to Quash states that W&C does not wish to be responsible for asserting privilege with respect to discovery responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for parties (including third parties) to assert claims of privilege and for the adjudication of such claims, *see generally* Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, and the requirement that such procedures be followed does not constitute an undue burden.\n\n16. In any event, the Privilege Order already provides procedures and a timeframe for the Individual Debtor to assert any privilege he believes that he retains (*i.e.*, as to alleged Personal Harm Documents). The Individual Debtor's prior counsel may communicate with his current counsel to permit the Individual Debtor to assert that responsive documents are Personal Harm Documents and to log them on that basis, however, plainly the Privilege Order does not relieve third parties of their own obligations in discovery.\n\n17. W&C's Motion to Quash is scheduled to be heard on October 25, 2022, *i.e.*, after the Production Deadline. From the most recent meet-and-confer with W&C, the Trustee understands that W&C will not produce *any* documents by the Production Deadline. Accordingly, while the Rule 2004 Subpoena is self-executing, in an abundance of caution the Trustee\n\n<sup>5</sup> Even if the Individual Debtor had already produced its \"client file\" to the Trustee – which he has not – and even if this \"client file\" represented all discovery responsive to the Disputed Requests – which it does not – the Trustee would still require production from W&C to ensure that the document set obtained from the Individual Debtor was complete.\n\nrespectfully cross-moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(i), that the Court compel W&C to produce all documents responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena.<sup>6</sup> More specifically, in its order denying the Motion to Quash, the Court should compel W&C's production of all documents responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena within seven (7) days.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n<sup>6</sup> \"The better view is that, because subpoenas are self-executing, an order denying a motion to quash, unless it indicates otherwise, should be deemed an order granting enforcement. Wise counsel, however, should take the precaution of filing a cross-motion for enforcement.\" 9 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil § 45.50 (2022).\n\nWHEREFORE, the Court should enter an order denying the Motion to Quash, compelling\n\nW&C's production of all documents responsive to the Rule 2004 Subpoena within seven (7) days,\n\nand ordering such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: October 24, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                             | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.7                                                        | :<br>:      | Jointly Administered    |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on October 24, 2022 the foregoing Objection 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 pursuant to the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.\n\nDated: October 24, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n<sup>7</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Individual Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).","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\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n等，　:\n:\n:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。　:\n:　合并审理\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第 11 章受托人对向 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY 发出的第三方传票的撤销动议的异议及强制执行的反动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）作为个人债务人破产财产指定的第 11 章受托人（下称「受托人」），由其下述签字律师代表，依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45(d) 条（经《联邦破产诉讼规则》（下称「《破产规则》」）第 2004 条及第 9016 条纳入），特此对 Williams & Connolly LLP（威廉姆斯与康诺利律师事务所，下称「W&C」）提交的《对向 Williams & Connolly 发出的第三方传票的撤销动议》（下称「《撤销动议》」）[诉讼记录第 1002 号] 提出异议（下称「本异议」），并提出要求强制 W&C 遵守受托人《第 2004 条传票》（定义见下文）的反动议。W&C 不得通过要求受托人转而向个人债务人寻求证据开示的方式，逃避其遵守受托人传票及配合证据开示的义务——特别是在本案中，个人债务人声称其未持有相关文件，而 W&C 承认其保留了这些文件。为支持本异议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他诸多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（下称「个人债务人」）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（下称「Genever BVI 债务人」）。受托人与 Genever BVI 债务人的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于通知与通信目的）。\n相关背景与程序\n\n1. 2022年9月14日，法院作出了经协商一致同意的关于特权控制的裁定（下称「《特权裁定》」）[诉讼记录第 856 号]，其目的在于通过明确界定哪些享有特权的文件由受托人控制、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\n2. 依据《特权裁定》第 7 段，债务人仅拥有有限的能力，以披露会对其造成人身伤害为由主张对文件保留特权（下称「人身伤害文件」，每一份称为一份「人身伤害文件」）（同上，第 7 段）。具体而言，\n\n> 只要债务人真诚地认为特定文件或信息……若披露给受托人可能对债务人造成人身伤害，则 (i) 债务人的律师[即 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.]应在适用的提交截止日期后 10 天内……按支持特权主张所必需的方式，对所有此类文件进行登记……及/或识别所有此类非书面信息，包括提供足以初步证明主张可能造成人身伤害之依据的信息[；但是，]……所涉文件或信息的披露可能导致受托人识别破产财产的潜在资产，或可能构成与债务人拥有或控制资产有关的证据，不论债务人对该等资产的拥有或控制持何种立场或意见，均不构成足以依据[第 7 段]扣留文件或信息的「对债务人的人身伤害」。\n\n同上（强调为后加）。\n\n3. 正如受托人在《根据破产规则第 2004 条及地方破产规则第 2004-1 条请求作出准许对债务人的其他法律与财务顾问、与债务人关联的实体及个人以及相关银行进行证据开示的裁定的第一次补充综合动议》（下称「《第 2004 条动议》」）[诉讼记录第 839 号] 中所论述的，受托人认为 W&C 拥有与个人债务人破产财产（下称「破产财产」）的潜在资产等主题相关的文书和信息。更具体而言，W&C 曾协助个人债务人设立 Genever BVI 债务人。Genever BVI 债务人全资拥有 Genever Holdings LLC（下称「Genever US」），后者又全资拥有位于曼哈顿雪莉荷兰酒店的一套公寓，据称于 2015 年以约 7000 万美元购得（下称「该公寓」）。2 因此，W&C 很可能拥有与可能属于破产财产（以及 Genever BVI 破产财产）或持有该破产财产的法人实体相关的文书。\n\n4. 法院于 2022年9月21日 批准了《第 2004 条动议》[诉讼记录第 866 号]。\n\n5. 2022年9月22日，依据法院的裁定，受托人向 W&C 送达了一份传票（下称「《第 2004 条传票》」），要求其提交文书与信息。W&C 对《第 2004 条传票》作出回应或提出异议（下称「回应与异议」）的截止日期为 2022年10月6日（下称「回应截止日期」），而 W&C 提交文书的截止日期为今日，即 2022年10月24日3（下称「提交截止日期」）。\n\n6. 受托人律师已与 W&C 的律师进行了沟通，以促成其在最短延误内自愿遵守《第 2004 条传票》。2022年9月22日，受托人律师向 W&C 的律师发送了《特权裁定》。\n\n7. 2022年9月29日，受托人律师与 W&C 律师进行了电话交谈。在此次通话中，W&C 律师表示，W&C 已于 2021年1月（即在个人债务人提交第 11 章破产申请前一年多）将符合《第 2004 条传票》要求的某些文书（即 W&C 的「客户案卷」）提供给了个人债务人的其他前任律师\n\n2 W&C 可能在其他相关事项上代表过个人债务人、Genever BVI 债务人或相关实体及个人，因此《第 2004 条传票》并不限于上述事项。（《第 2004 条传票》的副本作为附件 1 附于《撤销动议》之后。）受托人律师曾询问 W&C 律师，W&C 曾就哪些事项向个人债务人及关联实体和个人提供过咨询，而 W&C 律师迄今拒绝提供此信息。\n\n3 自 2022年9月22日 起算三十天为 2022年10月22日，星期六。因此，传票将其合规日期与时间定为 2022年10月24日上午 10 时。\n\n（Aaron Mitchell），并建议受托人转而向个人债务人而非向 W&C 索取符合《第 2004 条传票》要求的文书。受托人律师表示，基于本异议中所论述的理由，受托人要求由 W&C 提交。受托人律师还表示，个人债务人（通过其现任律师，即 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.）已声称个人债务人并未持有与其业务往来相关的大部分文书，受托人应向其前任律师索取。在通话结束前，W&C 律师表示 W&C 将与个人债务人的现任律师就上述事项进行沟通。\n\n8. 在提交《撤销动议》之前，受托人未再收到 W&C 的任何消息。尽管有回应截止日期和提交截止日期，W&C 既未在回应截止日期前向受托人送达回应与异议，截至本异议提交之日，W&C 亦未提交符合《第 2004 条传票》要求的文书。\n\n9. 在 W&C 提交《撤销动议》后，受托人律师于 2022年10月20日 联络了 W&C 的律师，双方各自的律师于 2022年10月24日 进一步通话，以确定是否可以缩小或解决《撤销动议》及本异议中的争议问题。4\n抗辩理由\n\n10. 2022年10月20日，W&C 提交了《撤销动议》，请求法院撤销《第 2004 条传票》中除少数几项请求之外的所有请求，这些请求载于《第 2004 条传票》\n\n4 虽然《康涅狄格区地方民事诉讼规则》第 37 条并未明确适用于《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45 条，但在法院认定该规则适用的范围内，下述签字律师在接受伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，第 7-9 段中的陈述真实准确。\n\n所附的提交请求（下称「RFP」），即第 1-2 项、第 6-13 项以及第 15-21 项请求（统称「争议请求」）。\n\n11. 《撤销动议》完全建立在 W&C 的如下主张之上：由于 W&C 已于 2021年1月 将个人债务人的「客户案卷」移交给个人债务人此前聘请的其他律师，因此要求 W&C 遵守与争议请求相关的《第 2004 条传票》（包括进行特权审查）将构成过重负担，受托人应转而向个人债务人本人索取此类文书和信息。这一立场基于多重理由均不能成立。\n\n12. 首先，《撤销动议》错误地假定了争议请求仅限于 W&C「客户案卷」中的文书和信息。《第 2004 条传票》及其 RFP 并不受此限制，受托人也从未提出过此类限制。相反，RFP 中包含的说明明确指出，除其他事项外，RFP 适用于「(a) 由 [W&C] 占有、保管或控制的所有文件；或 (b) 由代表 [W&C] 行事的任何人（包括 [W&C] 的律师或其他代表及顾问）占有、保管或控制的所有文件。每份文件均应完整提交。」\n\n13. W&C 在其《撤销动议》中并未解释其「客户案卷」中包含什么和不包含什么，但是，W&C 承认（在与受托人律师的碰头协商中），至少有部分符合争议 RFP 要求的文书并不属于该文件集。受托人要求 W&C 提交其占有、保管或控制下的符合《第 2004 条传票》要求的所有文书；而不仅限于其声称此前已向个人债务人的其他前任律师之一提交过的那些文书。\n\n14. 此外，正如 W&C 所知悉以及上文所论述的，个人债务人所采取的立场是他仅持有极少数与其自身业务往来相关的文书，并且\n\n-5-\n\n受托人必须转而向包括其前任律师在内的第三方索取。虽然受托人不同意这一立场，但为了以最小的延误推进受托人的调查，受托人已向个人债务人的许多前顾问（包括 W&C 等）发出了传票。在此种情况下，如果允许个人债务人与其前任律师相互推诿指责，而不是遵守传票并配合证据开示，将导致受托人调查的许多方面陷入停滞。5\n\n15. 《撤销动议》称 W&C 不愿负责就符合《第 2004 条传票》要求的证据开示主张特权。《联邦民事诉讼规则》为当事人（包括第三方）主张特权要求以及对此类主张的裁决作出了规定，参见《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45 条通篇，要求遵循此类程序并不构成过重负担。\n\n16. 无论如何，《特权裁定》已经为个人债务人主张其认为自身保留的任何特权（即关于所谓的人身伤害文件）提供了程序和时间表。个人债务人的前任律师可以与其现任律师沟通，以便允许个人债务人主张相关文书属于人身伤害文件并据此进行登记，但是，显而易见，《特权裁定》并未免除第三方在证据开示中自身的义务。\n\n17. W&C 的撤销动议定于 2022 年 10 月 25 日举行听证，即在文件出示截止日期之后。根据与 W&C 最近一次的会商（meet-and-confer），受托人获悉 W&C 在文件出示截止日期前不会出示任何文件。因此，尽管《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 2004 条传票（Rule 2004 Subpoena）具有自动执行效力，但为了万全起见，受托人\n\n5 即使个人债务人已向受托人出示了其“客户档案”——但他并未出示——且即使该“客户档案”包含了对有争议请求做出响应的所有证据开示材料——而事实并非如此——受托人仍将要求 W&C 予以出示，以确保从个人债务人处获取的文件集是完整的。\n\n依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rule of Civil Procedure）第 45(d)(2)(B)(i) 条恭敬地提出交叉动议，请求法院强令 W&C 出示对第 2004 条传票做出响应的所有文件。6 更具体而言，法院在驳回撤销动议的命令中，应当强令 W&C 在七（7）天内出示对第 2004 条传票做出响应的所有文件。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n6 “更好的观点是，由于传票具有自动执行效力，除非另有说明，否则驳回撤销动议的命令应被视为准予强制执行的命令。然而，明智的律师应当采取预防措施，提出强制执行的交叉动议。” 9 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil § 45.50 (2022)。\n\n为此，法院应当作出一项命令，驳回撤销动议，强令\n\nW&C 在七（7）天内出示对第 2004 条传票做出响应的所有文件，\n\n并裁定法院认为公正恰当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022 年 10 月 24 日 LUC A. DESPINS，\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nUNITED 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\nx\n\n案件涉及： :\n: 第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， :\n:\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。7 :\n: 联合审理\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n送达证书\n\n下述签署人特此证明，2022 年 10 月 24 日，上述异议书已通过电子方式提交。本提交通知将根据《电子提交通知》通过法院电子提交系统的运行向所有当事人发送电子邮件，或通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人。各方当事人均可通过法院系统查阅此份提交文件。\n\n日期：2022 年 10 月 24 日 LUC A. DESPINS，\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n7 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及许多其他化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（即“个人债务人”）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（即“Genever BVI 债务人”）。受托人和 Genever BVI 债务人的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Luc A. Despins（作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人，仅用于通知和通讯目的）。","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2482,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:18:58"}