{"id":"court_ctb_1059_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1059,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2022-11-02","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* \\* \\* HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS \\* Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003 INVESTMENT (USA) LIMITED, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut v. \\* October 25, 2022 \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* Chapter 11 Trustee, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO QUASH and CONTINUED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Chapter 11 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Trustee: Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For Baker Hostetler, KELLIANNE BARANOWSKY, ESQ. Interested Party: Green & Sklarz, LLC One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511 ANDREW V. LAYDEN, ESQ. Baker Hostetler 200 South Orange Avenue Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 For Williams & Connolly, JAMES J. HEALY, ESQ. Interested Party: Cowdery & Murphy, LLC 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 ERICA S. SIMPSON, ESQ. Williams & Connolly, LLP 680 Maine Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 3 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:07 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and Adversary No. 22-5003, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited versus Trustee Luc Despins. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Attorney Henzy? All the rest of you can come to the table. Go right ahead, please. MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HENZY: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Annecca Smith, Robinson & Cole, for\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 4 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 4 PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Sorry, I didn't hear your name. MS. SMITH: Annecca Smith. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. MS. BARANOWSKY: Good afternoon. Kellianne Baranowsky, with Green & Sklarz, local counsel to Baker Hostetler. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. BARANOWSKY: Good afternoon. MR. LAYDEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Andrew Layden, from Baker Hostetler, on behalf of Baker Hostetler. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LAYDEN: Thank you. MR. HEALY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Healy, from Cowdery & Murphy, in Hartford. We've appeared on behalf of Williams & Connolly. I have here Attorney Erica Simpson, who is the client representative of Williams & Connolly, who has come up for this hearing. THE COURT: Good afternoon. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm sorry. I didn't make out your name. I'm sorry. MR. HEALY: My name is James Healy, H-E-A-L-Y. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 5 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 5 MR. HEALY: I filed an appearance I believe yesterday. THE COURT: Thank you. And you are? MS. SIMPSON: Erica Simpson on behalf of Williams & Connolly. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SIMPSON: Good afternoon. THE COURT: All right. Everyone have a seat. We have a few matters to address. First and foremost, I wanted to just ask the Chapter 11 Trustee and Mr. Henzy a follow-up question that I asked you both yesterday afternoon about the pretrial conference in the adversary proceeding. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. We do not need to go forward with the conference, status conference, today in the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Henzy, you agree with that? MR. HENZY: I agree with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. What I'm going to -- thank you, both. What I'm going to say, have the docket indicate, was that the pretrial conference was not held and no further pretrial conferences will be scheduled at this time.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 6 of 44\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022
6 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Now, that doesn't -- that means either one of you |\n| 2 | or anyone in the adversary can always ask for a pretrial |\n| 3 | conference.
Or if the Court thinks there's one necessary, |\n| 4 | we'll enter a new order scheduling one.
But at this point, |\n| 5 | I don't think that it is necessary, given what we talked |\n| 6 | about yesterday, to schedule any further pretrial |\n| 7 | conferences at this time.
Okay? |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Then we'll move to |\n| 11 | the matters that are in the main case on the -- that are on |\n| 12 | the calendar today. |\n| 13 | The first matter is the motion from Baker |\n| 14 | Hostetler for process with regard to the subpoenas.
I have |\n| 15 | a feeling, given what I've seen, that there might be some |\n| 16 | agreement with regard to the Baker Hostetler motion or am I |\n| 17 | incorrect? |\n| 18 | MR. LAYDEN:
I believe so, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 20 | MR. LAYDEN:
If I may, I can give a brief overview |\n| 21 | -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Please. |\n| 23 | MR. LAYDEN:
-- and what I believe is the |\n| 24 | agreement. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Go right ahead. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 7 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 7 MR. LAYDEN: Thank you, Judge. Baker & Hostetler represented Mr. Kwok in six matters before the bankruptcy case. Those matters were all stayed by the filing of the bankruptcy case. Baker Hostetler was one of the parties that received a 2004 subpoena from the Chapter 11 Trustee. We, with the consent of the Chapter 11 Trustee, received an extension to respond to the subpoena until October 10th and then timely responded to the subpoena. And we also had an agreement to extend our production date to October 21. We worked extensively with both the trustee's counsel and the debtor's counsel to negotiate the process for identifying the personal harm documents under the privileges consent order and that ultimately led to the four or five bullet points, essentially, that are the main part of the motion. And those are that Baker Hostetler would review the documents that were responsive to the agreedupon search terms that we had with the Chapter 11 Trustee's counsel and we would produce the documents that were not identified as potentially personal harm documents to the trustee. We would make a preliminary tag of documents that could constitute personal harm and give those to the debtor's counsel. And then the debtor's counsel would be responsible\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 8 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 8 under the privileges consent order for that ten-day period that the order contemplates from the production date to make the final decision on if a document constituted a personal harm document and create a log of those documents. Then the final two bullet points or so are basically just reservations of rights that all parties, you know, retain the right to seek to claw back documents under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under the protective order, so basically a reservation of rights for everybody. This is essentially just a procedural motion to handle how we hand off the documents to make the determination. We spent a lot time negotiating those four or five bullet points. We filed a motion within an hour or two of having signed off on the language. And we appreciate the Court setting it for an expedited motion -- for an expedited hearing on this. What we've done, Judge, is very, very quickly reviewed the documents. There were about 60,000 documents that were reviewed. Baker Hostetler had a team of more than 50 lawyers reviewing the documents. The search terms were agreed upon at the end of September. Documents were put into a relativity database, which is a review platform for reviewing and tagging documents, on October 12th. And the review -- they have to do some tech things to make that all\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 9 work, but the review started October 17th with a team of between 50 and 65 lawyers working on it. The productions to the trustee started three days later on October 20th. There's been to date three productions to the trustee of, my understanding, 10,701 documents, which is a little over 63,000 pages that have gone to the trustee. The debtor has received 2,177 documents under the potential personal harm category, which is about a little over 18,000 pages. And so we've been essentially acting in accordance with the -- with the procedure that we're proposing today, Judge, and we would request that the Court grant the order. It was filed as unopposed, consented to by the debtor. I understand the trustee filed a consent after that a few days afterwards. So I believe the order is consensual at this point and that's my understanding. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. LAYDEN: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, I assume you're handling this matter on behalf of the trustee? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, again. Nick Bassett from Paul Case 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 9 of 44\n\nHastings on behalf of the trustee.\n\nMr. Layden is correct that we did, of course,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 10 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 10 submit a reservation of rights in response to Baker Hosteller's motion. We, as we said in what we submitted, do consent to the entry of the order. We don't have any objection to the procedure that Baker Hostetler has proposed. As we stated in our paper, we, you know, came to that conclusion and got comfortable with the proposed order based in part on the representation that Baker Hostetler had made to the trustee about the progress that they have made in reviewing documents, the fact that the lion's share of the documents have already been reviewed and produced. And to the extent that there are remaining categories, those, you know, should not take too long. It should not prevent Baker Hostetler from complying with the procedures that they have laid out. One issue that did arise that I wanted to raise with the Court is, as I understand from Baker Hostetler, there are some documents, potentially a substantial number, that are in Baker Hostetler's files and responsive to our subpoena that were produced in the PAX state court litigation. And one of the responses that we have received from them is that those documents, you know, would not be produced to the trustee or that the trustee should get them from another source.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 11 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 11 And I think the two issues we had heard is that there are confidentiality concerns because those documents were produced pursuant to a protective order in the PAX litigation, and/or some of those documents, according to what we've heard, would need to be reviewed for potential personal harm privileges belonging to the debtor. I just wanted to, you know, briefly state our position on those two issues, the first of which is that the trustee has signed the protective order in the PAX litigation at the request of the debtor. We also now have a protective order in this case. So there should be no issue with the trustee receiving documents marked confidential just because they were produced in the PAX litigation. The second issue is that if a document was produced in discovery in the PAX litigation, there's no way that document could be privileged on a personal harm basis because it's already been made available to adversaries in a litigation. So our position is that all of those documents should just be made available to the trustee. And I raise that now because I don't want this, you know, sort of bucket of documents in the PAX litigation to, you know, somehow create an issue that would bring us back before the Court, notwithstanding the fact that we otherwise have an agreement Case 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 12 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 12 on a procedure that was laid out in the motion. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Layden? MR. LAYDEN: Sure. The issue with the documents in the PAX litigation is that the state court in the PAX litigation entered an order that said if a receiving party receives a subpoena for documents, or is otherwise compelled to produce documents that are subject to the protective order, then the protective order either has to be amended or there has to be ten business days notice to the producing party to give them an opportunity to object and then the document can be produced. And so I understand that there may be an agreement with the Zeisler firm, but some of those documents are third-party productions, so they're not documents that came from Zeisler, for example, or came from the debtor's side. They're documents that came from third parties under what appear to be third-party subpoenas to them. And so -- THE COURT: That PAX had served on the third parties is you're saying? Or who served the -- MR. LAYDEN: I don't know who served the subpoenas. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: The way that they're reflected in what we have is it's they're called third-party production\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 13 and there's about ten parties listed with documents under there. And so I'm happy to work with the trustee's counsel. But what we think is appropriate is that we send a letter to each of the parties that produced documents and provide ten business days notice, which is what's required under that order, and then produce them. Because I'm not -- my reading of the protective order is that even if the debtor and PAX were to agree it can be produced, that the non-parties that produced documents have rights under that order and the Court says what is supposed to happen. And so my understanding is that what should happen is we should send a letter to give the ten days notice. If for some reason that's not necessary, we'll produce them, but we believe that that's necessary to comply with the state court order. THE COURT: Okay. But the third-party documents that you're talking about, third-party produced documents, they're not privileged. They're not subject to a privilege. And how are they subject to a protective order? MR. LAYDEN: The protective order, by its terms, apply to documents -- as I understand the state court protective order applies to documents produced in that litigation even if it's not privileged. So a third party Case 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 13 of 44\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 14 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 14 that was producing documents under a subpoena I think it could be covered by the protective order even though it's not privileged, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I'll let you both try to figure that out. But it sounds -- I don't know. I haven't looked at the protective order that was issued in the state court litigation so I don't know. But if there are documents that have already been produced and the debtor is not opposing the production to the trustee, then I guess I'm somewhat not understanding the issue. But that doesn't mean -- I haven't read it. MR. LAYDEN: Understood. THE COURT: So I haven't read it. Attorney Bassett, is there -- you know, you and Attorney Layden are going to talk about this or are you concerned that this is going to raise some other issue that the Court needs to address right now? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I guess what I'd say is, you know, I'm always hoping to avoid having to come back to the Court. So while obviously we can go talk to Attorney Layden about it, you know, to the extent that there was an ability for us to make progress during this hearing before Your Honor, that would be great. But the one thing I would mention is that we had not understood, based on our conversations with Attorney\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 15 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 15 Layden prior to the hearing today, that their concern was that these documents in the PAX litigation were produced by third parties subject to the protective order. But even that being the case, my reaction is twofold. One, the trustee has stepped into the shoes of the debtor, who of course was a party to the protective order in the PAX litigation and, therefore, I don't see any reason why we would not have not access to those documents. Two, out of an abundance of caution, we have already agreed to be bound by that protective order. So, again, I don't see the issue. I think all parties who have a concern regarding confidentiality should be protected. But I do appreciate the fact that Your Honor does not have the protective order from that case before you. You have not reviewed it. I am happy to go back to try to work this out with Attorney Layden. But, again, it is, to be clear, it is a circumstance where we don't really think there should be an issue at all. THE COURT: Anything further, Attorney Layden? MR. LAYDEN: Just briefly, Judge. Our intent is to get them the documents that they're entitled too. We've gone to great lengths to try to produce as quickly as we can. This one was kind of a late arriving issue that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 16 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 16 maybe we first talked about Friday afternoon late. I feel confident that we can work it out with the trustee's counsel. And our goal is to get them the documents they're entitled to. I just want to be careful that I don't violate the state court order in doing so. THE COURT: Okay. I understand your position. Thank you. With regard to the proposed order, Attorney Bassett, that Baker Hostetler attached to its motion, it's a two-page proposed order. I've looked at it. Are you saying that you have no changes or additions or edits to the order? I mean, we need to add the date of the hearing and the ECF number of the motion, but other than that, is there anything in this order that you are not consenting to or wish to change? MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. That's correct. We do not have an objection to the entry of the proposed order as drafted. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, then what will happen is the motion will be granted, your proposed order will enter with -- we can enter the hearing date and the ECF number, that's the only thing we need to enter besides putting a -- putting the signature on the order. Okay? And then I know you will continue to work with\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 17 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 17 Attorney Bassett to try to resolve this remaining issue that you addressed today. And I'm confident, as you are, that you will be able to resolve that issue. Okay? MR. LAYDEN: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: So the motion is granted and the proposed order with the minor additions noted on the record will enter. MR. LAYDEN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LAYDEN: I intend to stay in the courtroom for as long as I can, but I have a flight, so can I otherwise be excused? This is the only matter I believe I'm involved in. THE COURT: You can do whatever you think is appropriate. You don't need to stay but you're welcome to stay. MR. LAYDEN: Thank you very much. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. BARANOWSKY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. If everyone will just give me one moment until we go to the next matter, please. (Pause) THE COURT: All right. Then the remaining matter in the Kwok case on today's calendar is the motion to quash filed by -- on behalf of Williams & Connolly. And I saw\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 18 that the Chapter 11 Trustee's counsel filed a response I think last night. Have the parties had an opportunity to discuss this or are we proceeding? Would you like to make argument on your motion or would you just like to report on the status? MR. HEALY: I'm happy to proceed however the Court would prefer. THE COURT: Well, have you made any progress with regard to the issues in your motion to quash? MR. LINSEY: I mean, if it's their motion, I'll say we have engaged in telephone conferences regarding the issues in the motion including yesterday. The last one was prior to the response that the trustee filed yesterday evening. However, it was -- I think it's fair to say it ended with an agree to disagree and we'll present the issues to the Court. THE COURT: That's fine. That's fine. Go right ahead, counsel, then. MR. HEALY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. We did file the motion, you know, to seek the Court's guidance on this issue and some I think bedrock principles to keep in mind here. Williams & Connolly has not represented this debtor for almost five years, that Williams & Connolly also\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 18 of 44\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 19 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 19 provided the debtor's current counsel the entire client file coming up on two years ago now. And in our view there's no reason that the very same information that's being requested of Williams & Connolly couldn't be gathered from a party in this case. And that's the case law that we briefed in our motion, Your Honor, that, whereas here, the same information, the documentation, can be obtained from a party, courts generally will not impose that more serious and unfair burden on a third-party law firm, which is what we have here. What we did provide the Court was the cover correspondence that accompanied Williams & Connolly providing that client file to the debtor's counsel so the Court can, in fact, now have some confidence that that file was provided to the debtor. You know, if there's to be another production of the client file to the debtor in order for the debtor to then make the privilege calls, you know, we'll leave that to the Court. But, you know, our concern here is that there -- is that Williams & Connolly would be taking on the burden of doing a review not only for responsiveness but also for privilege. And in this context, under the consent order that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 20 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 20 governs in this case, we don't believe that the privilege determinations will be an easy decision. We think there will be some difficult calls. You know, for example, in determining whether something falls within an investigative topic, which is the debtor's privilege he retains versus something that is the trustee's privilege, you know, the matters that William & Connolly represented the debtor for, those are difficult decisions. You know, some of these are employment matters involving, you know, negotiating agreements or setting up payroll, which side that falls on I think could be a difficult call. You know, one can imagine the tax planning or corporate entity formation too could involve difficult decisions in terms of which side that it falls on. And in our view the better course is for the debtor, the person who may, in fact, hold that privilege to be the one who in the first instance makes that determination. And if there's a disagreement between the debtor and the trustee, they can of course bring that to the Court or work it out as the case may be. So our view is that in this case given the circumstance Williams & Connolly is in, have not represented the debtor for quite some time, and has taken concrete steps\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 21 of 44\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022
21 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to ensure that the entire client file was, in fact, provided |\n| 2 | to the debtor, that the better course of action would be, in |\n| 3 | fact, to request those documents from the debtor in the |\n| 4 | first instance and to proceed in that fashion. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | And when you say the file was -- the entire file |\n| 7 | was given to the debtor's counsel, which counsel? |\n| 8 | MR. HEALY:
So the motion, Your Honor -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I know you said it in the motion, but |\n| 10 | I don't have it open in front of me unfortunately at the |\n| 11 | moment. |\n| 12 | MR. HEALY:
No, not a problem.
Let me -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Although I could open it. |\n| 14 | MR. HEALY:
No problem.
So it's Exhibit 2 to the |\n| 15 | motion is a cover letter to Aaron Mitchell of Lawall & |\n| 16 | Mitchell dated January 28th, 2021. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Attorney Mitchell has filed an |\n| 18 | appearance in this case but hasn't really done anything in |\n| 19 | this case.
The Zeisler firm has been the debtor's counsel. |\n| 20 | So I understand what you're saying now.
Okay.
That's why |\n| 21 | it didn't ring a bell immediately with me, but I understand |\n| 22 | now.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | All right.
Is there anything else you want to |\n| 24 | add?
I'm going to hear from the trustee's counsel and I'll |\n| 25 | give you an -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 22 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 22 MR. HEALY: Of course. I'm happy to answer questions either -- THE COURT: -- I'll give you an opportunity to respond after the Chapter 11 Trustee's counsel addresses the issue. MR. HEALY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Linsey? MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. I guess before I get into the specifics, I just wanted to start by noting the contrast. We've been here now with Brown Rudnick and with Baker Hostetler and now with Williams & Connolly. Obviously, there's subpoena discovery under Rule 2004 going on with other law firms and advisors behind the scenes. But just taking, for example, what you heard from Baker Hostetler today, that they have 50 different lawyers, you know, looking over documents and preparing production, Williams & Connolly's position, as has been articulated, and as it appears in the motion, is that they don't want to be bothered and that the production should be obtained from the debtor and only from the debtor and that's simply untenable and I'll discuss why. The trustee served Williams & Connolly with a subpoena under the Court's Rule 2004 order on September\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 23 of 44\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022
23 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 22nd.
The deadline to file responses and objections was 14 |\n| 2 | days later.
That deadline passed without objections or |\n| 3 | responses being served on the trustee. |\n| 4 | The deadline for production to have been made |\n| 5 | responsive to the subpoena was yesterday.
That deadline |\n| 6 | passed as well without any production having been made.
The |\n| 7 | motion to quash was filed I believe last Thursday. |\n| 8 | Williams & Connolly has not filed any motions to |\n| 9 | extend its time or request any extensions of time with |\n| 10 | respect to these deadlines. |\n| 11 | Now, for background, the trustee understands from |\n| 12 | information that's been made available to the trustee from |\n| 13 | other sources that Williams & Connolly represented the |\n| 14 | individual debtor. |\n| 15 | And given that we have jointly administered cases, |\n| 16 | when I say the individual debtor, I mean Ho Wan Kwok as |\n| 17 | opposed to the Genever BVI debtor, that Williams & Connolly |\n| 18 | represented the individual debtor with respect to the |\n| 19 | formation of the Genever BVI debtor, as well as Genever |\n| 20 | U.S., that subsidiary that ultimately owns the penthouse |\n| 21 | apartment in Manhattan. |\n| 22 | The trustee believes that Williams & Connolly may |\n| 23 | have represented the individual debtor and related persons |\n| 24 | and entities as to other matters.
And from the presentation |\n| 25 | today by Williams & Connolly it certainly sounds like that's |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 24 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 24 the case. Unfortunately, in the meet and confers that we've had the trustee has asked for a list of matters as to which Williams & Connolly has represented the individual debtor and related persons and entities and Williams & Connolly has declined to provide that. So, for example, tax advice. That's the first the trustee is hearing that is this hearing. The notion that there was payroll advice, I don't believe that we've heard that prior to this hearing. So that's put us in a position to inhibit obviously any kind of cooperative efforts that could occur to target discovery. Of course, Williams & Connolly is essentially taking the position that with most discovery that they're not going to comply at all, that rather, the sole source of that discovery should be from the individual debtor. And I want to clarify a few things. With respect to Williams & Connolly's contention that it provided the client file to the individual debtor's counsel, that is alleged to have occurred in January of 2021, nearly 20 months ago by my math, and more than a year prior to the petition date in this case. Whatever file was provided, it was provided to Mr. Mitchell, not to Zeisler & Zeisler, the individual debtor's current bankruptcy counsel in this case.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 25 of 44\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022
25 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And the trustee has had numerous meet and confers |\n| 2 | with individual debtor's counsel where the individual debtor |\n| 3 | has taken the position, really ad nauseam, that he doesn't |\n| 4 | have any documents, that there are no available documents, |\n| 5 | and that the only place that the trustee is going to be able |\n| 6 | to get documents is from the individual debtor's former |\n| 7 | counsel. |\n| 8 | Now, the trustee doesn't agree with that position. |\n| 9 | But in order to move the trustee's investigation forward, |\n| 10 | we're proceeding on multiple tracks.
And really, even |\n| 11 | without respect to that position, we would be subpoenaing |\n| 12 | further law firms -- former law firms and related entities. |\n| 13 | Williams & Connolly, based on a telephone |\n| 14 | conference that we had yesterday, I think would admit that |\n| 15 | there are documents responsive to the subpoena that are |\n| 16 | applicable to the disputed requests, that are not covered in |\n| 17 | whatever client file that was given.
And, again, that |\n| 18 | client file that was supposedly given to someone else has |\n| 19 | not been made available to the trustee. |\n| 20 | Now, there are procedures under the Federal Rules |\n| 21 | of Civil Procedure for parties to assert privilege.
There |\n| 22 | are special issues in this case because much of the |\n| 23 | privilege has passed to the Chapter 11 Trustee.
And we've |\n| 24 | dealt with those by creating procedures on a consensual |\n| 25 | basis that Your Honor ordered in the form of that consent |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 26 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 26 order. So there are procedures for all this to work out. It's -- we're working it out with other parties, but Williams & Connolly, like other advisory firms, in realizing it's not pleasant, must play by the rules of the game and produce responsive discovery so that the trustee's investigation is not delayed. A rough analogy, I think back to when I was -- when I was a kid there was one game I always hated and that was Monkey in the Middle. And there have been several times, I think Your Honor's heard some of them, in the context of discovery in this case where it's been, you know, the individual debtor on one side, it's been someone else on the other, and everyone's pointing fingers, there's a game of ping-pong back and forth, get it from here, get from there. The fact is parties, including third parties, have obligations under discovery. Subpoenas have been served. Deadlines exist. And now there needs to be production. So in addition to the objection to the motion to quash, there has been a cross-motion to compel, and the trustee requests that the Court deny the motion to quash and enter an order that production be made within seven days. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 27 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 27 THE COURT: I don't have any questions at the moment but I might. Okay. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. Okay. THE COURT: I would ask counsel for Williams & Connolly, I have a question about your -- I just was able to look at the exhibit that you referred to. I did see it the other day, but I didn't have it in front of me. MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And if I'm reading Exhibit 2 properly, it's a letter to Aaron Mitchell that says enclosed is the final tranche of the Kwok file returned. So how many times did Williams & Connolly turn over documents to Attorney Mitchell? MR. HEALY: If I could have the client representative address that directly, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. Yes, please. MS. SIMPSON: We submitted three tranches of documents. This was during COVID. And just as a rolling basis. Our office was closed and I was actually the one that did it so we separated them into three individual deliveries. So we just sent you the last letter -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. SIMPSON: -- to signify that the client file had been delivered. THE COURT: And did Mr. Mitchell ask you to -- ask\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 28 the firm to turn over the client file? MS. SIMPSON: That's right. Yes, he did. THE COURT: Okay. And did he tell you why? MS. SIMPSON: He did not tell us why and we did not ask him if the -- we confirmed with the client that the client wished for that to happen. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to the encrypted drive that's referred to in the letter, the January 28, 2021 letter, is that -- MS. SIMPSON: Yes. THE COURT: -- does Williams & Connolly still have that -- a copy of that encrypted drive in your records? MS. SIMPSON: Yes, Your Honor, we do. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SIMPSON: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Sure. MS. SIMPSON: What we did not do at the time obviously we were delivering the client file pursuant to the D.C. Rules, which are as you may know quite broad, so we did not do any sort of, you know, we didn't review them for -- this was long before the bankruptcy so we weren't reviewing them for any specific reason or pulling anything out. THE COURT: And did you -- did Williams & Connolly retain a copy of everything that they turned over to Attorney Mitchell? Case 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 28 of 44\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 29 of 44\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022
29 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. SIMPSON:
That's right.
Yes, we did. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
That's helpful to |\n| 3 | know.
Thank you. |\n| 4 | MS. SIMPSON:
Yeah. |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
And, Your Honor, if I may? |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
I apologize for interrupting, but |\n| 8 | it's more in the form of a question, which is what does it |\n| 9 | mean a client file?
Does that include internal emails? |\n| 10 | Because typically it doesn't.
And of course we're seeking |\n| 11 | those, so I want to make sure that issue is before the |\n| 12 | Court. |\n| 13 | MS. SIMPSON:
Your Honor, if I may? |\n| 14 | One point of clarification.
I think distinction |\n| 15 | between Williams & Connolly and Baker Hostetler, who I had |\n| 16 | the privilege to listen to, we did not handle one litigation |\n| 17 | matter or even two concise litigation matters.
We handled |\n| 18 | myriad matters. |\n| 19 | And so, yes, the client file did include emails, |\n| 20 | but it wasn't as easy as taking a litigation filing and |\n| 21 | collecting that.
That -- this was over myriad matters from |\n| 22 | many time keepers.
But, yes, the client file did include |\n| 23 | internal emails. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
But did it include all of the internal |\n| 25 | communications?
I think that's the question. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 30 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 30 MS. SIMPSON: Yes. THE COURT: You know, I don't know if it did or it didn't, but I think the question is did Williams & Connolly retain any documents, internal communications, that it didn't turn over to Attorney Mitchell? MS. SIMPSON: We did. THE COURT: You did. Okay. MS. SIMPSON: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SIMPSON: I can give you the reasons for that if you'd like. THE COURT: Sure. Go right ahead. MS. SIMPSON: Privilege, internal privilege materials that where we were just talking with our general counsel for example. We also withheld bills. We typically don't consider that part of the client file, and we can address that today as well. Non-responsive, off-topic. For example, one of our partners might send, Bob Barnett, I don't know if you've heard of him, he's very prone to seeing things in the news and he'll flip a news letter or news clipping to another lawyer. We did not consider that part of the client file. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SIMPSON: So those are examples. THE COURT: Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 31 of 44\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022
31 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. SIMPSON:
Yeah. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I appreciate that. |\n| 3 | MS. SIMPSON:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Attorney Linsey? |\n| 5 | MR. LINSEY:
We start to get a -- when we parsed |\n| 6 | very deeply into the facts, you know, we kind of lose the |\n| 7 | forest for the trees, but suffice to say my understanding |\n| 8 | from the call that we had yesterday is that the client file |\n| 9 | is not contemporaneous, fully contemporaneous, with all |\n| 10 | discovery in Williams & Connolly's possession with all |\n| 11 | documents and information in their possession responsive to |\n| 12 | the subpoena.
And that's, you know, there are several |\n| 13 | reasons why we take issue with the motion to quash. |\n| 14 | Even if we had had the entire client file turned |\n| 15 | over, you know, allegedly by Mr. Mitchell, we would be, you |\n| 16 | know, working with Williams & Connolly to obtain discovery |\n| 17 | to ensure that we have everything from the individual debtor |\n| 18 | that we're supposed to have.
But right now we don't have |\n| 19 | anything. |\n| 20 | And my understanding, and Williams & Connolly can |\n| 21 | correct me if I'm wrong, but, you know, there are documents |\n| 22 | that are responsive to the subpoena that are not contained |\n| 23 | within the individual client file. |\n| 24 | As far as privileges that might be asserted by |\n| 25 | Williams & Connolly, there is a procedure to assert those |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 32 privileges, you know, to the extent they exist, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But the fact that it's onerous to participate in discovery because there needs to be, you know, privilege asserted or a privilege logs served, does not prevent the functioning of discovery or the functioning of subpoenas. If it did, then there could never be discovery. MR. HEALY: And, Your Honor, if I may? Our motion to quash was not directed to the entirety of the subpoena. We directed it to the particular paragraphs that would be responsive to the entire client file as we've indicated to Mr. Lindsey in the meet and confers. For example, bills, those were not included in the client file. They are called for in a subpoena. We have indicated we will produce those, obviously, in collaboration Case 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 32 of 44\n\n But our motion to quash is based on the point that an entire client file, that as you heard a moment ago, includes the relevant internal communications that it should not be on a third-party law firm to undertake the very seriously burdensome procedure of reviewing that entire file for responsiveness and for a privilege that belongs to the debtor. It does not belong to the law firm. That's why we undertook this motion.\n\nwith ensuring there's no privilege claim.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 33 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 33 THE COURT: I understand. So I wanted to ask you before, and I forgot, you had talked about investigative topics, and you said that something that I thought was -- might not be accurate. Did you -- did you review, I'm sure you did, but the definition of investigative topics really goes to -- in the consent order goes to the trustee's investigation into the assets known or unknown of the debtor and what other causes of action might be available to the debtor or might be available for the estate. So when you're talking about billing records and things of that nature, I don't see how that is an investigative topic. And I do think that there are -- there are -- when you say -- and I understand, that you talk about specific paragraphs with regard to the motion to quash then what is the plan to produce the documents that aren't -- that you are not seeking to quash? You're not going to produce them? You're going to still ask the -- I'm just asking the question, I just want to make sure I understand -- you're still going to ask the trustee's counsel to get them from the attorney? MR. HEALY: No. What we have indicated to Mr. Linsey before -- THE COURT: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 34 of 44\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022
34 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. HEALY:
-- is what we do not have to do is go |\n| 2 | through the client file and be responsible for making those |\n| 3 | calls that Your Honor just explained.
That our client file |\n| 4 | does not include bills.
We've indicated to Mr. Linsey we |\n| 5 | will make -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Well, I think the investigative -- |\n| 7 | MR. HEALY:
-- arrangements to provide those. |\n| 8 | They were not in the client file.
They can be provided by |\n| 9 | us.
That's what we were trying to do, Your Honor.
If there |\n| 10 | are things specific to Williams & Connolly not in the client |\n| 11 | file, that's the conversation we're prepared to have as part |\n| 12 | of our burden -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, the investigation topics, |\n| 14 | and believe me I've see a lot of things, so I could be |\n| 15 | confusing things, so please correct me if I'm wrong. |\n| 16 | But wasn't one of the issues why the trustee |\n| 17 | sought the information from Williams & Connolly was that |\n| 18 | Williams & Connolly -- and now, I could be wrong, so correct |\n| 19 | me -- represented the debtor in the formation of some of the |\n| 20 | entities in the British Virgin Islands, including the entity |\n| 21 | that owns the hotel in -- I mean, not the hotel, but that |\n| 22 | owns the apartment in the Sherry-Netherland Hotel? |\n| 23 | MS. SIMPSON:
Your Honor, that is correct. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 25 | MS. SIMPSON:
Williams & Connolly did assist with |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 35 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 35 some of those transactions. THE COURT: Okay. So why is that not -- why is that information not being produced? MS. SIMPSON: Again, that was part -- we returned all of that to Mr. Kwok's counsel, Mr. Mitchell. We considered that all part of the client file. There was a tremendous volume of transactional materials that we returned to the debtor. And, again, I think is -- our counsel is stating we're here for your guidance on the best way to handle that. We think that the debtor is in the best position to determine very close privilege calls. It's -- THE COURT: Well, the privilege actually, if you -- and I'm not saying you've had the opportunity to review all this extensively, okay -- MS. SIMPSON: Yeah. THE COURT: -- but we've had a lot of hearings about the privilege issue. MS. SIMPSON: Right. THE COURT: We've had a lot of hearings about the governance issues. We've had a lot of hearings about the protective order. And the -- what the trustee is seeking, at least from what I can see, is information that would relate to the assets of the bankruptcy estate. Now, the cases that you've cited in your motion to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 36 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 36 quash, many of which are important cases, but don't necessarily address the trustee's investigative duties in a Chapter 11 case when the debtor has been removed from possession, that means not able to continue to administer the estate, and a third party has been ordered by the Court to go in and conduct that investigation and that is what has happened in this case. And that ruling appointing the trustee was not appealed and, therefore, it's a final order.\n\n The issue with regard to the entities that your firm represented the debtor in I think is subject to discovery by your firm, even if you turned over the documents to this attorney, who at some point filed an appearance in this case when Brown Rudnick was withdrawing its appearance, but before or very close to the time that Zeisler & Zeisler came in to represent the debtor, and that attorney has never done anything in this case other than file an appearance. He's never been in the court. He's never been on any kind of remote hearings we've had. So I have no way to gauge what he has or doesn't have, right?\n\n All I have -- I mean, I do given what you've said, but up to this point -- and now the trustee's saying to me, look, I need that information. I need that information.\n\n There's a protective order in place. There's a consent order with regard to privileges. You've filed a motion to quash.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 37 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 37 I think that I -- what I'm going to -- I am going to order the two of you to do is to have a further conversation about what you're going to produce, if anything, and if you're not, then I want to know that specifically and then I'll have to rule. But I think that, you know, there is a lot of different information in this case that you could assert is privileged. However, there is an order that says the privileges have passed to the trustee subject only to paragraph 7 which talks about the personal harm. The formation of an entity in the British Virgin Islands, a corporate entity that the debtor has some ownership interest in, or whatever interest he has, whatever it be, legal, beneficial, whatever, it would be hard for the Court to find at this moment that would be somehow personal harm to the debtor. There was -- that issue was negotiated and argued about extensively in this court. And the trustee has to try to fulfill his duties and that's what he's trying to do. Okay. And I understand -- I do understand the argument about it's a burden, and I understand that. Unfortunately, that may be a burden that you have to undertake. This is a Chapter 11 case in which a trustee has been appointed. That's an unusual situation. The reason\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 38 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 38 that that happened was because of many reasons including the fact that the debtor's counsel, prior debtor's counsel, agreed that cause existed to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee, convert the case or dismiss the case. Cause includes many things. And it's not a defined term as I'm sure you know. But in this case there has been assertions from the minute the debtor filed this case that the debtor was not being honest about his assets. Whether that's true or not, that hasn't been tried. That's the assertions that have been made and the trustee is attempting to investigate those assertions and find out whether they're true or not. And the trustee definitely, you know, has a lot of work to do. But as far as I can see has been following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to that investigation and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. So what I'm going to do with regard to your motion to quash is I'm going to order the parties to continue to discuss this issue. And I'm going to continue this hearing on both your motion to quash and the cross-claim for a motion to compel until Thursday and I want to see where things stand on Thursday. I will allow you -- because it will be the only issue, I will allow you all to appear via Zoom. You don't\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 39 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 39 have to come to the court. Okay? MS. SIMPSON: Thank you. THE COURT: It will be -- but I want to know where things stand. I want the conversations to continue. And I believe the focus should be narrowed. And if there is a disagreement, I think the disagreement should be narrowed. MR. LINSEY: Your Honor. THE COURT: That's what I would say. MR. LINSEY: I respect the Court's instruction and will certainly comply with that. There was one thing I just want to put a finer point on and that is going to get to this Monkey in the Middle thing and it's with Williams & Connolly's complaint that they don't want to be in the position of asserting a privilege. My understanding is that Williams & Connolly was at one point willing to make documents that could be produced to the trustee available to the individual debtor for the individual debtor to assert that it retained a privilege, that personal harm exception, if it wished, that the individual debtor does not wish to do that and believes that Williams & Connolly should review and assert the privilege. So when I say the Monkey in the Middle thing, I mean, each side is saying the other side should do it and it\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 40 seems to me that's one of the fundamental disconnects here. The trustee's -- THE COURT: Well, haven't we already worked that out with prior firms? MR. LINSEY: We have by the -- what we just saw with the Baker & Hostetler order is that Baker & Hostetler is affording the individual debtor the opportunity to make determinations. And the trustee has indicated to Williams & Connolly that it was prepared to do that with Williams & Connolly. My understanding is that that was at least not immediately acceptable to Williams & Connolly and they wanted to continue with their motion to quash. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to let you all talk about that and you're going to all figure that out before Thursday. And then if you don't, then I will order what everybody needs to do. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to continue the hearing on the motion to quash and the cross-motion to compel to Thursday, October 27th at 2:00 p.m. It will be a remote hearing, so you'll have to contact the courtroom deputy email box and they'll get you the information for the remote hearing. Okay? MS. SIMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 40 of 44\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 41 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 41 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. MS. SIMPSON: Yeah. MR. LINSEY: Before we adjourn, Your Honor, may I raise one housekeeping matter, please? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: The trustee filed yesterday evening a motion for a further stay of certain adversary proceedings. It's not on the calendar today. THE COURT: I know. And I looked at it briefly. You have two parties' consent. Did you get the other party's consent? MR. LINSEY: So that is what I wanted to address. I neglected to indicate that PAX had also consented. They, in fact, consented prior to the filing of the motion. That's on me. No other party that has responded indicated any objection. It doesn't seem like a controversial motion. It was just part -- THE COURT: Let me just ask you a question. When's the deadline run out? MR. LINSEY: The existing stay expired on Friday, which is why we sought a bridge order. 22 THE COURT: Right. MR. LINSEY: Again, it has not in the past been controversial. I don't expect it to be here. THE COURT: Well, this is what I'll do.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 42 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 42 MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll grant the motion. You don't have to have a hearing on it. Relate it back to the 21st. And if the parties who haven't affirmatively consented object, then I'm going to give them a time to object and I'll deal with it at that point in time. MR. LINSEY: I think that is perfectly fine, Your Honor. And, in fact, our position in the motion was that the stay should go into effect and then any party could seek to end it at any time. It's functionally doing the same thing that Your Honor said. THE COURT: Okay. Then maybe I don't need to do what I just said. If I read the proposed order, maybe it does what I need it to do. MR. LINSEY: Either way, Your Honor. But we certainly agree. THE COURT: So the only parties -- so there are still a few parties who haven't responded? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So we've got three parties who've consented and I think three parties who haven't responded? MR. LINSEY: If I were to be a stickler, I'd say three sets of parties because I believe that Mr. Sansone represents the plaintiff collective. THE COURT: Sets of parties, correct.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 43 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 43 MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I'll take a look at that later today or tomorrow at the latest. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. But I did see it. I just -- I didn't see a need for a hearing. MR. LINSEY: Yeah. Look, nothing's -- the barn's not on fire. Nothing's happening in these adversary proceedings, but we would like formal process to be followed. THE COURT: Well, I think you need an order. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. I agree with that. Okay. So is there anything further that we need to address in the Kwok case this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: Then we'll have a continued hearing on the motion to quash, ECF 1002, on Thursday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom and we'll see you all then. ALL COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. (Proceedings adjourned at 1:57 p.m.)\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022
44 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter |\n| 2 | and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct |\n| 3 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |\n| 4 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 5 | |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | November 1, 2022 |\n| 8 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n关于\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司），\n原告，\n诉\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平），\n第11章受托人，\n被告。\n对立诉讼案号：22-05003\n\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\nOctober 25, 2022\n\n关于撤销传票动议及继续进行的审前会议的庭审记录\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐，律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯，律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n庭审程序通过电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林赛，律师）\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nNICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特，律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平，律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表利益相关方 Baker Hostetler（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）：\nKELLIANNE BARANOWSKY, ESQ.（凯莉安·巴拉诺夫斯基，律师）\nGreen & Sklarz, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹有限责任公司）\nOne Audubon Street\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n\nANDREW V. LAYDEN, ESQ.（安德鲁·V·莱登，律师）\nBaker Hostetler\n200 South Orange Avenue\nSuite 2300\nOrlando, FL 32801\n\n代表利益相关方 Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利律师事务所）：\nJAMES J. HEALY, ESQ.（詹姆斯·J·希利，律师）\nCowdery & Murphy, LLC（考德里与墨菲有限责任公司）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nERICA S. SIMPSON, ESQ.（埃丽卡·S·辛普森，律师）\nWilliams & Connolly, LLP\n680 Maine Avenue, SW\nWashington, DC 20024\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 3 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 3\n\n（庭审于下午1:07开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok；以及对立诉讼案号 22-5003，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited 诉受托人 Luc Despins。\n\n法庭：好的。下午好。请第11章受托人先为记录目的说明出庭身份。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBASSETT先生：下午好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。Henzy律师？其余各位均可到席前来。请开始。\n\nHENZY先生：Eric Henzy，来自 Zeisler & Zeisler，代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nHENZY先生：下午好。\n\nSMITH女士：Annecca Smith，Robinson & Cole，代表 PAX。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 4 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 4\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉，我没有听清您的姓名。\n\nSMITH女士：Annecca Smith。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\nBARANOWSKY女士：下午好。Kellianne Baranowsky，来自 Green & Sklarz，担任 Baker Hostetler 的当地律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBARANOWSKY女士：下午好。\n\nLAYDEN先生：下午好，法官阁下。Andrew Layden，来自 Baker Hostetler，代表 Baker Hostetler。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLAYDEN先生：谢谢。\n\nHEALY先生：下午好，法官阁下。James Healy，来自哈特福德的 Cowdery & Murphy。我们已代表 Williams & Connolly 出庭。我这里有 Erica Simpson 律师，她是 Williams & Connolly 的客户代表，前来参加本次听证。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉。我没有听清您的姓名，抱歉。\n\nHEALY先生：我叫 James Healy，H-E-A-L-Y。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 5 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 5\n\nHEALY先生：我相信我昨天已提交出庭通知。\n\n法庭：谢谢。您是？\n\nSIMPSON女士：Erica Simpson，代表 Williams & Connolly。谢谢。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSIMPSON女士：下午好。\n\n法庭：好的。各位请坐。我们有几项事项需要处理。首先，我想就我昨天下午向第11章受托人和 Henzy先生二位提出的、有关对立诉讼中审前会议的问题，向你们提出一个后续问题。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。我们无需在今天继续进行对立诉讼中的会议，即状态会议。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Henzy律师，您同意吗？\n\nHENZY先生：我同意，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我要——谢谢二位。我要说明的是，请案卷记载，审前会议未举行，目前不会安排进一步的审前会议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 6 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022\n\n现在，这并不——这意味着你们任何一方或对立诉讼中的任何人，均可随时请求举行审前会议。\n\n或者，如果本庭认为有必要举行审前会议，我们将作出新的命令安排会议。\n\n但目前，鉴于我们昨天讨论的情况，我认为目前没有必要安排任何进一步的审前会议。好吗？\n\nHENZY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。那么我们将转而处理主案中——即今天日程表上的事项。\n\n第一项事项是 Baker Hostetler 就传票相关程序提出的动议。根据我所见，我感觉对于 Baker Hostetler 的动议可能已有某种协议，还是我理解错误？\n\nLAYDEN先生：我相信是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLAYDEN先生：如获准许，我可以简要概述——\n\n法庭：请。\n\nLAYDEN先生：——以及我认为达成的协议。\n\n法庭：谢谢。请继续。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 7 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 7\n\nLAYDEN先生：谢谢，法官。Baker & Hostetler 在破产案之前的六项事项中代表 Kwok先生。该等事项均因提交破产案而中止。Baker Hostetler 是收到第11章受托人发出的 2004 传票的当事方之一。经第11章受托人同意，我们获得延期至 October 10th 回应传票，并及时对传票作出回应。我们还达成协议，将我们的提交日期延期至 October 21。我们与受托人的律师及债务人的律师进行了广泛协商，以谈判根据特权同意命令识别个人损害文件的程序，最终形成了四至五项要点，实质上构成该动议的主要内容。其内容为，Baker Hostetler 将审查对与第11章受托人律师商定的检索词有响应的文件，并将未被认定为可能属于个人损害文件的文件提交给受托人。我们将对可能构成个人损害的文件作出初步标记，并将该等文件交给债务人的律师。随后，债务人的律师将根据特权同意命令，在该命令所设想的、从提交日期起算的十日期间内，负责作出关于某份文件是否构成个人损害文件的最终决定，并编制该等文件的清单。随后最后两项要点大致只是权利保留，即所有当事方均保留根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》及保护令请求追回文件的权利，因此实质上是为每个人保留权利。这本质上仅是一项程序性动议，用于处理我们如何移交文件以作出决定。我们花费大量时间协商这四至五项要点。在确认该措辞后一两个小时内，我们便提交了动议。我们感谢本庭为此安排加急动议——加急听证。法官，我们所做的是非常迅速地审查文件。审查的文件约有 60,000 份。Baker Hostetler 有一个由超过 50 名律师组成的团队审查文件。检索词于 September 底达成一致。文件于 October 12th 被置入 relativity 数据库，该数据库是用于审查和标记文件的审查平台。审查——他们必须进行一些技术操作以使一切正常运行，但审查于 October 17th 开始，由一个包含 50 至 65 名律师的团队开展。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 8 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 8\n\n向受托人提交文件于三天后的 October 20th 开始。截至目前，已向受托人进行了三次提交，据我了解，共提交了 10,701 份文件，略超过 63,000 页，已交给受托人。债务人已在可能的个人损害类别下收到 2,177 份文件，略超过 18,000 页。因此，法官，我们实质上一直按照——按照我们今天提议的程序行事，并请求本庭作出该命令。该动议作为无异议动议提交，并经债务人同意。我了解受托人在数日后提交了同意书。因此，我相信该命令目前是经一致同意的，这是我的理解。\n\n法庭：好的。非常感谢。\n\nLAYDEN先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：Bassett律师，我假定您代表受托人处理此事项？\n\nBASSETT先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢，法官阁下。再次下午好。我是 Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表受托人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 9 of 44\n\nHastings，代表受托人。\n\nLayden先生说得对，我们当然确实针对 Baker Hosteller 的动议提交了一份权利保留。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 10 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 25, 2022 10\n\n如我们在所提交文件中所述，我们同意作出该命令。我们不反对 Baker Hostetler 所提议的程序。正如我们在文件中所述，我们作出该结论并接受所提议命令，部分基于 Baker Hostetler 就其审查文件的进展情况向受托人作出的陈述，即绝大部分文件已被审查和提交。至于剩余类别，该等类别不应需要太长时间。其不应妨碍 Baker Hostetler 遵守其所列明的程序。我想向本庭提出的一个问题是，据我从 Baker Hostetler 的了解，Baker Hostetler 的档案中存在一些可能为相当数量的文件，其对我们的传票具有响应性，并且该等文件已在 PAX 州法院诉讼中提交。我们从他们那里收到的一项答复是，该等文件不会提交给受托人，或者受托人应从其他来源取得该等文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1059 Filed 11/02/22 Entered 11/02/22 13:08:01 Page 11 of 44\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022 11 我认为我们听到的两个问题是：存在保密方面的顾虑，因为这些文件是依据 PAX（PAX）诉讼中的保护令提交的，并且／或者据我们所知，其中一些文件需要审查，以确定是否存在属于债务人的潜在个人损害特权。我只是想简要说明我们对这两个问题的立场。第一，受托人应债务人的请求，已签署 PAX 诉讼中的保护令。我们现在在本案中也有一项保护令。因此，受托人接收标注为保密的文件不应有任何问题，仅仅因为这些文件是在 PAX 诉讼中提交的。第二，如果某文件是在 PAX 诉讼的证据开示中提交的，该文件不可能基于个人损害而享有特权，因为它已经向诉讼中的对方当事人提供。因此，我们的立场是，所有这些文件都应当向受托人提供。我现在提出这一点，是因为我不希望 PAX 诉讼中的这类文件，不知何故造成一个问题，从而使我们再次回到法院面前，尽管我们在其他方面已就一项程序达成协议。案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 12 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022 12 该程序已在该动议中列明。谢谢。法院：好的。谢谢。Layden（莱登）律师？莱登先生：当然。PAX 诉讼中的文件问题在于，PAX 诉讼中的州法院作出了一项命令，规定如果接收方收到要求提供文件的传票，或者被以其他方式强制提供受保护令约束的文件，则必须修改该保护令，或者必须提前十个工作日通知提交方，给予其提出异议的机会，随后才能提交该文件。因此，我理解可能已与 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）律师事务所达成协议，但其中一些文件是第三方提交的，因此它们并非例如来自蔡斯勒，或者来自债务人一方的文件。它们是第三方根据似乎是向其发出的第三方传票所提交的文件。因此——法院：你的意思是 PAX 向第三方送达了传票？还是谁送达了——莱登先生：我不知道是谁送达了传票。法院：好的。Linsey（林赛）先生：根据我们现有文件中的反映方式，它们被称为第三方提交的文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022 13 其下列有约十个当事方及其文件。因此，我很乐意与受托人的律师合作。但我们认为适当的做法是，向每个提交文件的当事方发送一封信，并提前十个工作日通知，这正是该命令所要求的，然后再提交这些文件。因为我——我对该保护令的理解是，即使债务人和 PAX 同意可以提交，提交文件的非当事人依该命令也享有权利，而法院规定了应当如何处理。因此，我的理解是，应当发送一封信以作出提前十日通知。如果出于某种原因没有必要这样做，我们将提交这些文件，但我们认为为遵守州法院命令，这是必要的。法院：好的。但是你所说的第三方文件，即由第三方提交的文件，并不享有特权。它们不受任何特权约束。那么它们如何受保护令约束？莱登先生：据我理解，该保护令依其条款适用于文件——州法院保护令适用于在该诉讼中提交的文件，即使其不享有特权也是如此。因此，一名第三方 案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 13 页，共 44 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 14 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022 14 根据传票提交文件时，我认为即使这些文件不享有特权，也可能受保护令约束，法官阁下。法院：那么，我让你们二位试着弄清楚这一点。但听起来——我不知道。我没有看过在州法院诉讼中作出的保护令，所以我不知道。但是，如果文件已经提交，并且债务人不反对向受托人提交，我想我有些不理解问题所在。但这并不意味着——我还没有读过它。莱登先生：明白。法院：所以我没有读过它。Bassett（巴塞特）律师，是否——你和莱登律师将就此进行讨论，还是你担心这会引发其他需要法院现在处理的问题？巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我想我要说的是，我一向希望避免不得不再次回到法院。因此，尽管显然我们可以去与莱登律师讨论，但如果我们能够在本次法官阁下面前的听证中取得进展，那就太好了。不过，我想提到的一点是，根据我们与律师的谈话，我们此前并不理解\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 15 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022 15 在今日听证会前与莱登律师的谈话，他们所担心的是 PAX 诉讼中的这些文件是由受保护令约束的第三方提交的。但即便如此，我的反应有两点。第一，受托人已承继债务人的地位，而债务人当然是 PAX 诉讼中保护令的一方，因此，我看不出我们为何不应获得这些文件。第二，出于谨慎考虑，我们已同意受该保护令约束。因此，再次说明，我看不出问题所在。我认为，所有对保密性有所顾虑的当事人都应得到保护。但我确实理解，法官阁下面前没有该案的保护令。您尚未审阅它。我很乐意回去尝试与莱登律师解决此事。但再次说明，需要明确的是，我们确实认为根本不应存在任何问题。法院：莱登律师，还有其他事项吗？莱登先生：简要说几句，法官。我们的意图是向他们提供其有权获得的文件。我们已竭尽全力，努力尽快提交。这个问题是一个较晚出现的问题，我们可能直到上周五下午较晚时才首次谈到它。我有信心我们能够与受托人的律师解决此事。我们的目标是向他们提供其有权获得的文件。我只是想谨慎行事，以免在此过程中违反州法院命令。法院：好的。我理解你的立场。谢谢。关于 Baker Hostetler（贝克·霍斯泰特勒）附在其动议中的拟议命令，巴塞特律师，那是一份两页的拟议命令。我已经看过了。你的意思是，你对该命令没有任何修改、增补或编辑吗？我的意思是，我们需要加入听证日期和该动议的 ECF 编号，但除此之外，该命令中是否有任何你不同意或希望修改的内容？巴塞特先生：没有，法官阁下。正确。我们不反对按所起草的内容录入拟议命令。法院：好的。好。那么将会发生的是，该动议将获准，你们的拟议命令将予以录入——我们可以录入听证日期和 ECF 编号，除在命令上签字之外，这是我们唯一需要录入的内容。好吗？然后，我知道你将继续与\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 16 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022 17 巴塞特律师合作，尝试解决你今天提出的这一剩余问题。并且我和你一样有信心，你将能够解决该问题。好吗？莱登先生：谢谢，法官。法院：因此，该动议获准，附有庭审记录中所述轻微增补的拟议命令将予以录入。莱登先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。莱登先生：我打算尽可能长时间留在法庭内，但我有航班，所以我可以以其他方式获准离席吗？我相信这是我参与的唯一事项。法院：你可以做你认为适当的任何事情。你不需要留下，但欢迎留下。莱登先生：非常感谢。法院：好的。谢谢。Baranowsky（巴拉诺夫斯基）女士：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。好的。在我们进入下一事项前，请各位给我一点时间。（暂停）法院：好的。那么，今日日程中 Kwok（郭文贵）案的剩余事项是代表 Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利）提交的撤销传票动议。而且我看到\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022 18 第 11 章受托人的律师昨晚似乎提交了一份答复。当事人是否已有机会讨论此事，还是我们继续进行？你们希望就你们的动议进行辩论，还是只希望报告进展情况？Healy（希利）先生：无论法院倾向于如何进行，我都愿意。法院：那么，就你们的撤销传票动议中的问题，你们是否取得了任何进展？Linsey（林赛）先生：我的意思是，既然这是他们的动议，我会说，我们已就该动议中的问题举行了电话会议，包括昨天。最后一次是在受托人昨晚提交答复之前。然而——我认为可以说，最终双方同意各持己见，并将问题提交法院。法院：可以。可以。那么，请继续，律师。Healy 先生：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。我们确实提交了该动议，以寻求法院就这一问题的指引，并且我认为这里有一些需要牢记的基本原则。Williams & Connolly 已近五年未代理该债务人，Williams & Connolly 还\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 18 页，共 44 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 19 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022 19 已于近两年前向债务人现任律师提供了全部客户档案。在我们看来，没有理由不能从本案当事人处取得目前向 Williams & Connolly 要求的完全相同的信息。这正是我们在动议中向法院陈述的判例法，法官阁下：在如本案一样，可以从当事人处获得相同信息和文件的情况下，法院通常不会将那种更为严重且不公平的负担施加于第三方律师事务所，而这正是我们这里的情况。我们向法院提供的是 Williams & Connolly 向债务人律师提供客户档案时附送的函件，因此法院现在实际上可以确信，该档案已提供给债务人。如果需要再次向债务人提交客户档案，以便债务人随后作出特权判断，我们将交由法院决定。但我们担心的是，Williams & Connolly 将承担不仅审查相关性，而且审查特权的负担。而在此背景下，依据该同意命令，案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 20 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月25日 20 在本案中适用的，我们认为特权权利的认定不会是一个容易作出的决定。我们认为将会有一些艰难的判断。例如，在确定某事项是否属于调查主题范围内，即债务人保留的特权，与属于受托人特权的事项之间作出区分时，William & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利律师事务所）曾代理债务人处理的事项，都是难以判断的。你知道，其中一些是涉及谈判协议或建立工资发放机制等的雇佣事项，我认为应归属哪一方可能是一个艰难的判断。可以想见，税务筹划或公司实体设立也可能涉及应归属哪一方的艰难判断。我们认为，更妥当的做法是由债务人，即事实上可能持有该特权的人，首先作出该等认定。如果债务人与受托人之间存在分歧，当然可以将该问题提交法院，或者视情况自行解决。因此，我们的观点是，鉴于威廉斯与康诺利在本案中所处的情形，其已经有一段时间未代理债务人，并且已经采取了具体措施\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1059 提交日期 11/02/22 录入日期 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 21 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月25日\n1 以确保整个客户档案实际上已提供给债务人，\n2 因此，更妥当的行动方式实际上应当是\n3 首先向债务人请求该等文件，\n4 并以该种方式继续进行。\n5 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n6 你所说的该档案——整个档案\n7 已经交给债务人律师，是交给哪位律师？\n8 希利先生：\n因此，该动议，法官阁下——\n9 法庭：\n我知道你在动议中提到过，但\n10 不幸的是，此刻该动议没有在我面前打开。\n11 \n12 希利先生：\n没问题。让我——\n13 法庭：\n不过我可以打开它。\n14 希利先生：\n没问题。因此，该动议的附件 2 是一封\n15 致 Lawall & Mitchell（劳沃尔与米切尔律师事务所）的 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）的附信，\n16 日期为 2021 年 1 月 28 日。\n17 法庭：\n好的。米切尔律师已在本案中提交\n18 出庭代理通知，但实际上并未在\n19 本案中做任何事情。Zeisler firm（泽斯勒律师事务所）一直是债务人的律师。\n20 因此，我现在明白你的意思了。好的。这就是为什么\n21 我当时没有立刻想起来，但我现在明白了。\n22 谢谢。\n23 好的。你还有什么要\n24 补充的吗？我将听取受托人律师的意见，然后给你一个——\n25 \n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1059 提交日期 11/02/22 录入日期 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 22 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月25日 22\n希利先生：当然。我很乐意回答任何问题——\n法庭：——在第 11 章受托人的律师就该问题陈述意见后，我会给你一个答复的机会。\n希利先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n法庭：谢谢。林赛律师？\n林赛律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。我想，在讨论具体事项之前，我只想先指出其中的对比。我们此前已就 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）、Baker Hostetler（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所），现在又就威廉斯与康诺利来到这里。显然，依照第 2004 条规则，对其他律师事务所及顾问的传票取证正在幕后进行。但是，例如，仅看您今天从贝克·霍斯特勒听到的内容，他们有 50 名不同的律师审阅文件并准备提供材料；而如已陈述的以及动议中所显示的，威廉斯与康诺利的立场是，他们不想被打扰，所需材料应当从债务人处取得，并且只能从债务人处取得，这根本无法接受，我将说明原因。受托人于 9 月\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1059 提交日期 11/02/22 录入日期 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 23 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月25日\n1 22 日依据法院根据第 2004 条规则作出的命令，向威廉斯与康诺利送达了传票。\n2 提交答复和异议的截止日期是在 14 天后。\n3 该截止日期已经届满，但未向受托人送达任何异议或答复。\n4 依传票要求提供材料的\n5 截止日期是昨天。该截止日期\n6 也已届满，且尚未提供任何材料。\n7 撤销传票的动议，我相信，是在上周四提交的。\n8 威廉斯与康诺利没有就\n9 这些截止日期提交任何延期动议，\n10 或请求任何延期。\n11 现在，作为背景，受托人根据其他来源向其提供的\n12 信息了解到，\n13 威廉斯与康诺利曾代理个人债务人。\n14 \n15 鉴于本案系合并管理案件，\n16 当我说个人债务人时，我是指 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n17 而非 Genever BVI debtor（Genever 英属维尔京群岛债务人）；威廉斯与康诺利\n18 曾就设立 Genever BVI 债务人一事代理个人债务人，\n19 以及设立 Genever\n20 U.S.（Genever 美国），即最终拥有曼哈顿顶层\n21 公寓的该子公司。\n22 受托人认为，威廉斯与康诺利可能\n23 曾就其他事项代理个人债务人及相关人员\n24 和实体。从威廉斯与康诺利今天的陈述来看，\n25 这显然听起来确实如此。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1059 提交日期 11/02/22 录入日期 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 24 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月25日 24 不幸的是，在我们举行的协商会议中，受托人曾要求提供一份威廉斯与康诺利就哪些事项代理过个人债务人及相关人员和实体的清单，而威廉斯与康诺利拒绝提供该清单。例如，税务建议。这是受托人在本次听证会上首次听说此事。至于曾提供工资发放建议的说法，我认为我们在本次听证会之前从未听说过。因此，这显然妨碍了我们为针对性取证可能开展的任何合作努力。当然，威廉斯与康诺利实质上采取的立场是，就大部分取证而言，他们将完全不予遵从，而该等取证的唯一来源应当是个人债务人。我想澄清几件事。关于威廉斯与康诺利声称其已将客户档案提供给个人债务人律师一事，据称该事项发生于 2021 年 1 月，按我的计算距今近 20 个月，且在本案申请日一年多以前。无论提供了何种档案，均是提供给米切尔先生，而非 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），即本案中个人债务人现任的破产律师。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1059 提交日期 11/02/22 录入日期 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 25 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月25日\n1 并且，受托人与个人债务人的律师举行过多次\n2 协商会议，在这些会议中，个人债务人\n3 几乎不厌其烦地采取如下立场：\n4 他没有任何文件，没有可获得的文件，\n5 而受托人能够取得文件的唯一地方\n6 将是个人债务人的前任\n7 律师。\n8 现在，受托人不同意该立场。\n9 但是，为推动受托人的调查，\n10 我们正沿多条路径进行。实际上，即使\n11 不考虑该立场，我们仍会向更多律师事务所——前律师事务所和相关实体——发出传票。\n12 \n13 根据我们昨天举行的电话会议，威廉斯与康诺利\n14 我认为会承认，\n15 存在对传票作出回应的、适用于存在争议的请求的文件，\n16 而这些文件并未涵盖在\n17 已提供的任何客户档案中。再次说明，\n18 该据称已提供给他人的客户档案\n19 尚未向受托人提供。\n20 现在，《联邦民事诉讼规则》中有供当事人主张特权的\n21 程序。本案存在\n22 特殊问题，因为大部分\n23 特权已转移给第 11 章受托人。我们已经通过\n24 以协商一致方式制定程序来处理这些问题，法官阁下已通过该项同意\n25 命令予以裁定。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1059 提交日期 11/02/22 录入日期 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 26 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月25日 26 因此，有程序可使所有这些问题得到解决。我们正在与其他当事人解决这些问题，但威廉斯与康诺利同其他顾问公司一样，尽管意识到这并不令人愉快，仍必须遵守游戏规则，提供与请求相关的取证材料，以免受托人的调查被延误。一个粗略的类比是，我想起在我小时候，有一个我一直讨厌的游戏，那就是“中间猴子”。在本案取证的背景下，已经有好几次，我想法官阁下已经听说过其中一些情形，即个人债务人在一边，其他人在另一边，每个人都互相指责，来回打乒乓球，说从这里取得，从那里取得。事实是，包括第三方在内的当事人均负有取证义务。传票已经送达。截止日期已经存在。现在必须提供材料。因此，除反对撤销传票动议外，还提出了一项交叉动议，请求强制履行，受托人请求法院驳回撤销传票动议，并作出命令，要求在七天内提供材料。如法官阁下有任何问题，我很乐意回答。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1059 提交日期 11/02/22 录入日期 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 27 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月25日 27\n法庭：目前我没有任何问题，但我可能会有。好的。\n林赛律师：谢谢。\n法庭：好的。我想询问威廉斯与康诺利的律师，我有一个关于你们——我刚刚能够查看你所提到的附件。我前几天确实看过它，但当时没有放在我面前。\n希利先生：是的，法官阁下。\n法庭：如果我正确理解附件 2，它是一封致阿伦·米切尔的信，信中称，随附的是已退还的郭文贵档案的最后一批。因此，威廉斯与康诺利向米切尔律师移交过多少次文件？\n希利先生：法官阁下，是否可以请客户代表直接回答该问题？\n法庭：当然。是的，请。\n辛普森女士：我们提交了三批文件。当时正值 COVID 期间。并且是按陆续方式进行。我们的办公室关闭了，实际上是我本人办理的，因此我们将其分为三次单独交付。所以我们刚刚向您发送了最后一封信——\n法庭：好的。\n辛普森女士：——以表明客户档案已交付。\n法庭：米切尔先生是否要求你们——要求该律师事务所移交客户档案？\n辛普森女士：是的，确实如此。\n法庭：好的。他是否告诉你们原因？\n辛普森女士：他没有告诉我们原因，我们也没有问他是否——我们向客户确认，客户希望发生该事项。\n法庭：好的。关于信中提及的加密驱动器，即 2021 年 1 月 28 日的信，是否——\n辛普森女士：是。\n法庭：——威廉斯与康诺利是否仍在你们的记录中保留着该加密驱动器的副本？\n辛普森女士：是的，法官阁下，我们保留着。\n法庭：好的。\n辛普森女士：法官阁下，如我可以补充？\n法庭：当然。\n辛普森女士：我们当时未做的是，显然，我们是依据哥伦比亚特区规则交付客户档案，该等规则如您所知范围相当广泛，因此我们没有进行任何类型的——我们没有为——这远早于破产程序，因此我们并未因任何特定原因审阅这些材料，或抽取任何材料。\n法庭：你们是否——威廉斯与康诺利是否保留了其向米切尔律师移交的全部材料的副本？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1059 提交日期 11/02/22 录入日期 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 28 页，共 44 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1059 提交日期 11/02/22 录入日期 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 29 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022\n\n辛普森女士：\n是的。\n是的，我们这样做了。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n好。\n这有助于了解情况。\n谢谢。\n\n辛普森女士：\n是的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n法官阁下，如果可以的话？\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n抱歉打断一下，但这更像是一个问题，即“客户档案”是什么意思？其中包括内部电子邮件吗？因为通常并不包括。当然，我们正在寻求那些材料，所以我想确保该问题已提交法庭审理。\n\n辛普森女士：\n法官阁下，如果可以的话？有一点需要澄清。我认为，Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利律师事务所）与 Baker Hostetler（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）之间的区别在于，我有幸听取了后者的陈述，而我们并非处理一项诉讼事项，甚至不是两项独立的诉讼事项。我们处理了无数事项。\n\n因此，是的，客户档案包括电子邮件，但并不像获取一份诉讼提交文件并收集它那么容易。这涉及众多工作计时人员处理的无数事项。但是，是的，客户档案包括内部电子邮件。\n\n法庭：\n但其中是否包括所有内部通信？我认为这才是问题所在。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 30 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022\n\n辛普森女士：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n您知道，我不知道其中是否包括或不包括，但我认为问题是，Williams & Connolly 是否保留了任何未向 Mitchell（米切尔）律师移交的文件、内部通信？\n\n辛普森女士：\n我们保留了。\n\n法庭：\n你们保留了。好的。\n\n辛普森女士：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n辛普森女士：\n如您愿意，我可以说明这样做的理由。\n\n法庭：\n当然。请讲。\n\n辛普森女士：\n特权材料，即内部特权材料，例如我们仅与本所总法律顾问进行沟通的材料。我们还保留了账单。我们通常不认为账单属于客户档案的一部分，我们今天也可以就此加以处理。\n\n不具回应性、与议题无关的材料。例如，我们的一名合伙人可能会发送材料，Bob Barnett（鲍勃·巴尼特），我不知道您是否听说过他，他非常倾向于在新闻中看到某些内容后，将一份新闻简报或新闻剪报转发给另一名律师。我们不认为那是客户档案的一部分。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n辛普森女士：\n这些就是一些例子。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 31 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022\n\n辛普森女士：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n我对此表示感谢。\n\n辛普森女士：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\nLinsey（林赛）律师？\n\n林赛先生：\n当我们开始非常深入地剖析事实时，您知道，我们就有些只见树木、不见森林；但简而言之，我根据我们昨天通话的理解是，客户档案并非与 Williams & Connolly 所持有的全部证据开示材料完全同期对应，也并非与其所持有的、对传票具有回应性的全部文件和信息完全同期对应。这正是我们对撤销传票动议提出异议的若干理由之一。\n\n即使 Mitchell 先生已据称向我们移交了整个客户档案，您知道，我们仍会与 Williams & Connolly 合作获取证据开示材料，以确保我们取得应当从个别债务人处获得的全部材料。但目前我们什么也没有。\n\n据我了解，如有错误 Williams & Connolly 可以纠正我，但您知道，存在对传票具有回应性、却不包含在个别客户档案内的文件。\n\n至于 Williams & Connolly 可能主张的特权，根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》，存在主张该等特权的程序，只要该等特权确实存在即可。但仅因参与证据开示具有负担，因为需要主张特权或送达特权日志，并不妨碍证据开示或传票制度的运作。若非如此，就永远不可能进行证据开示。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022\n\n希利先生：\n法官阁下，如果可以的话？我们的撤销传票动议并非针对传票的全部内容。正如我们在会面协商中向林赛先生所说明的，我们针对的是与整个客户档案具有回应性的特定段落。\n\n例如，账单并未包含在客户档案中。传票要求提供该等账单。我们已表示，显然，我们将提供这些账单，并将与确保不存在特权主张的工作相配合。\n\n但我们的撤销传票动议基于以下观点：整个客户档案——如您刚才所听到的，其中包括相关内部通信——不应由第三方律师事务所承担极其繁重的程序，即审查整个档案以确定其回应性以及属于债务人的特权。该特权不属于律师事务所。这就是我们提出该动议的原因。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 32 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022\n\n法庭：\n我明白。因此，我之前想问你，但忘了问：你谈到调查事项，并且你说了一些我认为可能不准确的内容。你是否——我相信你已经——审阅过“调查事项”的定义？该定义在同意令中实际上是指受托人对债务人已知或未知资产的调查，以及债务人可能享有或破产财产可能享有何种其他诉因。\n\n因此，当你谈论账单记录及诸如此类事项时，我看不出那怎么会属于调查事项。而且我确实认为，当你说——我理解——你就撤销传票动议谈到具体段落时，那么对于你们未寻求撤销的文件，提交计划是什么？你们不会提交它们吗？你们仍将要求——我只是在提问，我只是想确保我理解——你们仍将要求受托人的律师从该律师那里取得它们吗？\n\n希利先生：\n不。我们此前向林赛先生所表示的是——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 34 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022\n\n希利先生：\n——我们无须做的是审查客户档案，并负责作出法官阁下刚才所说明的那些判断。我们的客户档案不包括账单。我们已向林赛先生表示，我们将作出——\n\n法庭：\n那么，我认为调查——\n\n希利先生：\n——安排来提供那些材料。它们不在客户档案中。我们可以提供它们。这正是我们试图做的，法官阁下。如果有 Williams & Connolly 特有、但不在客户档案中的事项，作为我们负担的一部分，我们已准备好就此进行讨论——\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，调查事项，而且请相信我，我看过很多事情，所以我可能把事情混淆了；如我有误，请纠正我。\n\n但是，受托人寻求 Williams & Connolly 提供信息的原因之一，不是因为 Williams & Connolly——现在，我可能错了，所以请纠正我——曾在设立一些英属维尔京群岛实体时代理债务人，包括拥有 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-尼德兰酒店）内公寓的实体？我是说，不是拥有酒店，而是拥有该公寓的实体？\n\n辛普森女士：\n法官阁下，那是正确的。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n辛普森女士：\nWilliams & Connolly 确实协助处理了其中一些交易。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 35 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，为什么不提交该等信息？\n\n辛普森女士：\n同样，那是其中的一部分——我们已将所有这些材料返还给 Kwok 先生的律师 Mitchell 先生。我们认为那全部属于客户档案的一部分。我们向债务人返还了数量极大的交易材料。\n\n同样，我认为——我们的律师所说的是，我们在此寻求您就处理该等材料的最佳方式给予指导。我们认为，债务人最适宜作出非常接近界限的特权判断。它——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，特权实际上，如果你——我并不是说你有机会广泛审阅所有这些材料，好吗——\n\n辛普森女士：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n——但我们已经就特权问题举行了许多听证会。\n\n辛普森女士：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n我们已经就治理问题举行了许多听证会。我们已经就保护令举行了许多听证会。而受托人所寻求的，至少从我所能看到的情况而言，是与破产财产资产相关的信息。\n\n现在，你们在撤销传票动议中引用的案件，其中许多都是重要案件，但它们并不必然处理第 11 章案件中受托人的调查职责；在该等案件中，债务人已被解除占有，即不能继续管理破产财产，并且法庭已命令第三方介入并进行该项调查，而这正是本案中已经发生的情况。指定受托人的该项裁定未被上诉，因此它是一项终局命令。\n\n关于贵所曾代理债务人的那些实体的问题，我认为应由贵所进行证据开示，即使你们已将文件移交给该律师；该律师曾在 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）撤回出庭代理时、但在 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）开始代理债务人之前或接近该时点，在本案中提交出庭代理声明，但该律师除提交出庭代理声明外，从未在本案中做过任何事。他从未出现在法庭上，也从未参加过我们举行的任何远程听证会。因此，我无法判断他有什么或没有什么，对吗？\n\n我所掌握的全部——我的意思是，鉴于你们所说的，我确实有所掌握，但截至目前——而现在受托人对我说，看，我需要该信息。我需要该信息。\n\n现有一项保护令。现有一项有关特权的同意令。你们已提出撤销传票动议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 37 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 25, 2022\n\n法庭：\n我认为，我将要——我将命令你们二人进一步讨论你们将提交什么，如有任何材料的话；如果你们不提交，那么我希望具体知道这一点，之后我将不得不作出裁决。\n\n但我认为，您知道，在本案中有许多不同的信息，你们可能会主张其享有特权。然而，已有一项命令规定，特权已移转给受托人，仅受第 7 段限制，该段涉及人身损害。\n\n在英属维尔京群岛设立一个公司实体，债务人对该实体拥有某种所有权权益，或者不论其拥有何种权益，无论是法律权益、受益权益或其他任何权益，法庭目前将很难认定那会以某种方式构成对债务人的人身损害。该问题曾在本法庭经过广泛协商和辩论。\n\n受托人必须设法履行其职责，而这正是他正在做的。好的。我理解——我确实理解有关负担的论点，也理解这一点。不幸的是，这可能是你们必须承担的负担。这是一起已指定受托人的第 11 章案件。这是一种不寻常的情况。其原因\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1059 提交于 11/02/22 录入于 11/02/22 13:08:01 第 38 页，共 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月25日 38 该情况之所以发生，原因有很多，包括债务人的律师、债务人的前任律师同意存在正当理由任命一名Chapter 11受托人、转换案件或驳回案件这一事实。正当理由包括很多事项。而且，正如我确信您所知，这并不是一个定义术语。但在本案中，自债务人提交本案之时起，就一直有人主张债务人没有如实披露其资产。该主张是否属实，尚未经审理。这是已经提出的主张，受托人正试图调查这些主张，并查明其是否属实。受托人显然，您知道，还有大量工作要做。但就我所见，其在该调查中一直遵循《联邦民事诉讼规则》和《联邦破产程序规则》。因此，对于你方的撤销传票动议，我将命令各方继续讨论此问题。我将把对你方撤销传票动议以及交叉强制动议的听证续至星期四，并希望在星期四了解进展情况。我将允许你们——因为届时这将是唯一的问题——通过Zoom出庭。你们不必\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1059 于11/02/22提交 于11/02/22 13:08:01录入 第39页，共44页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月25日 39 到法院来。好吗？\n\nSIMPSON女士（辛普森女士）：谢谢。\n\n法庭：届时将会——但我想知道进展情况。我希望对话继续进行。我认为应当缩小焦点。如果存在分歧，我认为也应当缩小分歧。\n\nLINSEY先生（林西先生）：法官阁下。\n\n法庭：这就是我要说的。\n\nLINSEY先生：我尊重法庭的指示，并且必将遵照执行。有一件事我想进一步明确说明，那将涉及这个“中间的猴子”问题，即Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利律师事务所）所抱怨的，他们不想处于主张特权的地位。我的理解是，Williams & Connolly曾一度愿意向个人债务人提供可向受托人提交的文件，以便个人债务人如愿意，可主张其保留了一项特权，即该个人损害例外；个人债务人不愿意这样做，并认为Williams & Connolly应当审查并主张该特权。因此，当我说“中间的猴子”问题时，我的意思是，双方都说另一方应当去做，而这\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月25日 40 在我看来似乎是此处根本性脱节之一。受托人的——\n\n法庭：那么，我们不是已经与先前的律所解决过这个问题了吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：我们已经通过——我们刚刚看到的Baker & Hostetler（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）命令——解决了，即Baker & Hostetler正在给予个人债务人作出决定的机会。受托人已向Williams & Connolly表示，其准备就Williams & Connolly采取同样做法。我的理解是，Williams & Connolly至少并未立即接受这一做法，并且他们希望继续推进其撤销传票动议。\n\n法庭：那么，我将让你们讨论此事，你们将在星期四之前把这件事解决好。若未解决，那么我将命令各方必须做什么。\n\nLINSEY先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。那么，我们将把对撤销传票动议和交叉强制动议的听证续至星期四，10月27日下午2:00。届时将进行远程听证，因此你们必须联系法庭书记员电子邮箱，他们会向你们提供远程听证的信息。好吗？\n\nSIMPSON女士：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1059 于11/02/22提交 于11/02/22 13:08:01录入 第40页，共44页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1059 于11/02/22提交 于11/02/22 13:08:01录入 第41页，共44页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月25日 41 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nSIMPSON女士：好的。\n\nLINSEY先生：法官阁下，在休庭之前，我可以提出一项事务性事项吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLINSEY先生：受托人昨晚提交了一项动议，请求进一步中止某些对立程序。该动议今天不在日程上。\n\n法庭：我知道。我简要看过。你获得了两方当事人的同意。你获得另一方当事人的同意了吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：这正是我想说明的。我疏忽了，未表明PAX（PAX）也已同意。事实上，他们在提交动议之前就已同意。这是我的责任。没有其他作出回应的当事人表示任何异议。这似乎不是一项有争议的动议。这只是部分——\n\n法庭：我问你一个问题。截止期限何时届满？\n\nLINSEY先生：现有的中止令于星期五届满，这就是我们请求一项临时衔接命令的原因。\n\n法庭：对。\n\nLINSEY先生：同样，该事项过去一直没有争议。我预计本案也不会有争议。\n\n法庭：那么，我将这样处理。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1059 于11/02/22提交 于11/02/22 13:08:01录入 第42页，共44页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月25日 42 LINSEY先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我将准许该动议。你们不必就此举行听证。使其追溯至21日生效。如果尚未明确同意的当事人提出异议，那么我将给予他们时间提出异议，并在届时处理。\n\nLINSEY先生：我认为这完全可以，法官阁下。事实上，我们在动议中的立场是，中止应当生效，然后任何一方当事人均可随时请求终止该中止。这在功能上与法官阁下所说的是同一回事。\n\n法庭：好。那么，也许我不需要做我刚才所说的事情。如果我阅读拟议命令，也许它会实现我需要它实现的内容。\n\nLINSEY先生：无论哪种方式，法官阁下。但我们当然同意。\n\n法庭：那么，唯一的当事人——所以，仍有几方当事人尚未回应？\n\nLINSEY先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么，有三方当事人已同意，我认为有三方当事人尚未回应？\n\nLINSEY先生：如果我吹毛求疵一点，我会说是三组当事人，因为我相信Sansone先生（桑索内先生）代表原告群体。\n\n法庭：当事人组，正确。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 1059 于11/02/22提交 于11/02/22 13:08:01录入 第43页，共44页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月25日 43 LINSEY先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。好的。我将在今天晚些时候，最迟明天，看一下该事项。\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。但我确实看到了。我只是——我认为没有举行听证的必要。\n\nLINSEY先生：是。您看，这些对立程序中没有紧急情况发生，但我们希望遵循正式程序。\n\n法庭：那么，我认为你们需要一项命令。\n\nLINSEY先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是。我同意。好。那么，今天下午我们还需要处理Kwok（郭文贵）案件中的其他事项吗？\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：那么，我们将在星期四下午2:00通过Zoom就撤销传票动议，即ECF 1002，举行续期听证，届时见。\n\n全体律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n（程序于下午1:57休庭。）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月25日\n1 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），注册电子法庭记录员\n2 兼誊录员，证明上述内容是\n3 上述案件程序官方电子录音的正确\n4 誊本。\n\n7 November 1, 2022\n8 Christine Fiore（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1002,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":10396,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-11-02 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-11-02","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:57:03"}