{"id":"court_ctb_1063_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1063,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"| In re:                                | Chapter 11              | |---------------------------------------|-----------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                               |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n| Respondent.                           |                         |\n\n### **MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, incorporated herein by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9018, the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), through his undersigned counsel, hereby moves for a protective order precluding the disclosure of the Debtor's asylum application (the \"Asylum Application\") to the Chapter 11 Trustee, Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\"). In support of his Motion, the Debtor respectfully states as follows:\n\n# **I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed his Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor (Doc. No. 637) (the \"Professionals 2004 Motion\"), seeking, *inter alia*, to conduct the examination of Clark Hill PLC (\"Clark Hill\").\n\n2. Clark Hill was the Debtor's counsel with respect to the Asylum Application.\n\n3. The Debtor filed a limited objection (Doc. No. 703), *inter alia*, to the Professionals 2004 Motion on August 5, 2022, on the grounds that if the proposed order filed therewith were entered and interpreted literally, it would preclude objections, including based upon privilege, in violation of Local Rule 2004-1.\n\n4. On August 16, 2022, the Court entered the Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Discovery with Respect to Various Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor (Doc. No. 756), which *inter alia*, permitted service of a subpoena upon Clark Hill, but directed that compliance was \"[s]ubject to any rights under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable Local Rules[.]\"\n\n5. On August 18, 2022, the Trustee gave notice that it would serve a subpoena (the \"Subpoena\")<sup>1</sup> upon, *inter alia*, Clark Hill, which was subsequently served upon Clark Hill.\n\n6. On September 14, 2022, the Court entered the Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information (Doc. No. 856) (the \"Consent Order\"). The Consent Order defined the scope of the Trustee's and Debtor's respective control of the attorney-client and work-product privileges and set forth certain procedures for disputes concerning the same. Moreover, the Consent Order specifically provided\n\nNothing herein shall prevent the Debtor from asserting any and all privileges concerning legal matters unrelated to the Investigation Topics, such as unrelated criminal allegations or the Debtor's asylum application (other than documents related to the litigation styled as *Guo Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC*, Case No. 19-cv-03195 (D. D.C.) [(the \"Clark Hill Action\")] that relate to the merits of the legal malpractice action, as distinguished from the merits of the Debtor's asylum application, subject to the balancing test incorporated herein, **which does not relate to the substance of the asylum application**).\n\n<sup>1</sup> A copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.\n\n(Consent Order, ¶ 4.) (emphasis added). The Investigation Activities are limited to the Debtors'\n\nassets, financial condition, or activities related to the administration of the bankruptcy estate,\n\nwhich, per the Consent Order, \"does not relate to the substance of the asylum application.\" (*Id.*, ¶\n\n2.)\n\n7. During the hearings concerning the negotiation of the Consent Order, the Trustee\n\nand his counsel each represented, separately, that the Trustee did not seek the Debtor's Asylum\n\nApplication:\n\nThe debtor identifies his concerns about potentially privileged documents related to . . . things that have been made against him as well as his asylum application. *We are not, in our investigation at this time, seeking any documents related to those issues***.** (Tr. 8/30/22, **Exhibit B**, at 104: 6-11 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\n[T]he debtor contends, well as I said before, there's a concern that, you know, it's possible documents the trustee is seeking to have access to could involve potential . . . *unrelated issues like his asylum application, but, again, as I said before, we're not seeking to get those documents through our discovery requests*. (*Id*., at 110: 12-19 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\nThe debtor has identified one request in our subpoena directed to his former law firms and professionals, *Request 17, that asks for information about legal disputes which could be read to include . . . his asylum application, we are willing to make clear on the record that we're not seeking to get that type of information and we'll limit that request accordingly*. (*Id.*, at 110: 20-111:2 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\n[*T]here is no basis that's been provided as to why documents would relate to assets, financial condition, or the administration of the estate, would have anything to do with the debtor's asylum application*. (*Id.*, at 137: 17-20 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\nBut, again, if there is language we could work out to make clear if there's a document that talks about . . . *his asylum application*, things like that, in his objection, I think we could work out language to put in the proposed order to again make clear that *we are not seeking that*. (*Id.*, at 138: 24-139: 5 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\n[A]s we've made clear in our order, you know, *there are carveouts designed to address specifically the concerns that the debtor has raised concerning privileged*  *communications that relate to . . . his asylum application*. (Tr. 9/6/22, **Exhibit C**, 49: 5-10 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\nAnd that is exactly how we tried to craft our revised proposed order is to track those categories in that weigh of the case law and then to also make clear to address the debtor's concerns that he is still able to assert privileges over documents related to . . . his asylum application . . . . (*Id.*, at 76: 13-18 (Bassett, N.)).\n\nSo the balancing—[the court is] doing the balancing. [The court is] doing the balancing in a category-by-category document *with some very specific carveouts regarding . . . the asylum issue carved out, [the court is] doing the balancing*. (*Id.*, at 108: 9-15 (Despins, L.) (emphasis added)).\n\n8. The Court expressly relied on the Trustee's and his counsel's representations when\n\nit entered the Consent Order-just as the Debtor did when it agreed to the Consent Order:\n\nThe Court: Well, I'm trying to figure out how we should proceed. And right now this was a continued hearing on the trustee's motion to have this court determine that he holds all the privileges of the debtor.\n\nMy understanding of that motion was that even though the trustee wants that order, *he would agree to carveout anything with regard to the asylum issue. . .*\n\n*I mean, he was—he's not asserting and never has asserted that he's going to exercise that right.* (*Id.*, at 67: 20-68:5) (emphasis added)).\n\n9. Thereafter, pursuant to discussions among the Debtor, Clark Hill, the Trustee, and their counsel, it was agreed that Clark Hill would produce documents responsive to the Subpoena to the Debtor's counsel for review. Clark Hill produced documents to the Debtor, which included the Asylum Application. Counsel for the Debtor has asserted to the Trustee's counsel and Clark Hill's counsel that the Asylum Application is prohibited from disclosure. However, the Trustee's counsel, despite the Trustee's representations to the Court that the Subpoena did not seek the Debtor's Asylum Application, now asserts that the Asylum Application must be produced to him. Thus, the Debtor filed this Motion.\n\n#### **II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n10. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Consideration of this Motion is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue is proper in this Court for this case and this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409, respectively.\n\n## **III. LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n11. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9018 provides in relevant part that \"[o]n motion or on its own initiative, with or without notice, the court may make any order which justice requires . . . (3) to protect governmental matters that are made confidential by statute or regulation. . . .\"\n\nWhen the requirements of Rule 9018 are satisfied, the authority to issue the resulting order is broad – \"any order which justice requires.\" The Court notes that the authority goes not just to the protection of confidential documents, but to other confidentiality restrictions that are warranted in the interests of justice.\n\n*In re Glob. Crossing Ltd.*, 295 B.R. 720, 724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003).\n\n12. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3) permits the Court to quash or modify a subpoena that \"requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies[.]\" A party who is not a party to a subpoena has standing to quash or modify a subpoena to protect a \"personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought.\" *Estate of Ungar v. Palestinian Auth.*, 332 F. App'x 643, 645 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\n\n13. The Immigration and Nationality Act \"prohibits the disclosure of information pertaining to any asylum application. . . .\" *Zhong Rong Li v. Gonzales*, 181 F. App'x 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2006). Specifically, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a) provides:\n\nInformation contained in or pertaining to any application for refugee admission, asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, or protection under regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture's implementing legislation, records pertaining to any credible fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.30, and records pertaining to any reasonable fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.31, shall not be disclosed without the written consent of the applicant, except as permitted by this section or at the discretion of the Attorney General.\n\n14. Here, it is clear that the Asylum Application is protected from disclosure by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a), and that no exception is applicable to permit disclosure. *See* 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(c)-(e). In addition, the Asylum Application does not relate to the Investigation Activities of the Trustee – i.e., investigating the Debtor's assets, financial condition, and administration of the estate—a fact that the Trustee's counsel repeatedly represented to the Court during the hearings concerning the Consent Order, and the Court expressly relied on the Trustee's representation that he would not seek to compel production of the Debtor's Asylum Application when it entered the Consent Order. (*See* paragraphs 7-8 above). Moreover, in light of the fact that the Subpoena had already been served when the Trustee's counsel made these representations in open court—and the Court relied on them when it entered the Consent Order—either (i) the Subpoena does not seek to compel the production of the Debtor's Asylum Application, *i.e.,* the Asylum Application is nonresponsive to the Subpoena; or (ii) the Trustee and his counsel affirmatively misrepresented their intentions to the Court. Presumably the former is the case—but the end result is the same: the Trustee cannot compel Clark Hill to produce the Debtor's Asylum Application to him or his counsel.\n\n15. For the reasons set forth above—most notably the Trustee's and his counsel's representations to the Court, it is obvious that the Trustee does not seek the Asylum Application as part of his investigation, but, rather, he improperly seeks to obtain highly confidential information in order to gain leverage over the Debtor, given that the Trustee is well aware of the persecution of the Debtor by the Chinese Communist Party. Moreover, even if i) the Trustee could establish that the Asylum Application is relevant to the administration of the Debtor's estate, which he cannot, or ii) the Trustee had not repeatedly represented to the Court that he would not seek to compel anyone to produce the Debtor's Asylum Application through the Subpoena, which he did, the clear protection of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a) precludes disclosure of the Asylum Application to the Trustee.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion, enter an order precluding the disclosure of the Asylum Application to the Trustee, and grant him such other and further relief as justice requires.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 2 nd day of November, 2022.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                               |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n| Respondent.                           |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n\n# **PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nUpon the Motion for Protective Order (the \"Motion\"), filed by the debtor, Ho Wan\n\nKwok, having come before the Court, and there being due and sufficient cause to grant the\n\nrequested relief, it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED**, that the Motion is in all respects **GRANTED**, and it is further\n\n**ORDERED**, that Clark Hill LLP is precluded from producing the Asylum Application<sup>2</sup>\n\nto the Trustee.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as in the Motion, unless otherwise indicated.\n\n| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                               |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n| Respondent.                           |                         |\n\n# **NOTICE OF CONTESTED MATTER RESPONSE DEADLINE**\n\nHo Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") has filed a Motion for Protective Order (the \"Contested Matter\") in the above-captioned case. Notice is hereby given that any response to the Contested Matter must be filed with the Court no later than November 16, 2022. In the absence of a timely filed response, the proposed order in the Contested Matter *may* enter without further notice and hearing, *see*, 11 U.S.C. section 102 (1).\n\n## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)\n\n| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                               |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n| Respondent.                           |                         |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 2 nd day of November, 2022, copies of foregoing Motion for Protective Order, exhibits thereto, Proposed Order, and Notice of Contested Matter Procedure were 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 as indicated on the Notice ofElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)","body_zh":"关于：第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n动议人，\nv.\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第11章受托人\n被答辩人。\n保护令动议\n\n依据由 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016（《联邦破产诉讼规则》第9016条）并入本案的 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条）以及 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9018（《联邦破产诉讼规则》第9018条），债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）通过其下述签字律师，特此提出保护令动议，以阻止向第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（下称“受托人”）披露债务人的庇护申请（下称“《庇护申请》”）。为支持其动议，债务人谨陈述如下：\n\n一、事实与程序背景\n\n1. 2022年7月28日，受托人提交了《第11章受托人依据〈破产规则〉第2004条及〈本地规则〉第2004-1条请求作出裁定授权就债务人的各类法律与财务顾问开展证据开示的综合动议》（文件编号：637）（下称“《专业人员2004动议》”），除其他事项外，请求对 Clark Hill PLC（克拉克·希尔律师事务所，下称“Clark Hill”）进行审问。\n\n2. Clark Hill 曾就《庇护申请》担任债务人的法律顾问。\n\n3. 2022年8月5日，债务人对《专业人员2004动议》等提交了有限异议（文件编号：703），理由是随附提交的拟议裁定若被签署并从字面上解释，将排除包括基于特免权在内的异议，从而违反《本地规则》第2004-1条。\n\n4. 2022年8月16日，法院签署了《准予第11章受托人就债务人的各类法律与财务顾问进行第2004条证据开示之申请的裁定》（文件编号：756），除其他事项外，该裁定准许向 Clark Hill 送达传票，但指示遵守该传票“须受制于《联邦破产诉讼规则》、《联邦民事诉讼规则》及适用的《本地规则》项下的任何权利[。]”\n\n5. 2022年8月18日，受托人发出通知，表示将向包括 Clark Hill 在内的各方送达传票（下称“《传票》”）1，该传票随后已送达至 Clark Hill。\n\n6. 2022年9月14日，法院签署了《关于与依据第2004条传唤文件及信息相关的律师-委托人保密特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意裁定》（文件编号：856）（下称“《同意裁定》”）。《同意裁定》界定了受托人与债务人各自对律师-委托人特免权及工作成果特免权的控制范围，并规定了就上述事项发生争议时的特定程序。此外，《同意裁定》明确规定：\n\n本裁定中的任何内容均不得阻止债务人就与调查主题无关的法律事务主张任何及所有特免权，例如无关的刑事指控或债务人的庇护申请（但与名为 Guo Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC, 案号：19-cv-03195 (D. D.C.) 的诉讼[（下称“Clark Hill 案”）]相关的、涉及该法律执业过错诉讼实体问题而非债务人庇护申请实体问题的文件除外，且须受制于本裁定所包含的利益衡量测试，该测试与庇护申请的实质内容无关）。\n\n1 传票副本作为附件 A 随附于本文件。\n\n（《同意裁定》，第4段）（强调为后加）。调查活动仅限于债务人的资产、财务状况或与破产财产管理相关的活动，根据《同意裁定》，这些活动“与庇护申请的实质内容无关”。（同上，第2段。）\n\n7. 在就《同意裁定》进行协商的听证会期间，受托人及其律师分别各自陈述称，受托人并不寻求获取债务人的《庇护申请》：\n\n债务人指出了其对涉及……针对他的事项以及他的庇护申请的潜在特权文件的担忧。我们在目前的调查中，并不寻求与这些问题相关的任何文件。（2022年8月30日庭审记录，附件 B，第104页：第6-11行（Bassett, N.）（强调为后加））。\n\n债务人主张，正如我之前所说，存在这样一种担忧，即受托人寻求查阅的文件可能涉及潜在的……诸如他的庇护申请等无关问题，但是，正如我之前所说，我们并不寻求通过我们的证据开示请求来获取这些文件。（同上，第110页：第12-19行（Bassett, N.）（强调为后加））。\n\n债务人在我们发给他前律所和专业人员的传票中指出了一项请求，即第17项请求，该项请求索取有关法律纠纷的信息，这可以被解读为包括……他的庇护申请，我们愿意在记录中明确表示我们并不寻求获取此类信息，并且我们将相应地限制该项请求。（同上，第110页：第20行至第111页：第2行（Bassett, N.）（强调为后加））。\n\n没有任何依据表明，涉及资产、财务状况或破产财产管理的文件，会与债务人的庇护申请有任何关系。（同上，第137页：第17-20行（Bassett, N.）（强调为后加））。\n\n但是，再次说明，如果我们能够商定措辞以明确是否存在涉及……他的庇护申请等内容的文件，在其异议中，我认为我们可以商定拟定在拟议裁定中的措辞，以再次明确我们并不寻求该等内容。（同上，第138页：第24行至第139页：第5行（Bassett, N.）（强调为后加））。\n\n正如我们在裁定中明确表示的那样，存在旨在专门解决债务人就涉及……他的庇护申请的特权通信所提出担忧的例外条款。（2022年9月6日庭审记录，附件 C，第49页：第5-10行（Bassett, N.）（强调为后加））。\n\n这正是我们尝试起草修改后的拟议裁定的方式，即按照判例法中的权衡来追踪这些类别，并且明确解决债务人的担忧，即他仍然能够对涉及……他的庇护申请的文件主张特免权……（同上，第76页：第13-18行（Bassett, N.））。\n\n因此这种权衡——[法院正在]进行权衡。[法院正在]按文件类别逐项进行权衡，并针对……庇护问题作出了非常具体的除外规定，[法院正在]进行权衡。（同上，第108页：第9-15行（Despins, L.）（强调为后加））。\n\n8. 法院在签署《同意裁定》时明确信赖了受托人及其律师的陈述——正如债务人在同意《同意裁定》时所做的那样：\n\n法庭：好吧，我正在设法弄清楚我们应该如何进行。目前这是就受托人请求本法院裁定其拥有债务人全部特免权的动议所举行的续行听证会。\n\n我对该动议的理解是，即使受托人希望获得该裁定，他也会同意将有关庇护问题的任何事项排除在外……\n\n我的意思是，他曾经——他没有主张且从未主张过他将行使该权利。（同上，第67页：第20行至第68页：第5行）（强调为后加））。\n\n9. 此后，根据债务人、Clark Hill、受托人及其各自律师之间的讨论，各方商定 Clark Hill 将向债务人律师交付符合《传票》要求的文件以供审查。Clark Hill 向债务人交付了文件，其中包括《庇护申请》。债务人律师已向受托人律师及 Clark Hill 律师主张，《庇护申请》被禁止披露。然而，尽管受托人曾向法院陈述《传票》并不寻求债务人的《庇护申请》，受托人律师现在却坚称必须向其提供《庇护申请》。因此，债务人提交了本动议。\n\n二、管辖权与审判地\n\n10. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院对审理本动议具有管辖权。依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，审理本动议属于核心程序。依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，本案及本动议在本法院的审判地分别均属适当。\n\n三、救济的法律依据\n\n11. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9018 相关部分规定，“根据动议或依职权，无论是否发出通知，法院均可作出司法公正所要求的任何裁定……(3) 以保护依成文法或法规属于保密的政府事务……。”\n\n当满足《规则》第9018条的要求时，签发相应裁定的权限是广泛的——即“司法公正所要求的任何裁定”。法院指出，该权限不仅适用于保密文件的保护，也适用于为司法公正利益所必需的其他保密限制。\n\nIn re Glob. Crossing Ltd., 295 B.R. 720, 724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院）2003).\n\n12. 此外，Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3) 允许法院撤销或修改“要求披露特权或其他受保护事项（且不存在适用例外或放弃情形）”的传票。非传票当事人的一方具有撤销或修改传票的主体资格，以保护其“对所索取文件拥有的个人权利或特免权”。Estate of Ungar v. Palestinian Auth., 332 F. App'x 643, 645 (2d Cir.（第二巡回上诉法院）2009)（引文及引号省略）。\n\n13. 《Immigration and Nationality Act（移民与国籍法）》“禁止披露与任何庇护申请相关的信息……”。Zhong Rong Li v. Gonzales, 181 F. App'x 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2006)。具体而言，8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a) 规定：\n\n包含在或涉及任何难民入境申请、庇护、依据《法案》第241(b)(3)条暂缓遣返、或依据《禁止酷刑公约》施行法规获得保护的申请中的信息，涉及依据第208.30条进行的任何可信恐惧认定的记录，以及涉及依据第208.31条进行的任何合理恐惧认定的记录，未经申请人书面同意不得披露，但本条允许或由司法部长酌情决定的除外。\n\n14. 在本案中，显而易见的是，《庇护申请》受到 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a) 的保护而不得披露，且没有任何例外情形适用于准许披露。参见 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(c)-(e)。此外，《庇护申请》与受托人的调查活动无关——即调查债务人的资产、财务状况以及破产财产的管理——受托人律师在涉及《同意裁定》的听证会期间曾向法院反复陈述这一事实，且法院在签署《同意裁定》时明确信赖了受托人关于其不会寻求强迫交付债务人《庇护申请》的陈述。（见上文第7-8段）。此外，鉴于受托人律师在公开法庭作出这些陈述时《传票》已经送达——且法院在签署《同意裁定时》对此予以了信赖——因此要么 (i)《传票》并不寻求强迫交付债务人的《庇护申请》，即《庇护申请》不属于对《传票》的回应范围；要么 (ii) 受托人及其律师向法院明知故犯地作出了虚假陈述。据推测属于前一种情况——但最终结果是相同的：受托人不能强迫 Clark Hill 向其或其律师交付债务人的《庇护申请》。\n\n15. 基于上述理由——最值得注意的是受托人及其律师向法院所作的陈述，显而易见的是，受托人并非将其调查的一部分来寻求《庇护申请》，而是鉴于受托人深知中国共产党对债务人的迫害，其不正当地试图获取高度机密的信息，以谋求针对债务人的筹码。此外，即便 i) 受托人能够证明《庇护申请》与债务人破产财产的管理相关（但他并不能证明），或者 ii) 受托人未曾反复向法院陈述他不会试图通过传票强迫任何人提供债务人的《庇护申请》（但他确实作过此陈述），8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a) 的明确保护亦阻止向受托人披露《庇护申请》。\n\n鉴于此，债务人谨请法院准予本动议，作出禁止向受托人披露《庇护申请》的命令，并给予他司法正义所要求的其他及进一步救济。\n\n2022年11月2日于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com] [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\n关于：第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第11章受托人\n被答辩人。\n\n准予保护令动议的拟定裁定\n\n鉴于债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）提交的《保护令动议》（以下简称“本动议”）已提交至法院，且有正当及充分理由准予所请求的救济，特此\n\n裁定：本动议在各方面均予以准予；并进一步\n\n裁定：Clark Hill LLP（克拉克·希尔有限责任合伙）被禁止向受托人提供《庇护申请》2。\n\n2 除非另有说明，本文件中的首字母大写术语应与本动议中的含义相同。\n\n关于：第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第11章受托人\n被答辩人。\n关于争议事项答辩截止日期的通知\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）已在上述标题案件中提交了《保护令动议》（以下简称“本争议事项”）。特此通知，对本争议事项的任何答辩必须在不迟于2022年11月16日提交至法院。在未及时提交答辩的情况下，本争议事项中的拟定裁定可能会在没有进一步通知和听证的情况下作出，参见 11 U.S.C. section 102 (1)。\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com]\n\n关于：第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第11章受托人\n被答辩人。\n送达证明\n\n我在此证明，于2022年11月2日，前述《保护令动议》、其附件、《拟定裁定》以及《争议事项程序通知》的副本均已通过电子方式提交。本提交通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或按照《电子提交通知》上的指示以邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人。当事人可以通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n债务人，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com]","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2551,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:23:45"}