{"id":"court_ctb_4436_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4436,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-05-14","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION :","summary_zh":"债务人对受托人豁免特权动议的异议书 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #4436（2025-05-14立案）。债务人郭文贵反对第 11 章受托人就 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 与 Bravo Luck Limited 财务及资产事项寻求宽泛的律师-委托人及工作成果特权豁免，并在已审阅的 1,414 份文件中对 6 份文件的豁免提出明确异议。","summary_en":"Debtor's Objection to Motion to Waive Privileges — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #4436 (filed May 14, 2025). Debtor Ho Wan Kwok objected to the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion seeking a broad subject-matter waiver of attorney-client and work-product privileges regarding Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and Bravo Luck Limited, while noting objections to 6 specific documents out of 1,414 reviewed.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nHO WON KWOK, *et al.*,\n\nIn re : Chapter 11\n\n[1](#page-0-0) : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor. : \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n# **DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO THE MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO . . . (II) WAIVE CERTAIN OF THE DEBTOR'S PRIVILEGES CONTROLLED BY THE TRUSTEE, PURSUANT TO THE CONSENT ORDER REGARDING CONTROL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION RELATED TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION [ECF NO. 856]**\n\nThe debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, Zeisler\n\n& Zeisler, P.C., for his Objection to the Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee's Motion\") to\n\n. . . (II) Waive Certain of the Debtor's Privileges Controlled by the Trustee, Pursuant to the Consent\n\nOrder Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to\n\nRule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information (the \"Privileges Order\") [ECF No. 856] states\n\nas follows:[2](#page-0-1)\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<span id=\"page-0-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> For the avoidance of doubt, the Debtor takes no position on the branch of the Trustee's Motion seeking to Further Modify the October 6, 2022 Protective Order and the Stipulated Addendum to the Protective Order.\n\n#### **OBJECTION**\n\n1. The Trustee's Motion was filed on Tuesday, May 13, 2025, along with a Motion to Expedite Hearing (Doc No. 4399). The Motion to Expedite Hearing was granted by order dated May 14, 2025 (Doc. No. 4400).\n\n2. The Trustee's Motion states that \"[t]he Trustee understands that his counsel has identified Privileged Materials that may be important to the prosecution of the K Legacy Action and the Trustee's efforts to recover property the Trustee alleges is property of the estate, . . .\". (Trustee's Motion, at 15).\n\n3. On May 14, 2025, the Debtor's counsel requested copies of the documents for which the Trustee sought to waive privilege and/or work product protection so that counsel could review the documents in advance of the May 23, 2025 expedited deadline to object to the Trustee's Motion.\n\n4. The Debtor's counsel was provided with 1,414 documents on May 16, 2025, and five deposition transcripts during the afternoon of May 22, 2025. It is the Debtor's counsel's understanding that the 1,414 documents and 5 deposition transcripts constitute the documents for which a privilege and/or work product protection waiver is currently sought.\n\n5. The Debtor's counsel has reviewed the 1,414 documents, but not all of the deposition transcripts as of the filing of the Debtor's Objection, and has so far identified six documents for which the Debtor objects to waiver—the Debtor takes no position as to whether any privilege or work product protection that may exist as to the other 1,408 documents should be waived and the documents produced.[3](#page-1-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> The Trustee has yet to inform the Debtor's counsel of his position vis-à-vis the six documents identified as objectionable. If agreement cannot be reached as to the treatment of those documents, and/or anything that the Trustee's counsel identifies as objectionable in any of the five deposition\n\n6. Although the Debtor takes no position with respect to waiver as to the 1,408 documents described above, the Debtor does object to the far broader waiver sought by the Trustee. Indeed, the Trustee does not simply seek a waiver as to a discrete set of documents, but instead seeks a broad subject matter waiver related to \"facts and information underlying and related to the Debtor's financial affairs and assets, and fraudulent schemes, with respect to Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and Bravo Luck Limited, . . . \". (Trustee's Motion, at 12).\n\n7. The Trustee refers to the requested waiver as narrow, but it is not. Indeed, the Trustee does not identify at all, let alone with any degree of particularity, what constitutes \"the Debtor's financial affairs and assets, and fraudulent schemes, with respect to Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and Bravo Luck Limited\", leaving the Trustee to determine what is within the scope of the waiver. Thus, if the Trustee obtains the broad waiver he seeks the Debtor will lose his rights under paragraphs 4, 5 and most critically 7 of the Privileges Order because privileged and/or work product protected information will be disclosed before the Debtor has an opportunity to review it and exercise those rights. Indeed, in many, if not most, instances the Debtor would not even know that a privilege has been waived and his rights have been effected because documents will be produced in adversary and foreign proceedings to which the Debtor is not a party. [4](#page-2-0)\n\n8. Paragraph 7 of the Privileges Order recognizes that there may be privileged and/or work product protected Information that if produced would cause the Debtor personal harm. (Privileges Order, ¶ 7). Paragraph 7 sets out a mechanism for the Debtor to assert a claim of personal harm as to particular documents or information, but that mechanism assumes that the\n\ntranscripts provided on May 22, 2025, the dispute can be addressed pursuant to the dispute resolution provision of paragraph 7 of the Privileges Order.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> The undefined scope of the requested waiver will also invite discovery disputes between the Trustee and defendants in adversary proceedings who claim that documents and/or information is within the scope of the requested waiver and must be produced thereby further prejudicing the Debtor's rights.\n\nDebtor will have reviewed potentially privileged information **before** production to the Trustee. (*Id.*).\n\n9. \"[T]he Trustee has served over 250 subpoenas for discovery pursuant to Rule 2004 and has received more than 800,000 documents (exceeding millions of pages) pursuant to those subpoenas.\" (Trustee's Motion, at 9). Many of the Trustee's subpoenas were served on law firms that may have produced potentially privileged and/or work product protected information. Save for a few limited instances soon after the Trustee's appointment, attorneys and law firms have produced documents and information to the Trustee without providing it to the Debtor's counsel for a pre, or even post, production review. With respect to the vast majority of potentially privileged and/or work product protected documents and information, the Debtor has not had an opportunity to exercise his right under paragraph 7 of the Privileges Order; granting the relief sought by the Trustee thus effectively would eliminate the Debtor's right under paragraph 7 as to the broad and undefined subject matter included within the scope of the waiver sought by the Trustee. [5](#page-3-0) Therefore, the Debtor Objects to the privilege waiver sought by the Trustee in the Trustee's Motion.\n\n10. The Debtor also objects to the Trustee's advocated process for future motions seeking privilege and/or work product protection waivers. The Trustee's process would not provide the Debtor's counsel with an opportunity to review the documents and information at issue prior to production, and, as noted, paragraph 7 is meaningless if the Debtor does not have an opportunity to review potentially privileged and/or work product protected documents and information prior to production.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> The Debtor could not seek to clawback privileged and/or work product protected documents and information post-production because (i) the Debtor is unlikely to even know that information has been produced and (ii) the Trustee controls the privilege and would have to agree to pursue the clawback on the Debtor's behalf, which, to put it generously, is highly unlikely.\n\n11. The process utilized with the Trustee's Motion at the request of the Debtor's counsel, *i.e.*, review of potentially privileged and/or work product protected documents and information by the Debtor's counsel prior to production, is the process that should be utilized going forward so that the Debtor's rights are protected. [6](#page-4-0) This process also gives effect to the provision of paragraph 8 of the Privileges Order permitting the Trustee to waive privilege or work product protection with the Debtor's written consent.\n\n12. In order for such a process to be effective, however, the Debtor's counsel will need sufficient time to review documents and engage in discussions with the Debtor. The Debtor's incarceration makes communication difficult, especially communication on an expedited basis.[7](#page-4-1) Thus, the Trustee's request that any future waiver motion be responded to within seven (7) days is unworkable if the Debtor's counsel is to have an opportunity to review the documents and information for which waiver is sought, unless the Debtor's counsel is provided the documents at least seven (7) days in advance of the Trustee filing any waiver motion.[8](#page-4-2)\n\n13. Lastly, in order to ensure that the Trustee, Debtor, Court, adversary defendants, and parties in interest know exactly which documents are subject to a waiver order, the Trustee should be required to specifically identify the documents for which waiver is sought by Bates number in\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> In *Despins v. Greenwich Land, LLC* the Trustee's counsel provided potentially privileged and/or work product protected documents to the Debtor's counsel for review prior to production. The documents were reviewed, any privilege concerns identified by the Debtor's counsel were addressed, and motion practice was avoided. The use of this same process going forward may not avoid all motion practice, but it should, at a minimum, reduce the matters at issue on any waiver motion the Trustee files.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-1\"></span><sup>7</sup> The Debtor's sentencing is set for September 2025. It is unknown where the Debtor will serve his sentence or whether communication will be more or less difficult then is currently the case at MDC Brooklyn.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-2\"></span><sup>8</sup> Depending on the size of the production to be made seven (7) days for review may be insufficient, and the Debtor would seek to reach agreement with the Trustee on an extended review period while reserving his right to move to extend the review period.\n\nany waiver motion and the Bates numbers of documents for which waiver is granted should be included in any order granting a waiver motion.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** for the foregoing reasons the Debtor respectfully Objects to that branch of the Trustee's Motion seeking an order permitting the Trustee to Waive Certain of the Debtor's Privileges Controlled by the Trustee, Pursuant to the Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 23rd day of May, 2025.\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ James M. Moriarty* James M. Moriarty (ct21876) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com)\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 23rd day of May, 2025, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> */s/ James M. Moriarty* James M. Moriarty (ct12849)","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\nHO WON KWOK, et al.,\n\n关于：第11章\n\n[1] : 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 : ________________________________________:\n\n________________________________________\n债务人对第11章受托人依据关于控制与依据第2004条规则传票所获文件和信息相关的律师-当事人保密特权及工作成果保护的同意令 [ECF NO. 856] . . . (II) 放弃由受托人控制的债务人若干特权的动议的异议\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）通过其下述署名律师事务所 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.，对其针对第11章受托人依据关于控制与依据第2004条规则传票所获文件和信息相关的律师-当事人保密特权及工作成果保护的同意令（下称“特权命令”）[ECF No. 856] . . . (II) 放弃由受托人控制的债务人若干特权的动议（下称“受托人动议”）所提出的异议，陈述如下：[2]\n\n1 这些第11章案件中的债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 以及 Miles Kwok，以及其他化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 以及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins（转交 Luc A. Despins），作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n2 为免生疑问，债务人对受托人动议中寻求进一步修改2022年10月6日保护令及保护令约定附录的分支部分不持立场。\n\n异议\n\n1. 受托人动议于2025年5月13日星期二连同加快听证动议（Doc No. 4399）一并提交。加快听证动议已通过日期为2025年5月14日的命令（Doc. No. 4400）获得批准。\n\n2. 受托人动议指出：“受托人获悉，其律师已确认了可能对推进 K Legacy 诉讼以及受托人追回受托人声称属于破产财产的财产之努力具有重要意义的特权材料，. . .”。（受托人动议，第15页）。\n\n3. 2025年5月14日，债务人律师索取了受托人寻求放弃特权和/或工作成果保护的文件副本，以便律师能在2025年5月23日对受托人动议提出异议的加快截止日期之前审阅这些文件。\n\n4. 债务人律师于2025年5月16日收到了1,414份文件，并于2025年5月22日下午收到了五份宣誓证词笔录。债务人律师的理解是，这1,414份文件和5份宣誓证词笔录构成了当前寻求特权和/或工作成果保护放弃的文件。\n\n5. 截至提交债务人异议之日，债务人律师已审阅了这1,414份文件，但尚未审阅完所有的宣誓证词笔录，并且迄今已确定了债务人反对放弃特权的六份文件——对于其余1,408份文件可能存在的任何特权或工作成果保护是否应被放弃并出示文件，债务人不持立场。[3]\n\n3 受托人尚未就其对已确定有异议的六份文件的立场通知债务人律师。如果就这些文件的处理方式，和/或受托人律师在2025年5月22日提供的五份宣誓证词笔录中认定有异议的任何内容无法达成一致，该争议可依据特权命令第7段的争议解决条款予以处理。\n\n6. 尽管债务人对上述1,408份文件的放弃不持立场，但债务人确实反对受托人所寻求的范围广泛得多的放弃。事实上，受托人不仅寻求针对一组离散文件的放弃，而是寻求与“关于 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 和 Bravo Luck Limited 的债务人财务事务和资产以及欺诈方案的基础及相关事实与信息”相关的广泛的标的物范围放弃，. . . 。（受托人动议，第12页）。\n\n7. 受托人称所请求的放弃是狭窄的，但事实并非如此。事实上，受托人根本没有确定（更不用说带有任何程度的明确性了）何为“关于 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 和 Bravo Luck Limited 的债务人财务事务和资产以及欺诈方案”，从而由受托人来决定何为放弃范围内的内容。因此，如果受托人获得其所寻求的广泛放弃，债务人将失去其在特权命令第4段、第5段以及最关键的第7段项下的权利，因为在债务人有机会审阅并行使这些权利之前，受特权和/或工作成果保护的信息就会被披露。事实上，在许多（如果不是大多数）情况下，债务人甚至不会知道某项特权已被放弃且其权利已受到影响，因为文件将在债务人并非当事方的对抗性程序和外国程序中被出示。[4]\n\n8. 特权命令第7段确认，可能存在如果出示则会对债务人造成人身损害的受特权和/或工作成果保护的信息。（特权命令，¶ 7）。第7段为债务人就特定文件或信息主张人身损害权利设定了一种机制，但该机制假定\n\n债务人将在向受托人出示之前已审阅过具有潜在特权的信息。（同上）。\n\n4 所请求放弃的未界定范围还将引发受托人与对抗性程序被告之间的证据开示争议，这些被告会声称某些文件和/或信息属于所请求放弃的范围之内并必须出示，从而进一步损害债务人的权利。\n\n9. “受托人已依据第2004条规则送达了250多份证据开示传票，并依据这些传票接收了80多万份文件（超过数百万页）。”（受托人动议，第9页）。受托人的许多传票是向可能出示了潜在受特权和/或工作成果保护信息的律师事务所送达的。除了受托人被任命后不久的少数有限情况外，律师和律师事务所向受托人出示文件和信息时，均未向债务人律师提供这些内容以进行出示前甚至是出示后的审阅。对于绝大多数潜在受特权和/或工作成果保护的文件和信息，债务人一直没有机会行使其在特权命令第7段项下的权利；因此，批准受托人所寻求的救济将实质性地剥夺债务人在第7段项下针对受托人所寻求放弃范围所包含的广泛且未界定的标的物的权利。[5] 因此，债务人反对受托人在受托人动议中所寻求的特权放弃。\n\n10. 债务人亦反对受托人针对未来寻求特权和/或工作成果保护放弃之动议所主张的程序。受托人的程序不会为债务人律师提供在出示前审阅涉案文件和信息的机会，并且正如前所述，如果债务人没有机会在出示前审阅潜在受特权和/或工作成果保护的文件和信息，第7段就毫无意义。\n\n5 债务人无法在出示后寻求追回受特权和/或工作成果保护的文件和信息，因为 (i) 债务人甚至不太可能知道信息已经被出示，以及 (ii) 受托人控制着该特权，且必须同意代表债务人进行追回，而往宽容了说，这极不可能发生。\n\n11. 经债务人律师请求而在受托人动议中采用的程序，即由债务人律师在出示前审阅潜在受特权和/或工作成果保护的文件和信息，是今后应当采用的程序，以便债务人的权利得到保护。[6] 该程序亦使特权命令第8段中允许受托人经债务人书面同意放弃特权或工作成果保护的规定得以落实。\n\n12. 然而，为了使该程序行之有效，债务人律师将需要充足的时间来审阅文件并与债务人进行讨论。债务人的在押状态使沟通变得困难，尤其是在加快期限下的沟通。[7] 因此，如果要让债务人律师有机会审阅寻求放弃特权的文件和信息，除非在受托人提交任何放弃动议之前至少提前七 (7) 天向债务人律师提供这些文件，否则受托人关于对未来任何放弃动议在七 (7) 天内作出答复的要求是不可行的。[8]\n\n13. 最后，为了确保受托人、债务人、法院、对抗性程序被告以及利害关系方确切知晓哪些文件受制于放弃命令，应当要求受托人在任何放弃动议中按贝茨编号（Bates number）具体指明寻求放弃的文件，并且获得批准放弃的文件之贝茨编号应包含在批准放弃动议的任何命令中。\n\n6 在 Despins v. Greenwich Land, LLC 一案中，受托人律师在出示前向债务人律师提供了潜在受特权和/或工作成果保护的文件以供审阅。这些文件经过了审阅，债务人律师指出的任何特权问题均得到了解决，从而避免了动议程序。今后使用相同的程序可能无法避免所有的动议程序，但至少应能减少受托人提交的任何放弃动议中的争议事项。\n\n7 债务人的量刑定于2025年9月进行。目前尚不清楚债务人将在何处服刑，也不清楚届时的沟通相比目前在 MDC Brooklyn（布鲁克林大都会拘留中心）的情况会是更加困难还是更为容易。\n\n8 取决于将要出示的文件规模，七 (7) 天的审阅时间可能不足，债务人将寻求与受托人就延长审阅期限达成协议，同时保留其提请延长审阅期限动议的权利。\n\n综上所述，基于前述理由，债务人谨对受托人动议中寻求一项允许受托人依据关于控制与依据第2004条规则传票所获文件和信息相关的律师-当事人保密特权及工作成果保护的同意令放弃由受托人控制的债务人若干特权之命令的分支部分提出异议。\n\n日期：2025年5月23日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n债务人：HO WAN KWOK\n\n/签名/ James M. Moriarty\nJames M. Moriarty (ct21876)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮箱：Jmoriarty@zeislaw.com\n\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于2025年5月23日，前述文书的一份副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交的通知将通过本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方。各当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n/签名/ James M. Moriarty\nJames M. Moriarty (ct12849)","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1873,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-05-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-05-14","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:02:23"}