{"id":"court_ctb_698_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":698,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION RESPONSE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF BROWN R","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X In re: Ho Wan Kwok, Debtor.[1](#page-0-0) : : : : : : : : Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) --------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n### **RESPONSE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF BROWN RUDNICK LLP TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S DISCOVERY MOTION**\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") hereby submits this response in connection with the *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* (the \"2004 Motion\") (Docket No. 637). In response to the 2004 Motion, Brown Rudnick states as follows:\n\n### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n2. On March 16, 2022, the Debtor filed an application to employ Brown Rudnick as counsel. Docket No. 86. An order approving its retention was entered on April 29, 2022. Docket No. 293. The Court's retention order specified that \"any dispute concerning the performance of services by Brown Rudnick pursuant to the Engagement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Connecticut.\" Docket No. 293 ¶ 3.\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n3. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered an order directing appointment of a chapter 11 trustee. Docket No. 465. The current chapter 11 trustee, Luc Despins (the \"Trustee\"), was appointed on July 7, 2022. Docket No. 514.\n\n4. On July 13, 2022, Brown Rudnick filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. Docket No. 543. The Court has granted Brown Rudnick's motion to withdraw. Docket No. 666.\n\n5. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed the 2004 Motion, seeking broad discovery of the Debtor's current and former professionals. Docket No. 637.\n\n#### **RESPONSE**\n\n6. Brown Rudnick recognizes that the Trustee has generally succeeded to the privileges of the Debtor, including the attorney-client privilege.\n\n7. As such, if the Court is inclined to grant the 2004 Motion, Brown Rudnick will respond to discovery propounded by the Trustee to the extent it may do so consistent with its ethical obligations and without violating duties of nondisclosure owed to third parties. *See Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn L.L.P.*, 91 N.Y.2d 30, 37 (N.Y. 1997) (noting exception to attorney requirement of disclosure to former clients where disclosure \"might violate a duty of nondisclosure owed to a third party, or otherwise imposed by law\"); *In re Gawker Media LLC*, Case No. 16-11700 (SMB), 2017 WL 2804870 \\*7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017) (requiring discovery of potentially privileged information, subject to further review of requests implicating privilege or precluded by agreement).\n\n8. Additionally, Brown Rudnick notes that Connecticut law may be unsettled on certain questions regarding attorney property rights in work product and ethical obligations to produce files to former clients. *See* Conn. Practice Book 2022 § 13-3 (summary description of privilege and work product protection); *see also Sage Realty*, 91 N.Y.2d at 34-38 (describing\n\n2\n\njurisdictional dispute regarding attorney property rights in work product and exceptions to disclosure requirements); *Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus*, 824 S.W.2d 92, 98-99 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (describing limitations on attorney duty to provide work product to former clients based on client's informational need). Accordingly, Brown Rudnick's production of documents and examination may be properly subject to certain legal or ethical limitations, the nature and extent of which will be subject to further discussions with the Trustee and/or the Debtor and, if not fully agreed, may be subject to further orders of this Court.\n\n9. To the extent the 2004 Motion is granted, Brown Rudnick reserves all rights to object to any particular discovery request on any basis, including but not limited to the protections afforded to Brown Rudnick and other parties by applicable law.\n\nDated: August 5, 2022\n\n### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *William R. Baldiga*  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrundnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nDebtor.[1](#page-3-0)\n\n:\n\nIn re: : Chapter 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI, William R. Baldiga, hereby certify that on the 5th day of August, 2022, the *Response and*\n\n*Reservation of Rights of Brown Rudnick LLP to Chapter 11 Trustee's Discovery Motion* was sent\n\nby e-mail to all appearing parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system.\n\n:\n\nDated: Aug. 5, 2022\n\n#### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: /s/ *William R. Baldiga*  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrudnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n\n64799957 v2\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.","body_zh":"United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），债务人。[1]\n第11章\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）对第11章受托人证据开示动议的答辩及权利保留\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP（以下简称“Brown Rudnick”）特此就《第11章受托人根据〈破产程序规则〉第2004条及〈本地规则〉第2004-1条请求作出命令准许对债务人各法律及财务顾问进行证据开示的综合动议》（以下简称“《2004动议》”）（案卷编号：637）提交本答辩。针对《2004动议》，Brown Rudnick陈述如下：\n事实背景\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，Ho Wan Kwok（以下简称“债务人”）根据《破产法典》第11章申请救济。\n\n2. 2022年3月16日，债务人提交了聘请Brown Rudnick作为法律顾问的申请。案卷编号：86。批准其聘用的裁定于2022年4月29日作出。案卷编号：293。法院的聘用裁定明确规定：“因Brown Rudnick根据《聘用协议》提供服务而产生的任何争议，均应受State of Connecticut（康涅狄格州）法律管辖并按其解释。”案卷编号：293 ¶ 3。\n\n[1] 债务人有以下别名：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n3. 2022年6月15日，法院作出一项裁定，指示指定一名第11章受托人。案卷编号：465。现任第11章受托人Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）（以下简称“受托人”）于2022年7月7日被指定。案卷编号：514。\n\n4. 2022年7月13日，Brown Rudnick提交了退出代理的动议。案卷编号：543。法院已准许Brown Rudnick退出代理的动议。案卷编号：666。\n\n5. 2022年7月28日，受托人提交了《2004动议》，请求对债务人现任和前任专业人士进行广泛的证据开示。案卷编号：637。\n答辩\n\n6. Brown Rudnick承认，受托人通常已继承债务人的各项特权，包括律师-委托人特权。\n\n7. 因此，如果法院倾向于准许《2004动议》，Brown Rudnick将在符合其职业道德义务且不违反向第三方承担的保密义务的范围内，对受托人提出的证据开示作出回应。参见 Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn L.L.P., 91 N.Y.2d 30, 37 (N.Y. 1997)（指出律师向前委托人披露义务的例外情况，即披露“可能违反向第三方承担的或法律另行施加的保密义务”）；In re Gawker Media LLC, Case No. 16-11700 (SMB), 2017 WL 2804870 *7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017)（要求对可能享有特权的信息进行证据开示，但须对涉及特权或因协议而受限的请求进行进一步审查）。\n\n8. 此外，Brown Rudnick指出，关于律师在工作成果中的财产权以及向原委托人提供案卷材料的职业道德义务的某些问题，康涅狄格州法律可能尚无定论。参见 Conn. Practice Book 2022 § 13-3（关于特权和工作成果保护的简要说明）；另见 Sage Realty, 91 N.Y.2d at 34-38（描述有关律师在工作成果中财产权的管辖权争议以及披露要求的例外情况）；Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus, 824 S.W.2d 92, 98-99 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)（描述根据委托人的知情需求对律师向前委托人提供工作成果的义务所作的限制）。因此，Brown Rudnick出示文件和接受质询可能适当地受到某些法律或职业道德限制，其性质和范围将取决于与受托人和/或债务人的进一步讨论，如果未能完全达成一致，则可能取决于本法院的进一步命令。\n\n9. 在《2004动议》获得准许的范围内，Brown Rudnick保留基于任何理由（包括但不限于适用法律赋予Brown Rudnick及其他各方的保护）对任何特定证据开示请求提出异议的一切权利。\n\n日期：2022年8月5日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq. 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq. (特别出庭许可) 收件人：Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (特别出庭许可) 收件人：Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (特别出庭许可) 电话：(212) 209-4800 传真：(212) 209-4801 电子邮件：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrundnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok，\n债务人。[1]\n第11章\n案件编号：22-50073\n\n送达证明\n\n我，William R. Baldiga，特此证明：于2022年8月5日，已通过法院电子归档系统的运作，将《Brown Rudnick LLP对第11章受托人证据开示动议的答辩及权利保留》通过电子邮件发送给所有出庭当事人。\n\n日期：2022年8月5日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga  BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq. 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq. (特别出庭许可) Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (特别出庭许可) Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (特别出庭许可) 电话：(212) 209-4800 传真：(212) 209-4801 电子邮件：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrudnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n\n64799957 v2\n\n[1] 债务人有以下别名：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及Ho Wan Kwok。","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo","Despins","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":907,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:38:31"}