{"id":"court_ctb_703_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":703,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR'S LIMITED OBJECTION TO RULE 2004 MOTIONS**\n\nHo Wan Kwok, the debtor (the \"Debtor\") in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the \"Bankruptcy Case\"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., hereby submits his limited objection to the Chapter 11 Trustee's (the \"Trustee\") July 28, 2022 (i) Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Examination of Ho Wan Kwok and Production of Documents (Doc. No. 636) (the \"Debtor 2004 Motion\"); (ii) 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 (Doc. No. 637) (the \"Professionals 2004 Motion\"); and (iii) 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 Entities and Individuals Affiliated with the Debtor (Doc. No. 638) (the \"Third-Party Motion\" and together with the Debtor 2004 Motion and the Professionals 2004 Motion, the \"Rule 2004 Motions\"). In support of his objection, the Debtor respectfully represents as follows:\n\n### **I. Preliminary Statement**\n\n1. The Debtor agrees that the Trustee may take Rule<sup>1</sup> 2004 examinations of the\n\n<sup>1</sup> \"Rule\" or \"Rules\" shall refer to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.\n\nDebtor, his professionals (the \"Professionals\"), and various other parties that the Trustee contends are affiliated with the Debtor (the \"Third Parties\"). However, the relief sought by the Trustee through the Rule 2004 Motions is premature and impermissible at this juncture to the extent that the Trustee seeks an order compelling the production of documents or other compliance with the substance of the proposed subpoenas (the \"Proposed Subpoenas\") that are attached to the Rule 2004 Motions. Those issues must be addressed after the Proposed Subpoenas are served. *See* Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c)(3).\n\n#### **II. The Rule 2004 Motions**\n\n2. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee, through his counsel, filed the Rule 2004 Motions.\n\n3. Through the Rule 2004 Motions, the Trustee seeks orders (the \"Proposed Orders\"), *inter alia*, \"directing the production of certain documents as set forth in the Requests for Production of Documents attached to the Proposed Subpoena[s.]\" (Debtor 2004 Motion, p. 18; Professionals 2004 Motion, p. 21.) The Proposed Orders, if entered and interpreted literally, would preclude the Debtor, the Professionals and the Third Parties from objecting to the scope of the Proposed Subpoenas on numerous grounds, including the scope of the documents sought through the Proposed Subpoenas, the scope of the attorney-client and other privileges retained by the Debtor after the Trustee's appointment, and the date on which a privilege log is due, in violation of Local Rule 2004-1.\n\n4. The Rule 2004 Motions also assert, incorrectly, that all of the Debtor's attorneyclient privileges and any related work-product privileges are now controlled by the Trustee. (Debtor 2004 Motion, pp. 15-16; Professionals 2004 Motion, pp. 19-20.) That is not the law. Although there is a split of authority on the scope of the debtor's privilege that transfers to a Debtor's bankruptcy trustee, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, no court has held that an individual debtor's bankruptcy trustee controls all of an individual debtor's attorney-client and work product privileges that existed before the Trustee's appointment.\n\n5. Some courts have held that an individual debtor—as distinguished from a corporate debtor—retains control of all of his or her attorney-client and attorney work product privileges that existed before the Trustee's appointment. *E.g., Gottlieb v. Fayerman (In re Ginzburg)*, 517 B.R. 175, 181 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2014). Other courts have applied a more context-specific balancing approach that factors in whether the communication concerns the administration of the debtor's estate, on the one hand, or a possible conflict between the debtor's estate and the debtor, on the other hand—the former weighing in favor of transferring the privilege to the trustee and the latter weighing in favor of the debtor retaining the privilege. *E.g., Moore v. Eason (In re Bazemore)*, 216 B.R. 1020, 1023-24 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1998).\n\n6. Regardless, the scope of the privileges that the Debtor did—or did not—retain upon the Trustee's appointment, is a question for another day. The only issue before the Court is whether the Trustee may serve the Proposed Subpoenas—which he can—subject to the Debtor's and other interested parties' right to seek to quash the Proposed Subpoenas based on their scope or other grounds. All other relief sought through the Rule 2004 Motions and the Proposed Orders is therefore premature and impermissible at this juncture. *In re Sutera*, 141 B.R. 539, 542 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1992).\n\n## **III. The Trustee Improperly Seeks Orders from This Court Ordering the Debtor the Professionals, and the Third Parties to Produce Documents**\n\n7. Rule 2004(a) permits the Court to \"order the examination of any entity.\" The appearance of the witness and the production of documents may be compelled by subpoena. Rule 2004(c). Thus, pursuant to Rule 2004, the Court may order that an examination take place. *In re Sutera*, 141 B.R. at 542. However, \"the issue of document production normally is addressed after\n\n3\n\nthe service of a subpoena *duces tecum* and a subsequent challenge.\" *Id.*; *see also See Mathirampuzha v. Potter*, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62973, at \\*3-4 (D. Conn. Nov. 16, 2005).\n\n[Rule 2004] contemplates only that the court may order the examination of any entity. That entity's cooperation in the examination process is then secured with a subpoena, issued under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. . . . If the examinee thinks that the subpoena is inappropriate, it may take advantage of the procedures outlined there. . . . This process has the advantage of allowing the court to avoid the appearance of approving any details of the examination, such as when, where, etc. Only if there is a dispute on such issues does the court need to become involved. The point here is that unless and until the examinee is subpoenaed in connection with an authorized examination, there is nothing it needs to do and it has precious little to complain about.\n\n*In re Sheetz*, 452 B.R. 746, 748-49 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2011) (citations and footnotes omitted); *see also* Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c)(3). Ordering the production of documents, as distinguished from allowing the Trustee to serve the Proposed Subpoenas, does not afford the Debtor or the proposed examinees/recipients thereof the opportunity to object to or challenge the Proposed Subpoenas as required by Rule 9016, which incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. *In re Thow*, 392 B.R. 860, 867 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2007). *Accord In re Onatah Farms, LLC*, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 1785, at \\*6-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Apr. 29, 2021) (\"By asking the court not only to permit the examination but also approve a subpoena ordering it to occur at a particular time and place and requiring the production of documents the motion seems to subvert the usual subpoena process and the protections Rule 45 gives to the subpoenaed party.\").\n\n8. Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c)(3) provides that \"[t]he failure to file a response or objection pursuant to this Rule shall not prejudice the proposed examinee, witness, or party from whom documents are sought from filing a motion for protective order, to quash the subpoena, or to vacate an order entered pursuant to the motion after the seven (7) day period has passed.\"\n\n9. The Trustee cannot circumvent the process and protections mandated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, which Bankruptcy Rule 9016 incorporates into this contested matter. For these\n\n4\n\nreasons, while the Debtor does not object to the Court \"order[ing] the examination\" of the Debtor and/or the Professionals or Third Parties (*see* Rule 2004(a)), the Debtor objects to the Rule 2004 Motions and Proposed Orders to the extent that they purport to (i) compel the production of a particular scope of documents requested by the Trustee, (ii) schedule depositions at a particular time or place, and/or (iii) require the Debtor, Professionals or Third Parties to provide the Trustee with a privilege log by a particular date.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Debtor requests that the Court: (i) grant the Rule 2004 Motions only to the extent that they seek permission to serve the Proposed Subpoenas; (ii) deny the Rule 2004 Motions to the extent that they seek any additional relief, including the production of documents, or a determination of the applicability of the attorney client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or other applicable privileges that the Debtor retained and/or may have transferred to the Trustee by operation of law; and (iii) grant the Debtor such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 5 th day of August, 2022.\n\n# **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ John L. Cesaroni* Eric Henzy (ct12849) Stephen M. Kindseth (ct14640) Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [ehenzy@zeislaw.com](mailto:ehenzy@zeislaw.com) [skindseth@zeislaw.com](mailto:skindseth@zeislaw.com) [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com) [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 5 th day of August, 2022, 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 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> */s/ John L. Cesaroni* John L. Cesaroni","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\nIn re:（关于：）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\nChapter 11（第 11 章）\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)（案号：22-50073 (JAM)）\n\nDebtor.（债务人。）\n\nTHE DEBTOR'S LIMITED OBJECTION TO RULE 2004 MOTIONS\n（债务人对第 2004 条动议的有限异议）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），即上述标题破产案件（下称“破产案件”）中的债务人（下称“债务人”），特通过其下述署名律师事务所 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.，就第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）于 2022 年 7 月 28 日提交的以下动议提出有限异议：(i)《第 11 章受托人依据〈破产程序规则〉第 2004 条及〈本地规则〉第 2004-1 条请求作出命令授权对 Ho Wan Kwok 进行讯问并要求其出示文件的动议》（文件号 636）（下称“债务人 2004 动议”）；(ii)《第 11 章受托人依据〈破产程序规则〉第 2004 条及〈本地规则〉第 2004-1 条请求作出命令授权针对债务人的多名法律与财务顾问进行证据开示的综合动议》（文件号 637）（下称“专业人士 2004 动议”）；以及 (iii)《第 11 章受托人依据〈破产程序规则〉第 2004 条及〈本地规则〉第 2004-1 条请求作出命令授权针对与债务人关联的多家实体及个人的证据开示的综合动议》（文件号 638）（下称“第三方动议”，并与债务人 2004 动议及专业人士 2004 动议统称为“第 2004 条动议”）。为支持其异议，债务人谨陈述如下：\n\nI. Preliminary Statement（一、初步声明）\n\n1. 债务人同意受托人可依据第 1 条 2004 款（Rule 2004）对债务人、其专业人士（下称“专业人士”）以及受托人主张与债务人有关联的各其他当事方（下称“第三方”）进行讯问。\n\n1 “规则”（Rule 或 Rules）指《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure）。\n\n然而，就受托人请求法院作出命令强制出示文件或实质上强制遵守附于第 2004 条动议之后的拟议传票（下称“拟议传票”）而言，受托人通过第 2004 条动议所寻求的救济在当前阶段为时尚早且是不被允许的。这些问题必须在拟议传票送达之后再行处理。参见 Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c)(3)。\n\nII. The Rule 2004 Motions（二、第 2004 条动议）\n\n2. 2022 年 7 月 28 日，受托人通过其代理律师提交了第 2004 条动议。\n\n3. 受托人通过第 2004 条动议，除其他事项外，还请求法院作出命令（下称“拟议命令”）“责令出示拟议传票附带的文件出示请求中所列明的特定文件”。（债务人 2004 动议，第 18 页；专业人士 2004 动议，第 21 页。）该等拟议命令若按字面意思作出并解释，将排除债务人、专业人士及第三方基于多项理由对拟议传票的范围提出异议的权利，包括通过拟议传票所寻求文件的范围、受托人获任命后债务人所保留的律师-委托人特权及其他特权的范围，以及特权清单（privilege log）的提交截止日期，从而违反了《本地规则》第 2004-1 条。\n\n4. 第 2004 条动议还错误地断言，债务人的所有律师-委托人特权及任何相关的律师工作成果特权现均由受托人控制。（债务人 2004 动议，第 15-16 页；专业人士 2004 动议，第 19-20 页。）这并非法律规定。尽管在转移给债务人破产受托人的债务人特权范围问题上存在判例分歧，但据下述署名人所知，尚无任何法院判定个人债务人的破产受托人控制该个人债务人在受托人任命前即已存在的所有律师-委托人特权及工作成果特权。\n\n5. 若干法院裁定，与公司债务人不同，个人债务人保留其在受托人任命前即已存在的所有律师-委托人特权及律师工作成果特权的控制权。例如：Gottlieb v. Fayerman (In re Ginzburg), 517 B.R. 175, 181 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2014)。另有法院采取了更为结合具体情况的权衡方法，考量该沟通一方面是否涉及债务人财产的管理，另一方面是否涉及债务人财产与债务人之间的潜在利益冲突——前者倾向于将特权转移给受托人，后者则倾向于由债务人保留特权。例如：Moore v. Eason (In re Bazemore), 216 B.R. 1020, 1023-24 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1998)。\n\n6. 无论如何，债务人在受托人获任命时究竟保留或未保留何种范围的特权，乃是留待日后解决的问题。摆在法院面前的唯一问题是受托人是否可以送达拟议传票——他是可以送达的——但这受制于债务人及其他利害关系方基于传票范围或其他理由请求撤销拟议传票的权利。因此，通过第 2004 条动议及拟议命令寻求的所有其他救济在当前阶段均为时尚早且不被允许。In re Sutera, 141 B.R. 539, 542 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1992)。\n\nIII. The Trustee Improperly Seeks Orders from This Court Ordering the Debtor the Professionals, and the Third Parties to Produce Documents（三、受托人向本法院请求作出责令债务人、专业人士及第三方出示文件的命令是不当的）\n\n7. 第 2004(a) 条允许法院“责令对任何实体进行讯问”。证人的到场和文件的出示可通过传票予以强制。第 2004(c) 条。因此，依据第 2004 条，法院可命令进行讯问。In re Sutera, 141 B.R. at 542。然而，“文件出示问题通常是在送达指定出示文件的传票（subpoena duces tecum）并随后提出异议之后才予以处理。”同上；并见 Mathirampuzha v. Potter, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62973, at *3-4 (D. Conn. Nov. 16, 2005)。\n\n[第 2004 条] 仅设想法院可命令对任何实体进行讯问。随后通过依据《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure）第 45 条发出的传票来确保该实体在讯问程序中的配合。……若受讯问人认为该传票不恰当，其可以利用该条所规定的程序。……这一程序的优势在于使法院避免表现出对讯问的任何细节（如时间、地点等）予以批准的表象。仅当在此类问题上出现争议时，法院才需要介入。此处的关键在于，除非且直到受讯问人收到与获授权讯问相关的传票，否则其无需采取任何行动，也几乎没有任何可抱怨之处。\n\nIn re Sheetz, 452 B.R. 746, 748-49 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2011)（引文和脚注省略）；并见 Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c)(3)。直接责令出示文件（这与允许受托人送达拟议传票截然不同），未能给予债务人或拟议的受讯问人/传票接收人依据第 9016 条（该条并入了 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45）所要求的对拟议传票提出异议或质疑的机会。In re Thow, 392 B.R. 860, 867 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2007)。一致判例见 In re Onatah Farms, LLC, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 1785, at *6-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Apr. 29, 2021)（“动议不仅请求法院准许讯问，还请求批准命令在特定时间和地点进行讯问并要求出示文件的传票，这似乎颠覆了常规的传票程序以及第 45 条赋予受传票送达方的保护。”）。\n\n8. Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c)(3) 规定：“未依据本规则提交答复或异议，不应损害拟议受讯问人、证人或被请求出示文件的当事方在七 (7) 日期限过后提交保护令动议、撤销传票动议或撤销依据该动议作出的命令之动议的权利。”\n\n9. 受托人不得规避 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 所规定的程序和保护措施，而《破产规则》第 9016 条已将该条规则并入本争议事项中。基于这些理由，尽管债务人不反对法院“责令对债务人和/或专业人士或第三方进行讯问”（参见第 2004(a) 条），但债务人对第 2004 条动议及拟议命令提出异议，只要其意图 (i) 强制出示受托人所要求的特定范围的文件，(ii) 在特定时间或地点安排宣誓录供（depositions），和/或 (iii) 要求债务人、专业人士或第三方在特定日期前向受托人提供特权清单。\n\nWHEREFORE, the Debtor requests that the Court: (i) grant the Rule 2004 Motions only to the extent that they seek permission to serve the Proposed Subpoenas; (ii) deny the Rule 2004 Motions to the extent that they seek any additional relief, including the production of documents, or a determination of the applicability of the attorney client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or other applicable privileges that the Debtor retained and/or may have transferred to the Trustee by operation of law; and (iii) grant the Debtor such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n（据此，债务人请求法院：(i) 仅在第 2004 条动议寻求准许送达拟议传票的范围内批准该等动议；(ii) 在第 2004 条动议寻求任何额外救济的范围内驳回该等动议，包括出示文件，或就债务人所保留的和/或依法可能已转移给受托人的律师-委托人特权、律师工作成果原则或其他适用特权的适用性作出裁定；以及 (iii) 给予债务人法院认为公正且适当的该等其他及进一步救济。）\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 5 th day of August, 2022.\n（日期：2022 年 8 月 5 日于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。）\n\nTHE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK\n（债务人：HO WAN KWOK）\n\n/s/ John L. Cesaroni\nEric Henzy (ct12849)\nStephen M. Kindseth (ct14640)\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nJames M. Moriarty (ct21876)\nJohn L. Cesaroni (ct29309)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\nTelephone: (203) 368-4234\nFacsimile: (203) 368-5487\nEmail: [ehenzy@zeislaw.com]\n[skindseth@zeislaw.com]\n[aromney@zeislaw.com]\n[jmoriarty@zeislaw.com]\n[jcesaroni@zeislaw.com]\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n（送达证明）\n\nI hereby certify that on this 5 th day of August, 2022, 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 or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n（我在此证明，于 2022 年 8 月 5 日，上述文书的一份副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交事项的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方，或按《电子提交通知》上的指明，以邮寄方式发送给无法接收电子提交文件的任何人。各方当事人均可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。）\n\n/s/ John L. Cesaroni\nJohn L. Cesaroni","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1602,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:56:29"}