{"id":"court_ctb_732_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":732,"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\nDebtor.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n## DECLARATION OF AARON A. ROMNEY IN SUPPORT OF THE DEBTOR'S LIMITED OBJECTION TO RULE 2004 MOTIONS\n\nI, AARON A. ROMNEY, hereby declare:\n\n1. I am a partner and shareholder of the law firm of Zeisler, P.C., counsel for Ho Wan Kwok, the debtor (the \"Debtor\") in the above-captioned bankruptcy case.\n\n2. I submit this Declaration in support of the Debtor's Limited Objection to Rule 2004 Motions (Doc. No. 703) (the \"Limited Objection\").\n\n3. herein based on my participation in the August 2, 2022, teleconference (the \"Meet and Confer\") between counsel for the Debtor and counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee, Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\").\n\n4. The persons present at the Meet and Confer were myself, John Cesaroni and James Moriarty, on behalf of the Debtor, and Patrick Linsey, Avrum Luft and Nicholas Bassett, on behalf of the Trustee.\n\n5. The purpose of the Meet and Confer was to address certain limited issues that the Debtor had with the proposed orders (the \"Proposed Orders\") granting the subpoenas proposed by the Trustee (the \"Proposed Subpoenas\"), which the Debtor's counsel attempted, in good faith. to resolve without the need for motion practice.\n\n6. the Meet and Confer to address the scope of the discovery sought by the Trustee. To the contrary, the Debtor's counsel only sought to confirm that the Trustee's Motions for Rule 2004 Examinations (Doc. Nos 636, 637, and 638 (the \"Rule 2004 Motions\") did not seek relief that Local R. Bankr P. 2004-1(c)(3) expressly precludes, i.e., an order compelling the recipients (the \"Recipients\") of the Proposed Subpoenas to comply with the document requests set forth in the Proposed Subpoenas.\n\n7. The Debtor's counsel requested this language solely because the proposed order granting the Proposed Subpoenas (the \"Proposed Order\") included language that directly contradicted Local R. Bankr P. 2004-1(c)(3). Specifically, the Proposed Orders state that the \"[Recipient] hereby directed to produce all documents within 30 days of the service of the subpoena . . . . \"l\n\n8. At the Meet and Confer, the Debtor's counsel raised the issue that, if interpreted literally, the Proposed Orders directed compliance with the Proposed Subpoenas, rather than granting the Trustee permission to serve them.\n\n9. The Debtor's counsel expressly referred to Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(c)(3), which states that substantive objections, by way of filing a motion for protective order, to quash the subpoena, or to vacate the order granting the Rule 2004 motion, were reserved until after the Trustee served the Proposed Subpoenas.\n\nI The Proposed Orders did implicitly allow the Recipients to object on privilege grounds insofar as they purported to require the Recipients to deliver privilege logs contemporaneously with the production of documents. In this regard, the Limited Objection only objected to the time in which the Proposed Orders purported to require the Recipients to deliver privilege logs to the Trustee.\n\n10. The Debtor's counsel further stated that the Proposed Orders exceeded the scope permitted by Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(c)(3), and the Trustee's Proposed Orders did not track the language of the Local Bankruptcy Rule. The Debtor's counsel stated that the Proposed Orders, if entered by the Court, would expressly circumvent Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(c)(3).\n\n11. The Debtor's counsel requested at the Meet and Confer that the parties stipulate, or submit an amended proposed order making clear, that the orders granting the Rule 2004 Motions permitted the Trustee to serve the Proposed Subpoenas, but did not direct compliance with the Proposed Subpoenas pursuant to Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(b). In other words, the Debtor's counsel merely sought confirmation that the Trustee did not seek to circumvent Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(c)(3), despite the fact that the language of the Proposed Orders purported to do exactly that.\n\n12. The Trustee's counsel refused to agree to the Debtor's proposal, despite local counsel acknowledging on the call that the Debtor's request mirrored the Local Bankruptcy Rules.\n\n13. In light of the Trustee's unwillingness to limit the scope of the Proposed Orders to the scope permitted by the Local Bankruptcy Rules, I communicated to the Trustee's counsel my belief that the parties had exhausted their ability to meet and confer further on the issue.\n\n14. Separately, the Debtor's counsel raised the issue that the Rule 2004 Motions were not the proper avenue for the Court to decide the issue of the scope and control of the Debtor's attorney-client privilege - i.e., the extent of the Debtor's and the Trustee's respective control of the privilege. Thus, the Debtor's counsel did not believe a discussion of the control of the Debtor's attorney-client privilege was necessary or within the required scope of the Meet and Confer regarding the Rule 2004 Motions.\n\n3\n\n15. Nonetheless, in an effort to expedite the process of resolving and narrowing privilege issues related to the Proposed Subpoenas, the Debtor's counsel proposed submitting these issues to the Court in an omnibus fashion on a reasonable timetable.\n\n16. The Debtor's counsel believed this was an efficient alternative to presenting privilege issues to the Court on an ad hoc basis in response to each of the Proposed Subpoenas after they were served, which would almost certainly cause unnecessary delay, cause unnecessary expense to all parties, and unduly burden this Court's resources.\n\n17. In response, the Trustee's counsel indicated that the Trustee was unwilling to address privilege issues on a subject-matter basis and was only wiling to address privilege issues on a document-by-document basis.\n\n18. Based on the Trustee's position, I, as the Debtor's counsel, indicated that I did not believe it would be possible to address privilege issues on a document-by-document basis in connection with the Rule 2004 Motions.\n\n19. I further acknowledged that the privilege issue was not presently before the Court, the Trustee had no obligation to engage in such a streamlined process (as an alternative to addressing privilege issues on an ad hoc basis), and, based on the Trustee's counsel's lack of interest in presenting privilege issues to the court on an omnibus basis, expressed my belief that the parties had exhausted their Meet and Confer requirements. However, I expressed the Debtor's willingness to meet and confer on any issues concerning the Rule 2004 Motions other than the issues described above that we had exhausted.\n\n20. I am mindful of the fact that Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(c)(3) provides that failure to comply with D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 is grounds to deny an objection to a motion for Rule 2004 examination. I am also mindful of the fact that D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 requires a party filing a\n\n4\n\nmotion concerning a discovery dispute to file, as part of the motion papers, \"an affidavit certifying that he or she has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion without the intervention of the Court.\"\n\n21. As the partner at Zeisler & Zeisler responsible for supervising this matter, I viewed the Limited Objection as a procedural matter that merely sought to ensure that the scope of the orders ultimately granting the 2004 Motions mirrored the relief permitted under Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(c)(3). I did not view the Limited Objections as a dispute that concerned the scope of the Proposed Subpoenas that required an affidavit pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37.\n\n22. To the extent I was incorrect, I humbly and respectfully apologize to the Court and request that the Court accept this declaration as evidence that the Debtor's counsel met and conferred with the Trustee's counsel before filing the Limited Objections (which the Trustee's Reply to the Limited Objection does not dispute), and deem the Limited Objection to have been filed in material compliance Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(c)(3).\n\n23. The undersigned further requests that the Court deem this declaration part of the Limited Objection.\n\n24. The sole purpose of the Limited Objection is to ensure that the Orders ultimately entered by the Court granting the Rule 2004 Motions do not exceed the scope permitted by this Court's Local Rules.\n\n5\n\nIn accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the\n\nforegoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on this 11th day of August, 2022.\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28114) ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 (203) 368-4234 aromney@zeislaw.com\n\n## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on this 11th 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\n> /s/ Aaron A. Romney Aaron A. Romney","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\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n债务人。\n\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nAaron A. Romney 支持债务人对第2004条动议提出有限异议的声明\n\n本人 Aaron A. Romney（阿伦·A·罗姆尼），特此声明如下：\n\n1. 本人系 Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒律师事务所）的合伙人兼股东，该事务所为上述破产案件中债务人（下称“债务人”）郭文贵的代理律师。\n\n2. 本人提交本声明，以支持债务人对第2004条动议提出的有限异议（文件编号：703）（下称“《有限异议》”）。\n\n3. 本声明中的陈述系基于本人参与了2022年8月2日债务人律师与第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯，下称“受托人”）律师之间的电话会议（下称“磋商会议”）。\n\n4. 出席磋商会议的人员包括代表债务人的本人、John Cesaroni（约翰·切萨罗尼）和 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），以及代表受托人的 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）、Avrum Luft（阿夫鲁姆·卢夫特）和 Nicholas Bassett（尼古拉斯·巴塞特）。\n\n5. 磋商会议的目的在于解决债务人对受托人拟议传票（下称“拟议传票”）的准予拟议命令（下称“拟议命令”）所持有的某些有限问题，债务人律师曾善意试图通过磋商解决这些问题，而无需诉诸动议程序。\n\n6. 债务人律师举行磋商会议并非为了解决受托人所寻求证据开示的范围问题。相反，债务人律师仅试图确认受托人提出的《关于依据第2004条进行调查的动议》（文件编号：636、637和638，下称“《第2004条动议》”）并未寻求 Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(c)(3)（《破产地方规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条）明确禁止的救济，即强迫拟议传票的接收人（下称“接收人”）遵守拟议传票中所列文件调取要求的命令。\n\n7. 债务人律师要求修改此项措辞，纯粹是因为准予发出拟议传票的拟议命令（下称“拟议命令”）中包含了与《破产地方规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条直接抵触的表述。具体而言，拟议命令中载明“[接收人]特此被责令在传票送达后30日内提供所有文件……”。1\n\n8. 在磋商会议上，债务人律师提出，如果从字面理解，拟议命令是在直接责令接收人遵守拟议传票，而不仅仅是准许受托人送达传票。\n\n9. 债务人律师明确指出了《破产地方规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条的规定，该条规定实体性异议（通过提交保护令动议、撤销传票动议或撤销准予第2004条动议的裁定之方式提出）应保留至受托人送达拟议传票之后提出。\n\n1 拟议命令确实默许接收人以特权为由提出异议，因为其规定接收人在提供文件的同时必须交付特权清单。就此而言，《有限异议》仅对拟议命令中规定接收人向受托人交付特权清单的时限提出了异议。\n\n10. 债务人律师进一步指出，拟议命令超出了《破产地方规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条所允许的范围，且受托人的拟议命令未遵循《破产地方规则》的措辞。债务人律师表示，如果法院签署该拟议命令，将明确规避《破产地方规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条。\n\n11. 债务人律师在磋商会议上要求双方达成约定，或提交一份修改后的拟议命令明确说明：准予《第2004条动议》的命令仅准许受托人送达拟议传票，但并不属于依据《破产地方规则》第2004-1(b)条直接责令接收人遵守拟议传票。换言之，债务人律师仅仅是寻求确认受托人并未企图规避《破产地方规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条，尽管拟议命令的措辞意图正是如此。\n\n12. 受托人律师拒绝同意债务人的提议，尽管当地律师在电话会议中承认债务人的要求与《破产地方规则》完全相符。\n\n13. 鉴于受托人不愿意将拟议命令的范围限制在《破产地方规则》所允许的范围内，本人向受托人律师表示，双方就该问题已穷尽了进一步磋商的可能性。\n\n14. 此外，债务人律师提出，《第2004条动议》并非由法院裁定债务人律师-委托人特权之范围与控制权归属（即债务人与受托人各自对特权的控制范围）的适用途径。因此，债务人律师认为，讨论债务人律师-委托人特权的控制权问题既无必要，也不属于关于《第2004条动议》所要求之磋商会议的范围。\n\n15. 尽管如此，为了加快解决和缩小与拟议传票相关的特权问题，债务人律师提议在合理的时间表内以综合统括的方式将这些问题提交法院审理。\n\n16. 债务人律师认为，相较于在各项拟议传票送达后针对每一份传票临时逐一向法院提交特权问题，这是一种高效的替代方案；而逐一提交几乎必然会导致不必要的拖延、增加各方不必要的费用，并不当地加重本法院的资源负担。\n\n17. 对此，受托人律师表示，受托人不愿意按主题逐项处理特权问题，而仅愿意按文件逐份处理特权问题。\n\n18. 基于受托人的立场，本人作为债务人律师表示，本人认为在涉及《第2004条动议》的情境下，不可能按文件逐份来处理特权问题。\n\n19. 本人进一步承认特权问题目前尚未提交至法院审理，受托人亦无义务参与此类精简程序（作为逐案临时处理特权问题的替代方案），且鉴于受托人律师对以统括方式向法院提交特权问题缺乏兴趣，本人表达了双方已穷尽磋商要求的看法。然而，本人同时表达了债务人愿意就除上述已穷尽磋商的问题之外、与《第2004条动议》相关的任何其他问题继续进行磋商。\n\n20. 本人知悉《破产地方规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条规定未遵守 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37（《康涅狄格区民事地方规则》第37条）构成驳回对第2004条调查动议之异议的理由。本人亦知悉《康涅狄格区民事地方规则》第37条规定，提交关于证据开示争议动议的一方须在动议文件中附具“一份宣誓书，证明其已本着善意与对方当事人律师进行磋商，以力求在无需法院介入的情况下通过协议解决动议所提出的问题”。\n\n21. 作为 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）负责督办本案的合伙人，本人将《有限异议》视为一项程序性事项，其仅旨在确保最终准予《第2004条动议》的命令范围与《破产地方规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条所允许的救济保持一致。本人未将《有限异议》视为涉及拟议传票范围的争议从而需要依据《康涅狄格区民事地方规则》第37条提交宣誓书。\n\n22. 若本人在此理解有误，本人谨向法院致以诚挚歉意，并请求法院采纳本声明作为债务人律师在提交《有限异议》前已与受托人律师进行磋商的证据（受托人对《有限异议》的回复对此亦无异议），并认定《有限异议》在实质上符合《破产地方规则》第2004-1(c)(3)条的规定。\n\n23. 署名人进一步请求法院将本声明视为《有限异议》的一部分。\n\n24. 《有限异议》的唯一目的在于确保法院最终签署准予《第2004条动议》的命令不超出本院地方规则所允许的范围。\n\n依据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，本人在知悉做伪证将受惩罚的前提下，郑重声明上述内容真实、准确无误。\n\n签署日期：2022年8月11日。\n\nAaron A. Romney (ct28114)\nZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n(203) 368-4234\naromney@zeislaw.com\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，于2022年8月11日，上述文件的一份副本已通过电子方式归档。本归档通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运作以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事方，或对于如电子归档通知所示无法接收电子归档的任何人，通过邮寄方式送达。各当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次归档文件。\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney\nAaron A. Romney","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1490,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:52:55"}