{"id":"court_ctb_901_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":901,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |        |              | -------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n|        |              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                         |\n|--------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------|\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n| In re: |              |                                                                       | : | Chapter 11              |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        | Ho Wan Kwok, |                                                                       | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        |              | Debtor.1                                                              | : |                         |\n|        |              |                                                                       | : |                         |\n|        |              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                         |\n\n## **RESPONSE TO TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND CONSENT TO FURTHER RELIEF SOUGHT BY TRUSTEE**\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") and Verdolino & Lowey P.C. (\"VLPC,\" with Brown Rudnick, the \"Respondents\") hereby submit this response in connection with the *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Protective Order* (the \"Motion\") [Docket No. 874], and *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Authorizing Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoena and Enforcing Consent Order* (the \"Enforcement Motion\") [Docket No. 898]. In the most simple terms, the Respondents' Response is as follows:\n\n- Respondents want nothing more than to expeditiously and efficiently comply with the Court's discovery orders and issued subpoenas, in accordance with the rights and privileges assigned to or reserved by each of the Trustee and the Debtor by orders of this Court, and Respondents have themselves asserted (and assert here) no objections of any kind to any of them;\n- Respondents have diligently taken all appropriate actions to be able to do so; and\n- Unfortunately, for whatever reasons and by whatever cause, the Respondents' position seems to have been misconstrued, and so it has become necessary and appropriate for Respondents to set out here simply and directly its efforts to date and intentions in that regard, including to avoid further ambiguities or mistaken assumptions.\n\nIn further response to the Motion, Respondents state as follows:\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\n#### **PROCEDURAL 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. The same date, the Debtor applied to employ VLPC as his financial advisor. Docket No. 90.\n\n3. An order approving Brown Rudnick's retention was entered on April 29, 2022. Docket No. 293. The Court held the VLPC application under advisement, and it was later withdrawn. *See* Docket No. 737.\n\n4. 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\n5. 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\n6. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion seeking discovery of the Debtor's current and former professionals pursuant to Rule 2004. Docket No. 637. The Respondents did not oppose the motion, and the Court granted the motion on August 16, 2022. Docket No. 756.\n\n7. Following entry of the Court's order, the Debtor raised questions concerning the scope of privilege transferred to the Trustee. Accordingly, on August 22, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion to resolve any such issues. Docket No. 777.\n\n8. On September 14, 2022, the Court entered its *Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed*\n\n2\n\n*Documents and Information* [Docket No. 856] (the \"Consent Order\") resolving the Trustee's motion concerning the transfer of privilege.\n\n9. Pursuant to the Consent Order, all of Respondents' documents and communications are presumed subject to the Trustee's exclusive control; provided, however, that the Trustee's exclusive control is qualified \"to the extent the **Debtor** believes in good faith that particular documents or information . . . could result in personal harm to the Debtor if disclosed to the Trustee . . . **the Debtor's counsel** shall . . . log all such documents.\" ¶ 7 (the \"Debtor's Personal Harm Privilege\").\n\n#### **RESPONSE**\n\n10. Almost immediately upon appointment of the Trustee, the Respondents had constructive and customary conversations with the Trustee and Trustee's counsel regarding the preservation of Respondents' documents, in recognition that all or substantially all of them ultimately would be subject to production. Consistent with that, within a few days of the Trustee's appointment, and well before the Trustee even filed his motions for discovery under Bankruptcy Rule 2004, Respondents began the process of preserving and making ready for production all of their client files, emails and other communications, all without the need for Court order of any type.\n\n11. The Respondents did not participate in the negotiation of the Consent Order entered on September 14, 2022.\n\n12. On the very day on which the Consent Order was entered, Respondents reached out to Debtor's counsel to ask how the Debtor and his counsel intended to administer the Debtor's Personal Harm Privilege set out at paragraph 7 of the Consent Order. In particular, Respondents made several requests:\n\n3\n\n- The Debtor has testified that this chapter 11 case was commenced in significant part to preserve his life, liberty and safety (see *Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions* ¶ 2 [Docket No. 107]) (Debtor's testimony that the filing was significantly motivated to stay his threatened incarceration, and that were he to be incarcerated or if his family could not otherwise provide him with physical security, the Chinese Communist Party \"would have me assassinated at the earliest possible opportunity.\"), it was conceivable that, at the present time, the Debtor might believe that at least some of Respondents' work (and, thus, communications related to such work) could be within the Debtor's Personal Harm Privilege;\n- While the Respondents themselves could not identify anything in particular that would be so implicated, the Consent Order expressly left such determination to the Debtor himself and not to the Respondents, and accordingly, the Respondents needed direction from the Debtor as to any document or matter that the Debtor now believed to be within such Privilege;\n- The Respondents suggested that the Debtor permit Respondents to produce to the Trustee the entirety of their files and communications, with the Debtor later being allowed to \"claw back\" any particular communication that the believed to fall within the Debtor's Personal Harm Privilege under applicable rules and law; and\n- Even as the Debtor considered providing such permission, or other clarity as to how he intended to assert his Debtor's Personal Harm Privilege, the Debtor nonetheless could and should provide to Respondents confirmation that all of Respondents' communications with third parties (such as the Creditors' Committee, Pacific Alliance, the Office of the United States Trustee, and other unaffiliated creditors in the case) as not possibly within any retained Debtor's Personal Harm Privilege, so as to allow Respondents to at least start the production of substantial documents on a rolling basis.\n\n13. Despite repeated additional written requests and conferences, the last of which\n\nwas joined by Trustee's counsel, the Respondents have been unable to obtain clarity in that regard from Debtor's counsel.\n\n14. Respondents have had no communications with the Debtor himself for approximately three months, and cannot themselves know what documents, if produced, could conceivably result in personal harm to the Debtor. Again, to be perfectly clear, the Respondents do not themselves claim any continuing privilege or other rights to withhold responsive documents, and simply wish to expeditiously and efficiently comply with the Consent Order and the relevant subpoenas, without risk of liability on account of the production of documents or giving of testimony that may be later determined to be within the scope of the Debtor's Personal Harm Privilege.\n\n15. Simultaneously with the foregoing, and in lieu of a formal response to the Trustee's subpoena, Brown Rudnick delivered to the Trustee on September 16, 2022 a letter outlining the categories of documents it proposed to search for and produce, once the Respondents' obligations and the Debtors' privilege assertions were resolved. The Trustee accepted the letter and, subject to certain minor consensual adjustments to search terms, has broadly agreed with the Respondents as to the scope of search and production. In short, then, there appears to be no other impediment to the Respondents' ability to fully comply with the subpoenas other than resolution of how the Debtor intends to communicate and resolve his Personal Harm Privilege.\n\n16. The Trustee has now filed his Enforcement Motion, in an effort to bring the necessary clarity to the issues described above. Respondents have reviewed that Enforcement Motion, believe that it provides an appropriate resolution of the concerns noted above, and so support the relief sought thereby.\n\n[This space intentionally left blank.]\n\n5\n\nDated: September 30, 2022\n\n### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP and VERDOLINO & LOWEY P.C.**\n\nBy their counsel,\n\nBROWN 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\nBy: /s/ *William R. Baldiga*\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\nOne Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Attn: Tristan G. Axelrod, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (617) 856-8200 Facsimile: (617) 856-8201 Email: taxelrod@brownrudnick.com\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\n:\n\nDebtor.[1](#page-6-0)\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 30th Day of September, 2022, the *Response to*\n\n*Trustee's Motion for Protective Order* was sent by e-mail to all appearing parties by operation of\n\nthe Court's electronic filing system.\n\nDated: September 30, 2022\n\n### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP and VERDOLINO & LOWEY P.C.**\n\nBy their counsel,\n\nBROWN 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\nBy: /s/ *William R. Baldiga*\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\nOne Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Attn: Tristan G. Axelrod, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (617) 856-8200 Facsimile: (617) 856-8201 Email: taxelrod@brownrudnick.com\n\n64852115 v1","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案件涉及： : 第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）， : 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 :\n\n对受托人申请保护令动议的回复，以及对受托人所寻求之进一步救济的同意\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP（「Brown Rudnick」）与 Verdolino & Lowey P.C.（「VLPC」，与 Brown Rudnick 合称「被答辩人」）特此就《第 11 章受托人申请作出保护令的动议》（「《动议》」）[Docket No. 874] 以及《第 11 章受托人申请作出授权遵守第 2004 条传票并执行同意令之命令的动议》（「《执行动议》」）[Docket No. 898] 提交本回复。简而言之，被答辩人的回复如下：\n\n- 被答辩人一心只希望根据本法院各项命令分配给受托人与债务人各自或由其各自保留的权利与特权，迅速且高效地遵守法院的证据开示命令及签发的传票，且被答辩人自身从未（在此亦不）对其中任何一项提出任何形式的异议；\n- 被答辩人已勤勉地采取一切适当行动以做到这一点；并且\n- 遗憾的是，无论出于何种原因或缘由，被答辩人的立场似乎被曲解了，因此被答辩人有必要且适当地在此直接、明确地阐明迄今为止的努力以及在这方面的意图，包括为了避免进一步的含糊不清或错误假设。\n\n作为对《动议》的进一步回复，被答辩人陈述如下：\n\n1 债务人以下列姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui（郭文贵）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n程序背景\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，Ho Wan Kwok（「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 担任律师的申请。Docket No. 86。同日，债务人申请聘请 VLPC 担任其财务顾问。Docket No. 90。\n\n3. 批准聘用 Brown Rudnick 的命令于 2022年4月29日 录入。Docket No. 293。法院对 VLPC 的申请留待审决，该申请后被撤回。见 Docket No. 737。\n\n4. 2022年6月15日，法院录入命令，指示指定一名第 11 章受托人。Docket No. 465。现任第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（「受托人」）于 2022年7月7日 获指定。Docket No. 514。\n\n5. 2022年7月13日，Brown Rudnick 提交了辞去代理律师职务的动议。Docket No. 543。法院已批准 Brown Rudnick 辞任的动议。Docket No. 666。\n\n6. 2022年7月28日，受托人根据第 2004 条规则提交动议，寻求对债务人现任和前任专业人士进行证据开示。Docket No. 637。被答辩人未反对该动议，法院于 2022年8月16日 批准了该动议。Docket No. 756。\n\n7. 在法院命令录入后，债务人就转移给受托人的特权范围提出了疑问。因此，2022年8月22日，受托人提交了一项动议以解决任何此类问题。Docket No. 777。\n\n8. 2022年9月14日，法院录入了其《关于第 2004 条规则传票所涉文件和信息的律师-委托人保密特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意令》[Docket No. 856]（「《同意令》」），解决了受托人关于特权转移的动议。\n\n9. 根据《同意令》，被答辩人的所有文件和通信均推定受受托人的独家控制；但是，受托人的独家控制受到限制，「若债务人善意地认为特定文件或信息……如向受托人披露可能导致对债务人的人身伤害……债务人的律师应当……对所有此类文件进行登记登记日志。」第 7 段（「债务人人身伤害特权」）。\n回复\n\n10. 在受托人获指定后，被答辩人几乎立即与受托人及其律师就保存被答辩人的文件进行了建设性和惯常性的交谈，认识到所有或绝大部分文件最终都必须被提供。与此一致的是，在受托人获指定后数天内，且早在受托人根据《破产规则》第 2004 条提出证据开示动议之前，被答辩人就已开始保存并准备提供其全部客户档案、电子邮件及其他通信，而这一切均无需任何形式的法院命令。\n\n11. 被答辩人未参与 2022年9月14日 录入的《同意令》的谈判。\n\n12. 就在《同意令》录入的当天，被答辩人即联系了债务人的律师，询问债务人及其律师打算如何管理《同意令》第 7 段所规定的债务人人身伤害特权。特别是，被答辩人提出了几项请求：\n- 债务人曾作证称，启动本第 11 章案件在很大程度上是为了保全其生命、自由和安全（见《Ho Wan Kwok 先生支持第 11 章案件及某些动议的声明》第 2 段 [Docket No. 107]）（债务人作证称，提交申请的重要动机是为了中止其受到的监禁威胁，且如果他被监禁或其家人无法为其提供人身安全保障，中国共产党「将在最早的可能机会将我暗杀」），因此可以想见，目前债务人可能会认为被答辩人的工作中至少有一部分（以及与此类工作相关的通信）可能属于债务人人身伤害特权的范围；\n- 虽然被答辩人自身无法指出任何会受此牵连的具体内容，但《同意令》明确将此类认定留给债务人本人而非被答辩人，因此，被答辩人需要债务人就其目前认为属于此类特权范围内的任何文件或事项作出指示；\n- 被答辩人建议，债务人允许被答辩人向受托人提供其全部档案和通信，并在随后允许债务人根据适用规则和法律，「追回」其认为属于债务人人身伤害特权范围内的任何特定通信；以及\n- 即使在债务人考虑提供此类许可，或就其打算如何主张其债务人人身伤害特权提供其他明确说明的同时，债务人仍然可以且应当向被答辩人确认，被答辩人与第三方（如债权人委员会、Pacific Alliance、United States Trustee 办公室以及本案中其他无关联的债权人）的所有通信均不可能属于任何保留的债务人人身伤害特权范围内，从而允许被答辩人至少开始以滚动方式提供大量文件。\n\n13. 尽管一再提出额外的书面请求并举行了多次会议（其中最后一次有受托人律师参加），被答辩人仍无法从债务人律师处获得这方面的明确答复。\n\n14. 被答辩人已有大约三个月未与债务人本人进行任何沟通，自身无法得知如果提供哪些文件可能会导致对债务人的人身伤害。再次明确声明，被答辩人自身不主张任何持续的特权或其他扣留响应文件的权利，而仅仅希望迅速且高效地遵守《同意令》和相关传票，且不承担因提供可能在随后被确定为属于债务人人身伤害特权范围内的文件或提供证言而产生的责任风险。\n\n15. 在进行前述事宜的同时，为了代替对受托人传票的正式回复，Brown Rudnick 于 2022年9月16日 向受托人发送了一封信函，概述了一旦被答辩人的义务和债务人的特权主张得到解决，其提议检索并提供的文件类别。受托人接受了该信函，并在对检索词进行某些微小的协商调整的前提下，已与被答辩人就检索和提供的范围达成了广泛共识。简而言之，除了解决债务人打算如何沟通和解决其人身伤害特权之外，被答辩人完全遵守传票的能力似乎不存在其他障碍。\n\n16. 受托人现已提交其《执行动议》，旨在为上述问题带来必要的明确性。被答辩人已审阅该《执行动议》，认为其为上述关切提供了适当的解决方案，因此支持其所寻求的救济。\n\n[此页以下空白。]\n日期：2022年9月30日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP 与 VERDOLINO & LOWEY P.C.\n\n由其代理律师：\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter 律师 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga 律师（特准出庭） 电话：(212) 209-4800 传真：(212) 209-4801 电子邮件：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\nOne Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 收件人：Tristan G. Axelrod 律师（特准出庭） 电话：(617) 856-8200 传真：(617) 856-8201 电子邮件：taxelrod@brownrudnick.com\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债务人。[1]\n:\n案件涉及： : 第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）， : 案号 22-50073\n送达证书\n\n我，William R. Baldiga，特此证明于 2022年9月30日，通过法院电子立案系统的运行，本《对受托人申请保护令动议的回复》已通过电子邮件发送给所有出庭当事人。\n\n日期：2022年9月30日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP 与 VERDOLINO & LOWEY P.C.\n\n由其代理律师：\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter 律师 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga\n\nSeven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga 律师（特准出庭） 电话：(212) 209-4800 传真：(212) 209-4801 电子邮件：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n1 债务人以下列姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui（郭文贵）；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\nOne Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 收件人：Tristan G. Axelrod 律师（特准出庭） 电话：(617) 856-8200 传真：(617) 856-8201 电子邮件：taxelrod@brownrudnick.com\n\n64852115 v1","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Je","Miles Guo","Despins","Luc Despins","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1761,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:02:48"}