{"id":"court_ctb_907_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":907,"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\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nCase No: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9006(c)(1), TO EXPEDITE HEARING ON MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS AND ENFORCING CONSENT ORDER REGARDING CONTROL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION RELATED TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION**\n\nHo Wan Kwok, the debtor (the \"Debtor\") in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the \"Bankruptcy Case\"), hereby objects to the Chapter 11 Trustee's (the \"Trustee\") Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(c)(1), to Expedite Hearing on the Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Authorizing Compliance With Rule 2004 Subpoenas and Enforcing Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents And Information [Docket No. 898], (the \"Motion to Expedite\"), filed by the Trustee at 10:03 pm on Friday, September 30 2022. In support of his objection, the Debtor respectfully represents as follows:\n\n1. On Friday, September 30, 2022, at 9:54 pm, the Trustee filed the Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Authorizing Compliance With Rule 2004 Subpoenas and Enforcing Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents And Information (Doc. No. 898) (the \"Motion for Order\"). The Motion for Order seeks the entry of an order compelling the Debtor's former law firm, Brown Rudnick LLP (\"BR\"), to produce all Debtor related documents in its possession without first satisfying its obligations to review the documents for privilege.\n\n2. The Motion, as is the Trustee's *modus operandi*, accuses the Debtor of intentionally seeking to delay this proceeding by delaying the production of documents from BR, and describes a series of alleged events related to the Trustee's efforts to secure production of documents in BR's possession which are misleading at best.\n\n3. The Trustee filed the Motion for Order at 10:00 pm on Friday, September 30, 2022, and through the Motion to Expedite asks the Court to schedule a hearing on the Motion for Order at 12:00 pm on Tuesday, October 4, 2022, thereby giving the Debtor one business day to respond to the Motion for Order, as well as BR's orchestrated Response to Trustee's Motion for Protective Order, And Consent to Further Relief Sought by the Trustee filed by BR at 10:18 pm on Friday September 30, twenty (20) minutes after the Trustee filed his Motion for Order. The Motion to Expedite is a thinly veiled attempt by the Trustee to prevent the Debtor from setting the record straight as to the series of events leading up to the filing of the Motion for Order.\n\n4. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(c)(1) provides that \"when an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court, the court for cause shown may in its discretion with or without motion or notice order the period reduced.\" \"In considering such motions, courts should balance possible prejudice to other parties against the reasons advanced for reducing the time.\" 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 9006.09[2] (Richard Levin & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed.). \"The flexibility written into Bankruptcy Rule 9006 to reduce the time for notice should be sparingly invoked and may be invoked only for cause shown.\" *In re Sandra Cotton, Inc.*, 65 B.R. 153, 156 (W.D.N.Y. 1986).\n\n5. The Trustee has not shown cause as to why the Motion for Order should be considered on an expedited basis. The Trustee has served dozens of subpoenas on, among others,\n\n2\n\nprofessionals who have represented the Debtor, financial institutions, and various entities in which the Debtor purportedly holds an interest, seeking documents and information related to the Debtor. The process of receiving and reviewing documents from the multitude of subpoenaed parties will take time. As a result, providing the Debtor with an opportunity to respond to the Motion for Order pursuant to this Court's ordinary motion timeline is not going to cause the Debtor's case to move any more or less quickly than it would if the Court granted the Motion to Expedite. Denying the Motion to Expedite will, however, ensure that the Debtor has a full opportunity to respond to the Trustee's misleading rendition of the background facts that purportedly support the relief sought in the Motion for the Order.\n\n6. The Trustee has made it a habit of seeking to expedite every motion that he files with this Court, continually arguing that an expedited hearing is necessary because the Debtor is seeking to delay. This strategy has been primarily successful and often results in the Debtor having very little time to fully and fairly respond to the Trustee's motions.\n\n7. The Debtor should not be forced to respond to every motion filed by the Trustee on an expedited basis particularly where, as here, the Trustee has several motions for relief pending to be heard on an expedited basis at one time. The Debtor should be given a full and fair opportunity to respond to the Motion for Order so that he can correct the Trustee's recitation of facts, show why the Debtor not caused any delay with respect to BR's production, and argue why the relief sought by the Trustee in the Motion for Order should be denied.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Debtor requests that the Court deny the Motion to Expedite and grant him such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\n3\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 3 rd day of October, 2022.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [jmoriarty@zeislaw.com](mailto:jmoriarty@zeislaw.com)\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 3 rd day of October, 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/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\n第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n债务人依据《破产规则》第 9006(c)(1) 条对第 11 章受托人关于加快审理第 11 章受托人请求作出命令授权遵守第 2004 条传票并执行关于控制与第 2004 条传票所涉文件和信息相关的律师-委托人保密特权及工作成果保护的同意令之动议的异议\n\n上述破产案件（下称“破产案件”）中的债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，下称“债务人”），在此对第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）于 2022 年 9 月 30 日星期五晚上 10:03 提起的、依据《破产规则》第 9006(c)(1) 条关于加快审理第 11 章受托人请求作出命令授权遵守第 2004 条传票并执行关于控制与第 2004 条传票所涉文件和信息相关的律师-委托人保密特权及工作成果保护的同意令之动议 [Docket No. 898]（下称“加急动议”）提出异议。为支持其异议，债务人谨陈述如下：\n\n1. 2022 年 9 月 30 日星期五晚上 9:54，受托人提交了《第 11 章受托人请求作出命令授权遵守第 2004 条传票并执行关于控制与第 2004 条传票所涉文件和信息相关的律师-委托人保密特权及工作成果保护的同意令之动议》（Doc. No. 898）（下称“寻求命令动议”）。该“寻求命令动议”请求作出命令，强迫债务人的前律师事务所 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所，下称“BR”）出具其持有的所有与债务人相关的文档，而无需首先履行其对文档进行特权审查的义务。\n\n2. 该动议延续了受托人的一贯做法，指责债务人企图通过拖延 BR 出具文件来蓄意拖延本程序，并描述了与受托人试图获取 BR 所持文件相关的一系列所谓事件，而这些描述充其量是误导性的。\n\n3. 受托人于 2022 年 9 月 30 日星期五晚上 10:00 提交了“寻求命令动议”，并通过“加急动议”请求法院将“寻求命令动议”的听证会定于 2022 年 10 月 4 日星期二中午 12:00 举行，从而仅给债务人一个工作日的时间来回应“寻求命令动议”，以及 BR 于 9 月 30 日星期五晚上 10:18（即受托人提交“寻求命令动议”二十 (20) 分钟后）提交的精心策划的《对受托人保护令动议的回应及同意受托人寻求的进一步救济》。该加急动议是受托人为了阻止债务人就导致提交“寻求命令动议”的一系列事件澄清事实真相而作出的欲盖弥彰的企图。\n\n4. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(c)(1) 规定，“当根据本规则、根据本规则发出的通知或根据法院命令，要求或允许在规定时间内完成某项行为时，法院在显示合理理由的情况下，可依其裁量权在有或无动议或通知的情况下命令缩短该期限。”“在审议此类动议时，法院应当在对其他当事人可能造成的损害与提出缩短时间的理由之间进行权衡。”10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 9006.09[2] (Richard Levin & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed.)。“《破产规则》第 9006 条中关于缩短通知时间的灵活性规定应谨慎适用，且仅在显示合理理由的情况下方可适用。”In re Sandra Cotton, Inc., 65 B.R. 153, 156 (W.D.N.Y. 1986)。\n\n5. 受托人并未就为何应以加急方式审理“寻求命令动议”显示合理理由。受托人已向包括曾代表债务人的专业人士、金融机构以及据称债务人持有权益的各类实体在内的各方送达了数十份传票，以索取与债务人相关的文档和信息。接收和审查来自众多被传票送达方的文档的过程需要时间。因此，根据本法院通常的动议时间表向债务人提供回应“寻求命令动议”的机会，并不会导致债务人案件的推进速度比法院批准加急动议的情况有任何加快或减慢。然而，驳回加急动议将确保债务人有充分的机会对受托人据称支持其在“寻求命令动议”中所寻求救济的背景事实之误导性陈述作出回应。\n\n6. 受托人已习惯于对其向本法院提交的每一项动议都寻求加急处理，不断辩称因债务人企图拖延而有必要举行加急听证会。这一策略基本上取得了成功，并且往往导致债务人只有极少的时间来充分、公允地回应受托人的各项动议。\n\n7. 不应强迫债务人对受托人提交的每一项动议都以加急方式作出回应，特别是在本案这种受托人有多项待决救济动议要在同一时间以加急方式接受审理的情况下。应当给予债务人充分和公允的机会来回应“寻求命令动议”，以便其能够纠正受托人对事实的陈述，证明债务人并未对 BR 出具文件造成任何延误，并论证为何应当驳回受托人在“寻求命令动议”中所寻求的救济。\n\n据此，债务人请求法院驳回加急动议，并授予其本法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n日期：2022 年 10 月 3 日，于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n债务人：HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) James M. Moriarty (ct21876) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: aromney@zeislaw.com jmoriarty@zeislaw.com\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，于 2022 年 10 月 3 日，前述文书的副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运作以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或按照电子提交通知上的指示，通过邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子提交的人员。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Romney Aaron A. Romney","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1062,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:41:34"}