{"id":"court_ctb_974_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":974,"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# **RESPONDENTS' URGENT MOTION IN AID OF COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER REGARDING RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION**\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") and Verdolino & Lowey P.C. (\"VLPC,\" with Brown Rudnick, the \"Respondents\") hereby submit this motion (the \"Motion\") in aid of their compliance with the Court's *Order Granting Motion 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* (the \"Production Order\") [Docket No. 962]. In the most simple terms, the Respondents' Motion provides and requests as follows:\n\n- **This Motion does not seek delay.** Brown Rudnick has concluded necessary reviews and is capable of producing all responsive documents to the Trustee, and fully desires to do so as soon as possible. **To be clear: Brown Rudnick is able and willing to produce all such documents to the Trustee at or before 5:00 p.m. on the date hereof, provided resolution of the issues identified herein.**\n- VLPC has in fact produced all documents responsive to the Chapter 11 Trustee's subpoena, subject to withholdings in connection with the Debtor's existing privilege log;\n- Unfortunately, the Debtor's most recent filings and arguments indicate the Debtor's belief that Respondents' compliance with the Court's order may violate their legal and/or ethical duties to the Debtor;\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- In discussions pertaining to the Production Order, Debtor's counsel expressly reserved the right – at least for the time being – to take legal action against Brown Rudnick in connection with its production of documents as required by the Production Order; and\n- Respondents' requested, and the Trustee agreed, to certain changes to the Trustee's proposed order on its Motion to address the Debtor's positions and the Respondents' concerns;\n- Neither the Court's comments on the record on October 13, 2022 nor the Production Order address these issues directly and, thus, could lead to further litigation.\n\n Accordingly, and in the interest of expediting its production at minimal risk of further litigation concerning their obligations to their former client, the Respondents request that the Court assist in their compliance with the Production Order by the clarifications proposed in the order attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.\n\nIn further support for the Motion, Respondents state as follows:\n\n# **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n1. With respect to the pertinent facts preceding this Motion, Respondents incorporate herein by reference the facts stated in the *Response to Trustee's Motion for Protective Order, and Consent to Further Relief Sought by Trustee* [Docket No. 901] (the \"Enforcement Response\") as well as their remarks to the Court on the record on October 12, 2022 in connection with the *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Authorizing Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoena and Enforcing Consent Order* [Docket No. 898] (the \"Enforcement Motion\"). Certain pertinent facts contained therein are summarized and restated herein.\n\n2. On February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n3. 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\n4. 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\n5. 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\n6. 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\n#### **RULE 2004 MOTION AND SUBPOENA**\n\n7. 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. The Trustee served subpoenas on Brown Rudnick and VLPC on that date, which subpoenas have been interpreted as a request for each Respondent's entire client file. The subpoenas stated a demand for response by September 16, 2022.\n\n8. Following receipt of the subpoenas, each Respondent took measures to ensure preservation of all possible documents responsive to the subpoenas.\n\n9. Following entry of the Court's order and service of the subpoenas on the Respondents and others, the Debtor raised questions concerning the scope of privilege\n\ntransferred to the Trustee. Accordingly, on August 22, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion to resolve any such issues. Docket No. 777.\n\n10. Notwithstanding the pending motion practice regarding the scope of privilege, Brown Rudnick (on behalf of both Respondents) engaged in frequent discussions with counsel to both the Trustee and the Debtor over the ensuing period. Ultimately, as it appeared that the Trustee's motion would be resolved on consent, Brown Rudnick was able to negotiate a process with the Trustee whereby the parties would agree on search terms to narrow the vast universe of potentially responsive documents.\n\n11. On September 9, 2022, the Trustee's counsel agreed to accept, expressly in lieu of a formal response to the subpoenas on or before September 16, a proposal from the Respondents as to search terms and methods, such that the Respondents might collect, review, and produce to the appropriate party once the Court issued a ruling on the Trustee's privilege motion.\n\n12. On September 13, 2022, Brown Rudnick delivered the contemplated proposal in satisfaction of its obligation to formally respond to the Trustee's subpoenas.\n\n#### **CONSENT ORDER AND SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATIONS**\n\n13. 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 Documents and Information* [Docket No. 856] (the \"Consent Order\") resolving the Trustee's motion concerning the transfer of privilege.\n\n14. 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\n\nto the Trustee . . . **the Debtor's counsel** shall . . . log all such documents.\" ¶ 7 (the \"Debtor's Personal Harm Privilege\") (emphasis added).\n\n15. Brown Rudnick immediately thereafter engaged in further discussions with the Trustee and the Debtor regarding the interpretation of the order and the necessary process to collect, review and produce documents. Unfortunately, the Trustee and the Debtor were not, at any relevant time, able to fully agree on any protocol.\n\n16. Regardless, on September 23 the Respondents reached an agreement with the Trustee on the final search terms and methods to be employed. The Trustee requested, and the Respondents agreed without argument, to a broad set of terms (including such common names as \"Miles\") intended to capture all possible documents relating to the representation.\n\n#### **BROWN RUDNICK REVIEW AND PRODUCTION**\n\n17. The search terms requested by the Trustee generated approximately 180,000 potentially responsive emails initially collected by Brown Rudnick, in addition to several thousand electronic documents on the firm's archival systems and thousands of pages of hard copy documents generated by attorneys. As agreed with the Trustee and for obvious reasons, this collection was subject to exclusion for plainly non-responsive documents (e.g., documents mentioning individuals named or nicknamed \"Miles\" other than the Debtor) and documents referencing the Debtor for reasons purely related to the Respondents' business operations (e.g., records of outstanding work in progress).\n\n18. Brown Rudnick immediately undertook to cull the 180,000 emails as proposed. Within days the 180,000 had been reduced to approximately 20,000. At that point, however, the effort required document-by-document review by attorneys, as well as digitization of hard copy\n\ndocuments, and a tiered review of certain documents created by attorney William Baldiga in light of his management role at Brown Rudnick during the representation.\n\n19. Simultaneous with these efforts, Brown Rudnick continued to engage with the Trustee and the Debtor to negotiate a process for privilege review and production. Although agreement at times appeared obtainable, following a conference on September 29 the Trustee and Brown Rudnick reached the conclusion that an agreement was not forthcoming. Accordingly, the Trustee filed the Enforcement Motion on September 30.\n\n20. The Trustee informed Respondents of the forthcoming Enforcement Motion, and given the time-sensitive nature of the endeavors (both generally and it being a Friday evening preceding court closure and certain religious observances), Respondents simultaneously prepared their own response to accompany the anticipated filing. Accordingly, the Respondents were able to file the Enforcement Response shortly after the Trustee's own filing.\n\n#### **SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATIONS**\n\n21. After reviewing the filed Enforcement Motion, Brown Rudnick expressed to the Trustee its concern that the proposed order supplied within the motion might not resolve the objections expressed by the Debtor's counsel.\n\n22. In sum, Debtor's counsel had expressed its view that Brown Rudnick was required to assert privileges on behalf of the Debtor - notwithstanding the text of the Consent Order, Brown Rudnick's lack of access to the Debtor personally, and Debtor's counsel's unwillingness to review documents or assert privileges up to that point.[2](#page-5-0) As a result, Brown Rudnick has been effectively precluded from obtaining its former client's informed consent to\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> The Debtor's counsel has expressed some disagreement regarding the nature and timing of its offers to review documents and assert privilege. Regardless, until approximately October 6, 2022, Brown Rudnick did not understand the Debtor's counsel to have made any offer or commitment that appeared to satisfy the requirements of the Consent Order and applicable rules of professional conduct.\n\ndisclosure of potentially privileged information as required by Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(b).\n\n23. Despite the foregoing, Brown Rudnick understands certain statements of Debtor's counsel to imply or be interpreted that Brown Rudnick's production of documents directly to the Trustee (as requested in the Enforcement Motion) could constitute a breach of professional obligations.[3](#page-6-0)\n\n24. Brown Rudnick thus requested that the Trustee's proposed order on the Enforcement Motion address the Debtor's position by expressly acknowledging Brown Rudnick's satisfaction of legal and ethical obligations to the Debtor in its compliance with such order.\n\n25. The Trustee agreed to the requested changes to the proposed order.\n\n# **DEBTOR'S AGREEMENT TO REVIEW AND ASSERT PRIVILEGE**\n\n26. On or around October 6, 2022, communications with Debtor's counsel resulted in, for the first time within Brown Rudnick's understanding, an unequivocal commitment on the part of Debtor's counsel to review documents provided by the Respondents and create a privilege log.\n\n- 27. Within 24 hours, Respondents produced:\n\t- a. To the Trustee and the Debtor, approximately 650 documents as to which the Debtor's counsel acknowledged that no privilege could be asserted;\n\t- b. To the Debtor, the entirety of the VLPC client file, consisting of approximately 14,000 documents;[4](#page-6-1) and\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> To be clear, notwithstanding certain disagreements, at no time has Debtor's counsel instructed, advised, or otherwise suggested that Brown Rudnick should fail to respond to any subpoena or disobey any order of the Court. This Motion is not intended to suggest any impropriety or in any way criticize the actions of counsel.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-1\"></span><sup>4</sup> VLPC subsequently discovered that several thousand documents in the file produced to the Debtor for privilege review were not in fact responsive. These documents were removed prior to VLPC's eventual production to the Trustee.\n\nc. To the Debtor, an initial production of approximately 3,500 documents from Brown Rudnick's client file, as part of a rolling production in connection with Brown Rudnick's ongoing review to ensure responsiveness and completeness.\n\n(these documents together, \"Tranche 1\").\n\n28. The Debtor did not alter his legal position regarding Brown Rudnick's obligations and potential liability, and in fact formally stated such position in his objection to the Enforcement Motion at Docket No. 939.\n\n29. Regardless, the Debtor's counsel did review with admirable speed the documents produced by VLPC and Brown Rudnick, such that prior to the hearing on the Enforcement Motion, the Debtor's counsel was able to provide a privilege log in connection with the approximately 17,500 Tranche 1 documents reviewed in the previous week.\n\n### **BROWN RUDNICK PRODUCTION STATUS**\n\n30. Immediately following receipt of the Debtor's privilege log, Respondents removed the approximately 10 documents identified in the log and prepared to produce the remaining thousands of Tranche 1 documents to the Trustee. These documents – including, for the avoidance of doubt, the entirety of the VLPC client file – were produced to the Trustee on October 13, 2022.\n\n31. As Respondents' counsel indicated at the hearing on the Enforcement Motion on October 13, 2022, certain documents remained to be produced to the Trustee as of that date. Such documents can be described as follows:\n\n- a. Approximately 4,200 were produced to the Debtor on October 12, 2022, and had not been reviewed or logged as of the hearing (\"Tranche 2\");\n- b. Approximately 10,000 remained subject to further review by Brown Rudnick to ensure responsiveness prior to production (\"Tranche 3\"); and\n- c. Brown Rudnick understood that its obligation to respond to the subpoena would be ongoing, such that documents later discovered would be produced (whenever identified, \"Tranche 4\").\n\n32. Additionally at the hearing, the Respondents noted and the Court entertained oral argument regarding the Debtor's position concerning Brown Rudnick's professional obligations.\n\n33. In the approximately 24 hours subsequent to the hearing, Brown Rudnick was able to review and prepare to produce all of the Tranche 3 documents and reduce the remaining document count to approximately 7,000.\n\n34. While certain Tranche 4 documents are anticipated to exist, the number and nature of such documents is not presently known.\n\n### **COURT ENTERS PRODUCTION ORDER**\n\n35. Only hours after the hearing on October 13, 2022, the Court entered the Production Order in connection with the Trustee's Enforcement Motion.\n\n36. The Production Order is not entirely derived from the Trustee's proposed order on the Enforcement Motion and does not contain or address the revisions to such proposed order agreed by the Trustee and Brown Rudnick to resolve concerns regarding the Respondents' ethical and legal obligations raised in the Debtor's prior arguments and objection brief.\n\n37. The Production Order states, in relevant part, that it is:\n\n**ORDERED**: At or before 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2022, Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. is authorized and shall produce to the Trustee all post-petition documents responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena subject to the Debtor's existing privilege log discussed on the record during the hearing, which documents Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. provided to the Debtor prior to the hearing; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED**: At or before 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2022, Brown Rudnick LLP is authorized and shall produce to the Trustee all post-petition documents responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena subject to the Debtor's existing privilege log discussed on the record during the hearing, regardless of whether Brown Rudnick LLP provided the documents to the Debtor prior to the hearing…\n\n38. The Production Order additionally provides the Debtor with certain rights to\n\nprovide notice of privilege in connection with rules of civil procedure; however, it does not\n\nexpressly incorporate all rights under such rules and does not adopt all of the language previously proposed.\n\n39. As previously noted, VLPC has produced its entire client file to the Trustee subject to the Debtor's privilege log, and accordingly appears to have satisfied the Production Order regardless of interpretation, subject to its continuing obligations upon the identification of additional responsive documents.\n\n40. Respondents bring this Motion to aid in compliance with the above-cited paragraph and their related continuing obligations under the Production Order and related prior orders.\n\n#### **MOTION**\n\n41. Brown Rudnick must comply with the orders of this Court, as well as its obligations to current and former clients. In light of the positions taken by the Debtor, the Production Order creates the possibility of perceived conflict between Brown Rudnick's obligations.\n\n42. Indeed, in discussions pertaining to the Production Order, Debtor's counsel expressly reserved the right – at least for the time being – to take legal action against Brown Rudnick in connection with its production of documents as required by the Production Order.\n\n43. Accordingly, the Respondents request the Court's assistance in clarifying their obligations under the Order.\n\n44. As a preliminary note, Brown Rudnick has been concerned as to the interpretation of the Production Order. The relevant paragraph states that Brown Rudnick \"shall produce to the Trustee all post-petition documents responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena subject to the Debtor's existing privilege log discussed on the record during the hearing.\" As noted above, the Tranche\n\n3 documents had been identified as possibly responsive, but subject to further review, as of the entry of the Production Order. It was not clear whether the Order would then require Brown Rudnick to review and produce as many as 10,000 documents within 24 hours, regardless of the ability of its personnel, software, and other resources to do so.\n\n**45. Fortunately, Brown Rudnick is able to report that as of the filing of this Motion some 24 hours after entry of the Order and thanks to no small effort by its personnel, it has been able to complete its review of the Tranche 3 documents and can make the production of Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 documents to the Trustee, subject to resolution of the concerns expressed below.**\n\n46. In sum, Respondents have the following concerns that can be remedied by the Court by a simple order:\n\n47. First, the Production Order does not expressly provide the Debtor with the clawback rights afforded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) (\"After being notified, a party *must promptly return*, sequester, or destroy…\"). Rather, the Order states that the Debtor has a right to provide notice under the Rule, file a privilege log with the court, and may then request adjudication of any dispute. Brown Rudnick is concerned that the Order could be interpreted to either (1) waive or eliminate some portion of the Debtor's privilege or clawback rights, or (2) require the Debtor to, in effect, sue for return or destruction of documents believed to place him at risk of personal harm.\n\n48. As such, absent clarification, the Production Order seems to incentivize litigation by the Debtor both against the Trustee for return of documents and against Brown Rudnick for breach of ethical and/or legal duties by, in effect, consenting to disclosure of privileged information absent the protections afforded by Rule.\n\n49. Second, the Production Order does not expressly overrule the Debtor's objection to the Enforcement Motion, or otherwise in any way speak to the Debtor's position regarding the propriety of Brown Rudnick's productions (even if otherwise compliant with this Court's orders). This gives rise to concern that even facially compliant behavior may give rise to further litigation. Accordingly, Brown Rudnick requests that the Court expressly overrule the Debtor's objection and order that Brown Rudnick's production of documents to the Trustee in compliance with the Order satisfies Brown Rudnick's legal and ethical obligations to the Debtor.\n\n50. Finally, the proposed order would extend the deadline previously set for Brown Rudnick to produce responsive documents to a date one day following entry of the Court's order. To be clear, Brown Rudnick has prepared its production and has the technical capability to produce documents as soon as the Court enters the order, and would do so as soon as possible after entry thereof. Brown Rudnick personnel are able and willing to produce at any time prior to close of business on October 14, 2022. Without knowing the timing of any order or correlating personnel availability, Brown Rudnick requests a grace period of one day to ensure receipt of the order and compliance by its personnel.\n\n#### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n51. No prior request for the relief sought herein has been made to this or any other court.\n\n#### **MEET AND CONFER**\n\n52. Prior to the filing of this Motion, Respondents met and conferred with counsel to the Trustee and Debtor and requested consent to the relief requested herein. Trustee's counsel indicated it would reflect its position separately in the record following the filing of this Motion.\n\nWHEREFORE, the Respondents respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and\n\n(a) enter the Proposed Order in substantially the form attached hereto and (b) grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.\n\nDated: October 14, 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*  Seven 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\n Debtor.[1](#page-13-0) :\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 14th Day of October, 2022, the *Respondents' Urgent Motion in Aid of Compliance with Order Regarding Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information* was sent by e-mail to all appearing parties by operation of the Court's electronic\n\nfiling system.\n\nDated: October 14, 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*  Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801\n\n<span id=\"page-13-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\nEmail: 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# **Exhibit A**\n\nProposed Order\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X In re: Ho Wan Kwok, Debtor.[2](#page-16-0) : : : : : : : : Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) --------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n### **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS' URGENT MOTION IN AID OF COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER REGARDING RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION**\n\nUpon consideration of the Motion of Brown Rudnick LLP and Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. in connection with the *Order Granting Motion 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* (the \"Production Order\") [Docket No. 962], after notice and a hearing, see 11 U.S.C. § 102(1), it appearing that cause exists to grant the requested relief as conditioned hereafter; it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED**: The Motion is granted as set forth below. Objections to the Motion and the prior Enforcement Motion are overruled to the extent required to effectuate this Order.\n\n**ORDERED**: Subject to its continuing obligations to produce to the Chapter 11 Trustee any information responsive to Rule 2004 subpoenas in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), the obligation of VLPC stated to produce responsive documents at or before 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2022 as stated in the Production Order is satisfied.\n\n**ORDERED**: Subject to its continuing obligations to produce to the Chapter 11 Trustee any information responsive to Rule 2004 subpoenas in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), the stated deadline of 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2022 by which Brown Rudnick is authorized and shall produce responsive documents to the Trustee in connection with the Rule 2004 subpoena is extended to [the date that is one day following entry of this order].\n\n**ORDERED**: Respondents' production of responsive documents directly to the Chapter 11 Trustee as referenced herein and in the Production Order does not and shall not violate their respective legal and ethical obligations to the Debtor, whatever such obligations\n\n<span id=\"page-16-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n\nmay be. Such production shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege held by the Debtor, Brown Rudnick, or VLPC or of any rights of the foregoing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).\n\n**ORDERED**: The Debtor may exercise all applicable rights under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) to seek to claw back any document produced by Brown Rudnick LLP and/or Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. to the Chapter 11 Trustee and to assert privilege over any such document to the extent he is permitted to do so in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Privilege Order, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) shall otherwise apply in all respects to such assertion.\n\n**ORDERED**: This Order is immediately enforceable.\n\nDated: , 2022\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n64863856 v4","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分庭（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于：　：　第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　：　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。1　：\n\n被申请人为遵守关于依 Rule 2004 传唤文件和信息之命令而紧急提出的协助动议\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP（Brown Rudnick 律师事务所，下称“Brown Rudnick”）及 Verdolino & Lowey P.C.（Verdolino & Lowey 专业公司，下称“VLPC”，与 Brown Rudnick 合称“被申请人”）特此提交本动议（下称“本动议”），以协助其遵守本院的《关于准许作出授权遵守 Rule 2004 传票并执行关于控制与 Rule 2004 传唤文件和信息相关的律师—客户特权及工作成果保护之同意命令的动议的命令》（下称“提交命令”）[Docket No. 962]。简言之，被申请人的本动议提出并请求如下：\n\n• 本动议并非寻求延迟。Brown Rudnick 已完成必要审查，并能够向受托人提交所有响应性文件，且完全希望尽快如此办理。为明确起见：在本动议所述问题得到解决的前提下，Brown Rudnick 能够且愿意在本文件日期当日或之前下午 5:00 向受托人提交所有该等文件。\n\n• VLPC 实际上已提交对第 11 章受托人传票具有响应性的全部文件，但须受与债务人现有特权清单有关的扣留限制；\n\n• 遗憾的是，债务人最近提交的文件及所作论证表明，债务人认为被申请人遵守本院命令可能违反其对债务人承担的法律和/或伦理义务；\n\n1 债务人还以如下姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n• 在与提交命令有关的讨论中，债务人的律师明确保留了至少目前就 Brown Rudnick 按提交命令要求提交文件一事对其采取法律行动的权利；以及\n\n• 被申请人请求对受托人就其动议提出的拟议命令作出若干修改，且受托人同意该等修改，以处理债务人的立场及被申请人的关切；\n\n• 本院于 October 13, 2022 在记录中所作的评论以及提交命令均未直接处理这些问题，因此可能导致进一步诉讼。\n\n因此，为在就其对前客户所负义务进一步发生诉讼的风险最低的情况下加快提交，被申请人请求本院通过随附本文件、作为 Exhibit A 的命令中所提议的澄清，协助其遵守提交命令。\n\n为进一步支持本动议，被申请人陈述如下：\n\n事实背景\n\n1. 就本动议之前的相关事实而言，被申请人援引并入其在《对受托人保护令动议的答复及同意受托人所请求的进一步救济》[Docket No. 901]（下称“执行答复”）中陈述的事实，以及其于 October 12, 2022 就《第 11 章受托人关于作出授权遵守 Rule 2004 传票并执行同意命令的命令之动议》[Docket No. 898]（下称“执行动议”）在记录中向本院所作的陈述。本文概述并重述其中所载的某些相关事实。\n\n2. 于 February 15, 2022，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，下称“债务人”）根据《破产法》第 11 章申请救济。\n\n3. 于 March 16, 2022，债务人提交申请，聘用 Brown Rudnick 担任律师。Docket No. 86。同日，债务人申请聘用 VLPC 担任其财务顾问。Docket No. 90。\n\n4. 批准聘用 Brown Rudnick 的命令于 April 29, 2022 作出。Docket No. 293。本院对 VLPC 的申请暂缓裁定，后该申请被撤回。见 Docket No. 737。\n\n5. 于 June 15, 2022，本院作出命令，指示任命一名第 11 章受托人。Docket No. 465。现任第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯潘斯，下称“受托人”）于 July 7, 2022 获任命。Docket No. 514。\n\n6. 于 July 13, 2022，Brown Rudnick 提交动议，请求退出担任律师。Docket No. 543。本院已准许 Brown Rudnick 的退出动议。Docket No. 666。\n\nRule 2004 动议和传票\n\n7. 于 July 28, 2022，受托人根据 Rule 2004 提交动议，请求对债务人现任及前任专业人士进行证据开示。Docket No. 637。被申请人未反对该动议，本院于 August 16, 2022 准许该动议。Docket No. 756。受托人于当日向 Brown Rudnick 和 VLPC 送达传票，该等传票被解释为请求每一被申请人的全部客户档案。传票要求于 September 16, 2022 前作出答复。\n\n8. 收到传票后，各被申请人均采取措施，以确保保存所有可能对传票具有响应性的文件。\n\n9. 在本院作出命令并向被申请人及其他人送达传票后，债务人就移交给受托人的特权范围提出问题。因此，于 August 22, 2022，受托人提交动议，以解决任何该等问题。Docket No. 777。\n\n10. 尽管有关特权范围的动议程序尚未决，Brown Rudnick（代表两名被申请人）在其后期间频繁与受托人和债务人的律师进行讨论。最终，由于受托人的动议似乎将通过同意获得解决，Brown Rudnick 得以与受托人协商出一项程序，据此各方将就检索词达成一致，以缩小可能具有响应性的文件所构成的庞大范围。\n\n11. 于 September 9, 2022，受托人的律师同意明确以被申请人关于检索词和方法的提议替代在 September 16 日或之前对传票作出正式答复，从而使被申请人能够在本院就受托人的特权动议作出裁定后收集、审查并向适当一方提交文件。\n\n12. 于 September 13, 2022，Brown Rudnick 递交了所设想的提议，以履行其对受托人传票作出正式答复的义务。\n\n同意命令及后续协商\n\n13. 于 September 14, 2022，本院作出《关于控制与 Rule 2004 传唤文件和信息相关的律师—客户特权及工作成果保护的同意命令》[Docket No. 856]（下称“同意命令”），解决了受托人关于特权移交的动议。\n\n14. 根据同意命令，被申请人的所有文件和通信均推定受受托人专属控制；但条件是，受托人的专属控制受到如下限制：“在债务人善意相信特定文件或信息……若向受托人披露，可能对债务人造成个人损害的范围内……债务人的律师应当……将所有该等文件列入清单。”¶ 7（下称“债务人个人损害特权”）（强调系原文所加）。\n\n15. 此后，Brown Rudnick 立即与受托人和债务人进行进一步讨论，讨论该命令的解释以及收集、审查和提交文件所必需的程序。遗憾的是，受托人与债务人在任何相关时间均未能就任何程序完全达成一致。\n\n16. 无论如何，于 September 23，被申请人与受托人就将采用的最终检索词和方法达成一致。受托人请求采用一组广泛的术语（包括诸如“Miles”等常见姓名），被申请人未提出异议即表示同意，该等术语旨在捕获与代理有关的所有可能文件。\n\nBrown Rudnick 的审查和提交\n\n17. 受托人要求的检索词生成了 Brown Rudnick 最初收集的约 180,000 封可能具有响应性的电子邮件，此外还包括律所档案系统中的数千份电子文件及由律师生成的数千页纸质文件。按照与受托人的约定，并出于显而易见的原因，该等收集文件须排除明显不具响应性的文件（例如，提及除债务人以外名为或昵称为“Miles”的个人的文件）以及仅因与被申请人的业务运营有关的原因而提及债务人的文件（例如，未结工作进度记录）。\n\n18. Brown Rudnick 随即着手按提议筛除该 180,000 封电子邮件。在数日内，180,000 封电子邮件已减少至约 20,000 封。然而，在该阶段，该工作需要由律师逐份审查文件，并将纸质文件数字化，以及鉴于律师 William Baldiga（威廉·鲍迪加）在代理期间于 Brown Rudnick 所担任的管理职务，对其制作的某些文件进行分级审查。\n\n19. 在开展该等工作的同时，Brown Rudnick 继续与受托人和债务人协商有关特权审查和文件提交的程序。尽管有时似乎可以达成协议，但在 September 29 的一次会议后，受托人与 Brown Rudnick 得出结论，认为协议不会达成。因此，受托人于 September 30 提交执行动议。\n\n20. 受托人告知被申请人即将提交执行动议，鉴于相关工作的时间敏感性（无论总体而言，还是因当时为周五晚间、紧接法院关闭及某些宗教仪式之前），被申请人同时准备了自己的答复，以随预期提交的文件一并提交。因此，被申请人能够在受托人自行提交后不久提交执行答复。\n\n后续协商\n\n21. 在审阅已提交的执行动议后，Brown Rudnick 向受托人表示担忧，即动议中所附的拟议命令可能无法解决债务人律师提出的异议。\n\n22. 概言之，债务人的律师表示其观点，即尽管同意命令的文本、Brown Rudnick 无法接触债务人本人，以及债务人的律师在该时点之前不愿审查文件或主张特权，Brown Rudnick 仍须代表债务人主张特权。[2] 因此，Brown Rudnick 实际上无法取得其前客户就披露可能享有特权的信息作出的知情同意，而该等知情同意为 Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(b) 所要求。\n\n2 债务人的律师就其提出审查文件及主张特权的提议的性质和时间表示了一些不同意见。无论如何，直至约 October 6, 2022，Brown Rudnick 并不理解债务人的律师已作出任何看来符合同意命令及适用职业行为规则要求的提议或承诺。\n\n23. 尽管有上述情况，Brown Rudnick 认为，债务人律师的某些陈述暗示或可被解释为，Brown Rudnick 直接向受托人提交文件（如执行动议所请求）可能构成违反职业义务。[3]\n\n24. 因此，Brown Rudnick 请求受托人就执行动议提出的拟议命令通过明确确认 Brown Rudnick 遵守该命令即已履行其对债务人的法律和伦理义务，来处理债务人的立场。\n\n25. 受托人同意对拟议命令作出所请求的修改。\n\n债务人同意审查并主张特权\n\n26. 于 October 6, 2022 前后，与债务人律师的通信首次导致债务人律师作出明确承诺——就 Brown Rudnick 的理解而言——审查被申请人提供的文件并制作特权清单。\n\n- 27. 被申请人在 24 小时内提交了：\n\t- a. 向受托人和债务人提交约 650 份文件，债务人的律师确认对该等文件不得主张任何特权；\n\t- b. 向债务人提交 VLPC（Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.）的全部客户档案，包含约 14,000 份文件；[4]以及\n\n3 为明确起见，尽管存在某些分歧，债务人的律师从未指示、建议或以其他方式表示 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）不应答复任何传票或不应遵从法院的任何命令。本动议无意暗示存在任何不当行为，亦无意以任何方式批评律师的行为。\n\n4 VLPC 后来发现，提交给债务人进行特权审查的档案中有数千份文件实际上并无响应性。该等文件在 VLPC 最终向受托人提交之前已被移除。\n\nc. 向债务人提交 Brown Rudnick 客户档案中约 3,500 份文件的初步提交，作为与 Brown Rudnick 为确保响应性和完整性而持续审查有关的分批提交的一部分。\n\n（上述文件合称“第一批次”）。\n\n28. 债务人并未改变其关于 Brown Rudnick 义务及潜在责任的法律立场，事实上，债务人在其对案卷编号 939 的执行动议所提异议中正式陈述了该立场。\n\n29. 尽管如此，债务人的律师仍以值得称道的速度审查了 VLPC 和 Brown Rudnick 提交的文件，以至于在执行动议听证会之前，债务人的律师得以就前一周审查的约 17,500 份第一批次文件提供一份特权清单。\n\nBROWN RUDNICK 提交状态\n\n30. 在收到债务人的特权清单后，被申请人立即移除清单中列明的约 10 份文件，并准备将其余数千份第一批次文件提交给受托人。该等文件——为免生疑问，包括 VLPC 的全部客户档案——已于 October 13, 2022 提交给受托人。\n\n31. 如被申请人的律师在 October 13, 2022 的执行动议听证会上所表示，截至该日，仍有某些文件有待提交给受托人。该等文件可描述如下：\n\n- a. 约 4,200 份文件于 October 12, 2022 提交给债务人，且截至听证会时尚未审查或列入清单（“第二批次”）；\n- b. 约 10,000 份文件在提交前仍须由 Brown Rudnick 进一步审查，以确保其具有响应性（“第三批次”）；以及\n- c. Brown Rudnick 理解其答复传票的义务将持续存在，因此其后发现的文件将被提交（无论何时被识别，均称为“第四批次”）。\n\n32. 此外，在听证会上，被申请人指出了债务人关于 Brown Rudnick 专业义务的立场，法院亦就此进行了口头辩论。\n\n33. 在听证会后的约 24 小时内，Brown Rudnick 得以审查并准备提交全部第三批次文件，并将剩余文件数量减少至约 7,000 份。\n\n34. 虽预计会存在某些第四批次文件，但该等文件的数量和性质目前尚不知晓。\n\n法院作出提交命令\n\n35. 在 October 13, 2022 听证会仅数小时后，法院就受托人的执行动议作出了提交命令。\n\n36. 该提交命令并非完全源自受托人就执行动议提出的拟议命令，且未包含或处理受托人和 Brown Rudnick 为解决债务人先前论点及异议书中提出的、有关被申请人伦理及法律义务的担忧而同意对该拟议命令作出的修订。\n\n37. 提交命令的相关内容如下：\n\n兹命令：于 October 14, 2022 5:00 p.m. 或之前，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（Verdolino & Lowey 专业公司）获授权并应向受托人提交其持有的、对 Rule 2004 传票具有响应性的全部破产申请提交后文件，但以债务人现有的特权清单为限；该特权清单已在听证会上记录在案并经讨论，且 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. 在听证会前已向债务人提供该等文件；并进一步\n\n兹命令：于 October 14, 2022 5:00 p.m. 或之前，Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克有限责任合伙律师事务所）获授权并应向受托人提交其持有的、对 Rule 2004 传票具有响应性的全部破产申请提交后文件，但以债务人现有的特权清单为限；该特权清单已在听证会上记录在案并经讨论，无论 Brown Rudnick LLP 是否在听证会前已向债务人提供该等文件……\n\n38. 提交命令还赋予债务人某些权利，使其可根据民事诉讼规则提交特权通知；然而，该命令并未明确纳入该等规则项下的全部权利，也未采纳此前提出的全部措辞。\n\n39. 如前所述，VLPC 已向受托人提交其全部客户档案，但以债务人的特权清单为限；因此，无论如何解释，其似乎均已满足提交命令，但在识别出其他具有响应性的文件时，仍须履行其持续性义务。\n\n40. 被申请人提出本动议，以协助遵从上述段落以及其在提交命令和相关先前命令项下的持续性义务。\n\n动议\n\n41. Brown Rudnick 必须遵从本法院的命令，以及其对现任和前任客户的义务。鉴于债务人采取的立场，提交命令可能造成 Brown Rudnick 的义务之间存在表面冲突。\n\n42. 事实上，在有关提交命令的讨论中，债务人的律师明确保留了——至少暂时保留——就 Brown Rudnick 按照提交命令的要求提交文件而对 Brown Rudnick 采取法律行动的权利。\n\n43. 因此，被申请人请求法院协助澄清其在该命令项下的义务。\n\n44. 作为初步说明，Brown Rudnick 一直关注提交命令的解释。相关段落规定，Brown Rudnick“应向受托人提交其持有的、对 Rule 2004 传票具有响应性的全部破产申请提交后文件，但以债务人现有的特权清单为限；该特权清单已在听证会上记录在案并经讨论。”如上所述，截至提交命令作出时，第三批次文件已被识别为可能具有响应性，但仍须进一步审查。当时尚不清楚，该命令是否会要求 Brown Rudnick 在 24 小时内审查并提交多达 10,000 份文件，而不论其人员、软件及其他资源是否具备完成该工作的能力。\n\n45. 幸运的是，Brown Rudnick 能够报告，截至本动议提交时，即该命令作出约 24 小时后，且得益于其人员付出的巨大努力，其已能够完成对第三批次文件的审查，并可在下述担忧得到解决的前提下，向受托人提交第二批次和第三批次文件。\n\n46. 总而言之，被申请人有以下担忧，法院可通过一项简单命令予以补救：\n\n47. 第一，提交命令未明确赋予债务人 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) 项下的追回权（“在收到通知后，当事人必须迅速返还、隔离或销毁……”）。相反，该命令规定，债务人有权根据该规则提交通知，向法院提交特权清单，并随后可请求裁定任何争议。Brown Rudnick 担忧，该命令可能被解释为：（1）放弃或消除债务人的部分特权或追回权；或（2）实际上要求债务人为返还或销毁其认为会使其面临人身损害风险的文件而提起诉讼。\n\n48. 因此，如无澄清，提交命令似乎会激励债务人既针对受托人提起诉讼以要求返还文件，也针对 Brown Rudnick 提起诉讼，主张其因实际上同意在缺乏该规则所赋予的保护的情况下披露特权信息而违反伦理和/或法律义务。\n\n49. 第二，提交命令未明确驳回债务人对执行动议提出的异议，亦未以任何其他方式涉及债务人关于 Brown Rudnick 提交行为是否适当的立场（即使该等行为在其他方面符合本法院的命令）。这引发了如下担忧：即使表面上符合规定的行为也可能引发进一步诉讼。因此，Brown Rudnick 请求法院明确驳回债务人的异议，并命令 Brown Rudnick 按照该命令向受托人提交文件，即已履行 Brown Rudnick 对债务人的法律和伦理义务。\n\n50. 最后，拟议命令将把此前为 Brown Rudnick 提交具有响应性文件设定的期限延长至法院命令作出后一日。为明确起见，Brown Rudnick 已准备好提交材料，并具备在法院作出命令后立即提交文件的技术能力，且会在该命令作出后尽快提交。Brown Rudnick 的人员能够且愿意在 October 14, 2022 营业结束前的任何时间提交。由于不知任何命令作出的时间，亦无法相应确定人员可用情况，Brown Rudnick 请求给予一天宽限期，以确保收到命令并由其人员遵从。\n\n此前未提出请求\n\n51. 此前未向本法院或任何其他法院提出过本案所请求的救济。\n\n协商\n\n52. 在提交本动议之前，被申请人与受托人和债务人的律师进行了协商，并请求同意本案所请求的救济。受托人的律师表示，其将在本动议提交后另行在记录中陈述其立场。\n\n因此，被申请人谨请求法院准许本动议，并\n\n(a) 作出实质上采用随附拟议命令形式的命令，以及 (b) 授予其他任何公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：October 14, 2022\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP 和 VERDOLINO & LOWEY P.C.\n\n由其律师代理，\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq. 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮箱：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga  Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq.（pro hac vice）电话：(212) 209-4800 传真：(212) 209-4801 电子邮箱：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\nOne Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 收件人：Tristan G. Axelrod, Esq.（pro hac vice）电话：(617) 856-8200 传真：(617) 856-8201 电子邮箱：taxelrod@brownrudnick.com\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格联邦地区 布里奇波特分部\n\n债务人。[1]：\n\n关于：：第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）：案号 22-50073\n\n送达证明\n\n本人 William R. Baldiga，特此证明，于 October 14, 2022，被申请人的《关于协助遵从有关 Rule 2004 传票文件和信息命令的紧急动议》已通过法院电子提交系统的运作，以电子邮件发送给所有已出庭当事人。\n\n日期：October 14, 2022\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP 和 VERDOLINO & LOWEY P.C.\n\n由其律师代理，\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 收件人：Dylan Kletter, Esq. 电话：(860) 509-6500 传真：(860) 509-6653 电子邮箱：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga  Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 收件人：William R. Baldiga, Esq.（pro hac vice）电话：(212) 209-4800 传真：(212) 209-4801\n\n1 债务人还使用下列姓名：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n电子邮箱：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\nOne Financial Center，Boston，MA 02111 收件人：Tristan G. Axelrod, Esq.（特许临时出庭） 电话：(617) 856-8200 传真：(617) 856-8201 电子邮箱：taxelrod@brownrudnick.com\n\n附件 A\n\n拟议命令\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院） DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区） BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X 关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），债务人。[2] : : : : : : : : 第 11 章 案号 22-50073 (JAM) --------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n[拟议]命令：准许被申请人为协助遵守有关依据规则 2004 传唤的文件和信息之命令而提出的紧急动议\n\n经审议 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）及 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（维尔多利诺与洛伊律师事务所）就《准许提出命令之动议，以授权遵守规则 2004 传票并执行有关规则 2004 传唤的文件和信息之律师—当事人保密特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意命令之命令》（以下简称“提交命令”）[Docket No. 962]所提出的动议，在通知及听证后，见 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)，鉴于存在理由按下文所述条件准许所请求的救济；特此\n\n命令：按下文所述准许该动议。为实现本命令所必需的范围内，驳回对该动议及先前执行动议提出的异议。\n\n命令：在其根据 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) 持续负有向第 11 章受托人提交任何响应规则 2004 传票的信息之义务的前提下，提交命令中所述 VLPC 于 2022 年 10 月 14 日下午 5:00 前提交响应性文件的义务已履行完毕。\n\n命令：在其根据 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) 持续负有向第 11 章受托人提交任何响应规则 2004 传票的信息之义务的前提下，Brown Rudnick 获授权并应就规则 2004 传票向受托人提交响应性文件的既定期限，即 2022 年 10 月 14 日下午 5:00，延长至[本命令录入后一天的日期]。\n\n命令：被申请人如本命令及提交命令所述直接向第 11 章受托人提交响应性文件，不会且不得违反其各自对债务人负有的法律及伦理义务，无论该等义务\n\n2 债务人亦以下列姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n为何。该等提交不得被视为放弃债务人、Brown Rudnick 或 VLPC 所享有的任何特权，亦不得被视为放弃前述各方根据 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) 享有的任何权利。\n\n命令：债务人可行使 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) 项下所有适用权利，寻求追回 Brown Rudnick LLP 和/或 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. 向第 11 章受托人提交的任何文件，并可在其根据 Privilege Order 第 7 段获准行使该等权利的范围内，就任何该等文件主张特权；Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) 在其他各方面均适用于该等主张。\n\n命令：本命令立即可执行。\n\n日期：，2022\n\nJulie A. Manning，美国破产法官\n\n64863856 v4","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo","CIPA","Despins","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4293,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:31:21"}