{"id":"court_sdny_1063_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":1063,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 1063","summary_zh":"保护令动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok破产案，案号22-50073（JAM），ECF #1063，2022年11月2日提交。债务人Ho Wan Kwok寻求保护令，禁止向破产管理人Luc A. Despins披露其庇护申请。债务人引用2022年9月14日的同意令指出，庇护申请不属于破产信息调查范围，且破产管理人在诉讼中已明确表示不寻求该申请相关文件。","summary_en":"Motion for Protective Order —— Ho Wan Kwok Bankruptcy Case, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), ECF No. 1063, filed November 2, 2022. Debtor Ho Wan Kwok seeks protective order preventing disclosure of his asylum application to Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins. Debtor cites the September 14, 2022 Consent Order stating that asylum materials fall outside scope of bankruptcy investigation, and Trustee expressly represented in proceedings that he does not seek such documents.","body_en":"| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                               |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n| Respondent.                           |                         |\n\n### **MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, incorporated herein by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9018, the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), through his undersigned counsel, hereby moves for a protective order precluding the disclosure of the Debtor's asylum application (the \"Asylum Application\") to the Chapter 11 Trustee, Luc A. Despins (the \"Trustee\"). In support of his Motion, the Debtor respectfully states as follows:\n\n# **I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed his 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\"), seeking, *inter alia*, to conduct the examination of Clark Hill PLC (\"Clark Hill\").\n\n2. Clark Hill was the Debtor's counsel with respect to the Asylum Application.\n\n3. The Debtor filed a limited objection (Doc. No. 703), *inter alia*, to the Professionals 2004 Motion on August 5, 2022, on the grounds that if the proposed order filed therewith were entered and interpreted literally, it would preclude objections, including based upon privilege, in violation of Local Rule 2004-1.\n\n4. On August 16, 2022, the Court entered the Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Discovery with Respect to Various Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor (Doc. No. 756), which *inter alia*, permitted service of a subpoena upon Clark Hill, but directed that compliance was \"[s]ubject to any rights under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable Local Rules[.]\"\n\n5. On August 18, 2022, the Trustee gave notice that it would serve a subpoena (the \"Subpoena\")<sup>1</sup> upon, *inter alia*, Clark Hill, which was subsequently served upon Clark Hill.\n\n6. On September 14, 2022, the Court entered the Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information (Doc. No. 856) (the \"Consent Order\"). The Consent Order defined the scope of the Trustee's and Debtor's respective control of the attorney-client and work-product privileges and set forth certain procedures for disputes concerning the same. Moreover, the Consent Order specifically provided\n\nNothing herein shall prevent the Debtor from asserting any and all privileges concerning legal matters unrelated to the Investigation Topics, such as unrelated criminal allegations or the Debtor's asylum application (other than documents related to the litigation styled as *Guo Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC*, Case No. 19-cv-03195 (D. D.C.) [(the \"Clark Hill Action\")] that relate to the merits of the legal malpractice action, as distinguished from the merits of the Debtor's asylum application, subject to the balancing test incorporated herein, **which does not relate to the substance of the asylum application**).\n\n<sup>1</sup> A copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.\n\n(Consent Order, ¶ 4.) (emphasis added). The Investigation Activities are limited to the Debtors'\n\nassets, financial condition, or activities related to the administration of the bankruptcy estate,\n\nwhich, per the Consent Order, \"does not relate to the substance of the asylum application.\" (*Id.*, ¶\n\n2.)\n\n7. During the hearings concerning the negotiation of the Consent Order, the Trustee\n\nand his counsel each represented, separately, that the Trustee did not seek the Debtor's Asylum\n\nApplication:\n\nThe debtor identifies his concerns about potentially privileged documents related to . . . things that have been made against him as well as his asylum application. *We are not, in our investigation at this time, seeking any documents related to those issues***.** (Tr. 8/30/22, **Exhibit B**, at 104: 6-11 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\n[T]he debtor contends, well as I said before, there's a concern that, you know, it's possible documents the trustee is seeking to have access to could involve potential . . . *unrelated issues like his asylum application, but, again, as I said before, we're not seeking to get those documents through our discovery requests*. (*Id*., at 110: 12-19 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\nThe debtor has identified one request in our subpoena directed to his former law firms and professionals, *Request 17, that asks for information about legal disputes which could be read to include . . . his asylum application, we are willing to make clear on the record that we're not seeking to get that type of information and we'll limit that request accordingly*. (*Id.*, at 110: 20-111:2 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\n[*T]here is no basis that's been provided as to why documents would relate to assets, financial condition, or the administration of the estate, would have anything to do with the debtor's asylum application*. (*Id.*, at 137: 17-20 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\nBut, again, if there is language we could work out to make clear if there's a document that talks about . . . *his asylum application*, things like that, in his objection, I think we could work out language to put in the proposed order to again make clear that *we are not seeking that*. (*Id.*, at 138: 24-139: 5 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\n[A]s we've made clear in our order, you know, *there are carveouts designed to address specifically the concerns that the debtor has raised concerning privileged*  *communications that relate to . . . his asylum application*. (Tr. 9/6/22, **Exhibit C**, 49: 5-10 (Bassett, N.) (emphasis added)).\n\nAnd that is exactly how we tried to craft our revised proposed order is to track those categories in that weigh of the case law and then to also make clear to address the debtor's concerns that he is still able to assert privileges over documents related to . . . his asylum application . . . . (*Id.*, at 76: 13-18 (Bassett, N.)).\n\nSo the balancing—[the court is] doing the balancing. [The court is] doing the balancing in a category-by-category document *with some very specific carveouts regarding . . . the asylum issue carved out, [the court is] doing the balancing*. (*Id.*, at 108: 9-15 (Despins, L.) (emphasis added)).\n\n8. The Court expressly relied on the Trustee's and his counsel's representations when\n\nit entered the Consent Order-just as the Debtor did when it agreed to the Consent Order:\n\nThe Court: Well, I'm trying to figure out how we should proceed. And right now this was a continued hearing on the trustee's motion to have this court determine that he holds all the privileges of the debtor.\n\nMy understanding of that motion was that even though the trustee wants that order, *he would agree to carveout anything with regard to the asylum issue. . .*\n\n*I mean, he was—he's not asserting and never has asserted that he's going to exercise that right.* (*Id.*, at 67: 20-68:5) (emphasis added)).\n\n9. Thereafter, pursuant to discussions among the Debtor, Clark Hill, the Trustee, and their counsel, it was agreed that Clark Hill would produce documents responsive to the Subpoena to the Debtor's counsel for review. Clark Hill produced documents to the Debtor, which included the Asylum Application. Counsel for the Debtor has asserted to the Trustee's counsel and Clark Hill's counsel that the Asylum Application is prohibited from disclosure. However, the Trustee's counsel, despite the Trustee's representations to the Court that the Subpoena did not seek the Debtor's Asylum Application, now asserts that the Asylum Application must be produced to him. Thus, the Debtor filed this Motion.\n\n#### **II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n10. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Consideration of this Motion is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue is proper in this Court for this case and this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409, respectively.\n\n## **III. LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n11. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9018 provides in relevant part that \"[o]n motion or on its own initiative, with or without notice, the court may make any order which justice requires . . . (3) to protect governmental matters that are made confidential by statute or regulation. . . .\"\n\nWhen the requirements of Rule 9018 are satisfied, the authority to issue the resulting order is broad – \"any order which justice requires.\" The Court notes that the authority goes not just to the protection of confidential documents, but to other confidentiality restrictions that are warranted in the interests of justice.\n\n*In re Glob. Crossing Ltd.*, 295 B.R. 720, 724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003).\n\n12. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3) permits the Court to quash or modify a subpoena that \"requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies[.]\" A party who is not a party to a subpoena has standing to quash or modify a subpoena to protect a \"personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought.\" *Estate of Ungar v. Palestinian Auth.*, 332 F. App'x 643, 645 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\n\n13. The Immigration and Nationality Act \"prohibits the disclosure of information pertaining to any asylum application. . . .\" *Zhong Rong Li v. Gonzales*, 181 F. App'x 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2006). Specifically, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a) provides:\n\nInformation contained in or pertaining to any application for refugee admission, asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, or protection under regulations issued pursuant to the Convention Against Torture's implementing legislation, records pertaining to any credible fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.30, and records pertaining to any reasonable fear determination conducted pursuant to § 208.31, shall not be disclosed without the written consent of the applicant, except as permitted by this section or at the discretion of the Attorney General.\n\n14. Here, it is clear that the Asylum Application is protected from disclosure by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a), and that no exception is applicable to permit disclosure. *See* 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(c)-(e). In addition, the Asylum Application does not relate to the Investigation Activities of the Trustee – i.e., investigating the Debtor's assets, financial condition, and administration of the estate—a fact that the Trustee's counsel repeatedly represented to the Court during the hearings concerning the Consent Order, and the Court expressly relied on the Trustee's representation that he would not seek to compel production of the Debtor's Asylum Application when it entered the Consent Order. (*See* paragraphs 7-8 above). Moreover, in light of the fact that the Subpoena had already been served when the Trustee's counsel made these representations in open court—and the Court relied on them when it entered the Consent Order—either (i) the Subpoena does not seek to compel the production of the Debtor's Asylum Application, *i.e.,* the Asylum Application is nonresponsive to the Subpoena; or (ii) the Trustee and his counsel affirmatively misrepresented their intentions to the Court. Presumably the former is the case—but the end result is the same: the Trustee cannot compel Clark Hill to produce the Debtor's Asylum Application to him or his counsel.\n\n15. For the reasons set forth above—most notably the Trustee's and his counsel's representations to the Court, it is obvious that the Trustee does not seek the Asylum Application as part of his investigation, but, rather, he improperly seeks to obtain highly confidential information in order to gain leverage over the Debtor, given that the Trustee is well aware of the persecution of the Debtor by the Chinese Communist Party. Moreover, even if i) the Trustee could establish that the Asylum Application is relevant to the administration of the Debtor's estate, which he cannot, or ii) the Trustee had not repeatedly represented to the Court that he would not seek to compel anyone to produce the Debtor's Asylum Application through the Subpoena, which he did, the clear protection of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a) precludes disclosure of the Asylum Application to the Trustee.\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion, enter an order precluding the disclosure of the Asylum Application to the Trustee, and grant him such other and further relief as justice requires.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 2 nd day of November, 2022.\n\n## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) John L. Cesaroni (ct29309) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com) [jcesaroni@zeislaw.com](mailto:jcesaroni@zeislaw.com)\n\n| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                               |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n| Respondent.                           |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n\n# **PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nUpon the Motion for Protective Order (the \"Motion\"), filed by the debtor, Ho Wan\n\nKwok, having come before the Court, and there being due and sufficient cause to grant the\n\nrequested relief, it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED**, that the Motion is in all respects **GRANTED**, and it is further\n\n**ORDERED**, that Clark Hill LLP is precluded from producing the Asylum Application<sup>2</sup>\n\nto the Trustee.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as in the Motion, unless otherwise indicated.\n\n| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                               |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n| Respondent.                           |                         |\n\n# **NOTICE OF CONTESTED MATTER RESPONSE DEADLINE**\n\nHo Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") has filed a Motion for Protective Order (the \"Contested Matter\") in the above-captioned case. Notice is hereby given that any response to the Contested Matter must be filed with the Court no later than November 16, 2022. In the absence of a timely filed response, the proposed order in the Contested Matter *may* enter without further notice and hearing, *see*, 11 U.S.C. section 102 (1).\n\n## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)\n\n| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                               |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n| Respondent.                           |                         |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on this 2 nd day of November, 2022, copies of foregoing Motion for Protective Order, exhibits thereto, Proposed Order, and Notice of Contested Matter Procedure were 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## **THE DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\n*/s/ Aaron A. Romney* Aaron A. Romney (ct28144) 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-4234 Facsimile: (203) 368-5487 Email: [aromney@zeislaw.com](mailto:aromney@zeislaw.com)","body_zh":"关于：\n第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯），\n第 11 章受托人，\n被申请人。\n\n保护令动议\n\n根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45 条（经《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 9016 条并入本文适用）以及《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 9018 条，债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）通过其下文署名律师，特此提请法院作出保护令，禁止向第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯，以下简称“受托人”）披露债务人的庇护申请（以下简称“《庇护申请》”）。为支持其动议，债务人谨陈述如下：\n\n一、事实与程序背景\n\n1. 2022年7月28日，受托人提交了其《第 11 章受托人根据〈破产规则〉第 2004 条及〈本地规则〉第 2004-1 条提请作出准予就债务人的若干法律和财务顾问进行调查取证的综合动议》（文件编号 637）（以下简称“《专业人员第 2004 条动议》”），除其他事项外，请求对 Clark Hill PLC（克拉克希尔律师事务所，以下简称“Clark Hill”）进行询问调查。\n\n2. Clark Hill 曾就《庇护申请》担任债务人的法律顾问。\n\n3. 2022年8月5日，债务人对《专业人员第 2004 条动议》等提交了有限异议（文件编号 703），理由为：如果随该动议提交的拟议裁定被签署并作字面解释，将排除包括基于特权在内的异议，从而违反《本地规则》第 2004-1 条。\n\n4. 2022年8月16日，本法院作出了《准予第 11 章受托人就债务人的若干法律和财务顾问进行第 2004 条调查取证申请的裁定》（文件编号 756），除其他事项外，该裁定准许向 Clark Hill 送达传票，但指示遵守该传票须“受制于《联邦破产诉讼规则》、《联邦民事诉讼规则》及适用的《本地规则》下的任何权利[。]”\n\n5. 2022年8月18日，受托人发出通知，表示将向包括 Clark Hill 在内的对象送达传票（以下简称“《传票》”）（脚注1），随后该传票已送达 Clark Hill。\n\n6. 2022年9月14日，本法院作出了《关于依第 2004 条传票调取的档与信息的律师-委托人特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意裁定》（文件编号 856）（以下简称“《同意裁定》”）。《同意裁定》界定了受托人与债务人各自对律师-委托人特权和工作成果保护的控制权范围，并规定了解决相关争议的若干程序。此外，《同意裁定》明确规定：\n\n本文中的任何内容均不妨碍债务人就与“调查主题”无关的法律事项主张任何及所有特权，例如无关的刑事指控或债务人的庇护申请（但与案号为 19-cv-03195 (D. D.C.) 的 Guo Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC（郭文贵诉克拉克希尔律师事务所案）诉讼[（以下简称“Clark Hill 诉讼”）]相关的、涉及该法律执业过错诉讼实体问题的文件除外，该等文件有别于债务人庇护申请的实体问题，并须经本文所纳入的权衡测试，该测试与庇护申请的实质内容无关）。\n\n（脚注1：《传票》副本作为附件 A 附于本动议之后。）\n\n（《同意裁定》，第 4 段。）（强调为后加）。调查活动仅限于债务人的资产、财务状况或与破产财产管理相关的活动，根据《同意裁定》，该等活动“与庇护申请的实质内容无关”。（同上，第 2 段。）\n\n7. 在就《同意裁定》进行协商的听证会期间，受托人及其律师各自分别声明受托人并不寻求获取债务人的《庇护申请》：\n\n债务人指出了其对涉及……针对他的事项以及他的庇护申请的可能享有特权文件的担忧。我们在目前的调查中，并未寻求获取与这些问题相关的任何文件。（2022年8月30日庭审笔录，附件 B，第 104 页第 6-11 行（Bassett, N. 律师发言）（强调为后加））。\n\n债务人主张，嗯，正如我之前所说，存在这样一种担忧，即您知道，受托人寻求查阅的文件有可能涉及潜在的……无关问题，比如他的庇护申请，但是，同样，正如我之前所说，我们并未寻求通过我们的证据开示请求获取那些文件。（同上，第 110 页第 12-19 行（Bassett, N. 律师发言）（强调为后加））。\n\n债务人在我们向其前律所和专业人士发出的传票中指出了一项请求，即第 17 项请求，该项请求索取有关法律争议的信息，可能会被解读为包括……他的庇护申请，我们愿意在记录中明确表示我们并未寻求获取该类型的信息，并且我们将相应地限制该项请求。（同上，第 110 页第 20 行至第 111 页第 2 行（Bassett, N. 律师发言）（强调为后加））。\n\n并未提供任何依据说明为什么与资产、财务状况或破产财产管理相关的文件会与债务人的庇护申请有任何关系。（同上，第 137 页第 17-20 行（Bassett, N. 律师发言）（强调为后加））。\n\n但是，同样，如果在他的异议中存在我们可以拟定的措辞，以明确如果存在提及……他的庇护申请的文件，诸如此类的内容，我认为我们可以拟定措辞放入拟议裁定中，再次明确我们并没有在寻求获取该等内容。（同上，第 138 页第 24 行至第 139 页第 5 行（Bassett, N. 律师发言）（强调为后加））。\n\n正如我们在裁定中所明确的那样，您知道，设立了排除条款，专门用于解决债务人就涉及……其庇护申请的特权通信所提出的担忧。（2022年9月6日庭审笔录，附件 C，第 49 页第 5-10 行（Bassett, N. 律师发言）（强调为后加））。\n\n而这正是我们试图拟定修改后的拟议裁定的方式，即在判例法的权衡中追踪这些类别，并且还明确解决债务人的担忧，即他仍然能够对涉及……其庇护申请的文件主张特权……。（同上，第 76 页第 13-18 行（Bassett, N. 律师发言））。\n\n因此，权衡——[法院正在]进行权衡。[法院正在]按类别逐项对文件进行权衡，并针对……已排除的庇护问题设置了一些非常具体的排除条款，[法院正在]进行权衡。（同上，第 108 页第 9-15 行（Despins, L. 发言）（强调为后加））。\n\n8. 法院在作出《同意裁定》时明确信赖了受托人及其律师的陈述——正如债务人在同意《同意裁定》时所做的那样：\n\n法院：嗯，我正在设法弄清楚我们应该如何进行。眼下，这是就受托人请求本法院裁定其拥有债务人全部特权的动议举行的续会听证。\n\n我对该动议的理解是，尽管受托人希望获得该裁定，但他会同意排除与庇护问题相关的任何内容……\n\n我的意思是，他——他并未主张且从未主张过他将行使该权利。（同上，第 67 页第 20 行至第 68 页第 5 行）（强调为后加））。\n\n9. 此后，根据债务人、Clark Hill、受托人及其各自律师之间的讨论，各方同意 Clark Hill 将响应《传票》的文件移交给债务人的律师进行审查。Clark Hill 向债务人移交了文件，其中包含《庇护申请》。债务人的律师已向受托人的律师和 Clark Hill 的律师主张禁止披露《庇护申请》。然而，尽管受托人曾向法院陈述《传票》并未寻求获取债务人的《庇护申请》，受托人的律师现在却主张必须将《庇护申请》移交给受托人。因此，债务人提交了本动议。\n\n二、管辖权与审判地\n\n10. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334，本法院对审理本动议具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，审理本动议属于核心程序。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本法院分别为本案和本动议的适当审判地。\n\n三、获得救济的法律依据\n\n11. 《联邦破产诉讼规则》第 9018 条相关部分规定：“依动议或依职权，无论是否经通知，法院可作出司法公正所要求的任何命令……(3) 以保护依成文法或规章属于保密事项的政府事务。……”\n\n当满足第 9018 条的要求时，作出相应裁定的权力是广泛的——即“司法公正所要求的任何命令”。法院指出，该权力不仅涉及对机密文件的保护，而且涉及为了司法公正利益所必需的其他保密限制。\n\nIn re Glob. Crossing Ltd.，295 B.R. 720, 724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区破产法院） 2003)。\n\n12. 此外，《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45(d)(3) 条允许法院撤销或修改“在不适用任何例外或放弃的情况下，要求披露特权或其他受保护事项”的传票。非传票当事方具有撤销或修改传票的诉讼资格，以保护“与所寻求文件相关的个人权利或特权”。Estate of Ungar v. Palestinian Auth.，332 F. App'x 643, 645 (2d Cir.（第二巡回法院） 2009)（引文及引号省略）。\n\n13. 《移民与国籍法》“禁止披露与任何庇护申请有关的信息。……” Zhong Rong Li v. Gonzales，181 F. App'x 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2006)。具体而言，8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a) 规定：\n\n包含在难民入境申请、庇护申请、根据该法第 241(b)(3) 条暂缓遣返申请、或根据依据《禁止酷刑公约》施行法颁布的规章寻求保护的申请中或与上述申请有关的信息，与根据第 208.30 条进行的任何可信恐惧判定有关的记录，以及与根据第 208.31 条进行的任何合理恐惧判定有关的记录，未经申请人的书面同意不得披露，但本条允许或由司法部长裁量决定的除外。\n\n14. 在本案中，显而易见的是，根据 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a)，《庇护申请》（Asylum Application）受保护免于披露，且没有任何适用例外允许进行披露。参见 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(c)-(e)。此外，《庇护申请》与受托人（Trustee）的调查活动无关——即调查债务人（Debtor）的资产、财务状况以及破产财产管理情况——这是受托人律师在有关《同意令》（Consent Order）的听证会期间向法庭反复作出的陈述，并且法庭在作出《同意令》时，明确信赖了受托人作出的其不会寻求强制调取债务人《庇护申请》的陈述。（参见上文第 7-8 段）。而且，鉴于受托人律师在公开法庭上作出这些陈述时传票（Subpoena）已经送达——且法庭在作出《同意令》时信赖了这些陈述——要么 (i) 传票并未寻求强制调取债务人的《庇护申请》，即《庇护申请》不属于传票所要求提供的文件范围；要么 (ii) 受托人及其律师向法庭明确虚假陈述了其意图。推定属于前一种情况——但最终结果是一样的：受托人不得强制 Clark Hill LLP（克拉克希尔律师事务所）向其或其律师出示债务人的《庇护申请》。\n\n15. 基于上述理由——尤其是受托人及其律师向法庭作出的陈述，显而易见的是，受托人并非将其作为调查的一部分来寻求《庇护申请》，鉴于受托人深知债务人遭受中国共产党的迫害，其反而是不正当地试图获取高度机密的信息以获得针对债务人的筹码。此外，即使 i) 受托人能够确立《庇护申请》与债务人破产财产的管理具有相关性（他无法确立），或者 ii) 受托人没有向法庭反复陈述他不会通过传票寻求强制任何人出示债务人的《庇护申请》（他确实陈述过），8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a) 的明确保护亦排除了向受托人披露《庇护申请》。\n\n鉴于上述情况，债务人谨请法庭批准本动议，发布命令禁止向受托人披露《庇护申请》，并根据正义要求给予其其他及进一步的救济。\n\n于 2022年11月2日 签署于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n债务人：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n/签名/ Aaron A. Romney\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\nJohn L. Cesaroni (ct29309)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮箱：aromney@zeislaw.com\njcesaroni@zeislaw.com\n\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nLuc A. Despins，\n第 11 章受托人，\n被申请人。\n\n准予保护令动议的拟定裁定\n\n鉴于债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）提起的《保护令动议》（下称“本动议”）已提交法庭，且有正当且充分的理由准予所请求的救济，现特此\n\n裁定：本动议在所有方面均予以准予；并进一步\n\n裁定：Clark Hill LLP（克拉克希尔律师事务所）被禁止向受托人出示《庇护申请》2。\n\n2 本文中首字母大写的术语应具有与本动议中相同的含义，除非另有说明。\n\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nLuc A. Despins，\n第 11 章受托人，\n被申请人。\n\n争议事项答辩期限通知\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）在上述标题案件中提交了《保护令动议》（下称“争议事项”）。特此通知：对该争议事项的任何答辩必须在不迟于 2022年11月16日 向法庭提交。如未在规定时间内提交答辩，争议事项中的拟定裁定可能在无需进一步通知和听证的情况下作出，参见 11 U.S.C. 第 102 (1) 条。\n\n债务人：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n/签名/ Aaron A. Romney\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮箱：aromney@zeislaw.com\n\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nLuc A. Despins，\n第 11 章受托人，\n被申请人。\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2022年11月2日，上述《保护令动议》、其附件、《拟定裁定》以及《争议事项程序通知》的副本已通过电子方式提交。本提交通知将通过法庭电子申报系统的运作以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事方，或根据《电子申报通知》的指示通过邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子申报的任何人。当事方可通过法庭的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次申报内容。\n\n债务人：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n/签名/ Aaron A. Romney\nAaron A. Romney (ct28144)\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n电话：(203) 368-4234\n传真：(203) 368-5487\n电子邮箱：aromney@zeislaw.com","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2551,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:31:45"}