郭文贵破产案 · ORDER · ECF #698

# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**

--------------------------------------------------------------------X In re: Ho Wan Kwok, Debtor.[1](#page-0-0) : : : : : : : : Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) --------------------------------------------------------------------X

### **RESPONSE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF BROWN RUDNICK LLP TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S DISCOVERY MOTION**

Brown Rudnick LLP ("Brown Rudnick") hereby submits this response in connection with the *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* (the "2004 Motion") (Docket No. 637). In response to the 2004 Motion, Brown Rudnick states as follows:

### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**

1. On February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the "Debtor") filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

2. On March 16, 2022, the Debtor filed an application to employ Brown Rudnick as counsel. Docket No. 86. An order approving its retention was entered on April 29, 2022. Docket No. 293. The Court's retention order specified that "any dispute concerning the performance of services by Brown Rudnick pursuant to the Engagement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Connecticut." Docket No. 293 ¶ 3.

<span id="page-0-0"></span>¹ The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed the 2004 Motion, seeking broad discovery of the Debtor's current and former professionals. Docket No. 637.

#### **RESPONSE**

6. Brown Rudnick recognizes that the Trustee has generally succeeded to the privileges of the Debtor, including the attorney-client privilege.

7. As such, if the Court is inclined to grant the 2004 Motion, Brown Rudnick will respond to discovery propounded by the Trustee to the extent it may do so consistent with its ethical obligations and without violating duties of nondisclosure owed to third parties. *See Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn L.L.P.*, 91 N.Y.2d 30, 37 (N.Y. 1997) (noting exception to attorney requirement of disclosure to former clients where disclosure "might violate a duty of nondisclosure owed to a third party, or otherwise imposed by law"); *In re Gawker Media LLC*, Case No. 16-11700 (SMB), 2017 WL 2804870 \*7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017) (requiring discovery of potentially privileged information, subject to further review of requests implicating privilege or precluded by agreement).

8. Additionally, Brown Rudnick notes that Connecticut law may be unsettled on certain questions regarding attorney property rights in work product and ethical obligations to produce files to former clients. *See* Conn. Practice Book 2022 § 13-3 (summary description of privilege and work product protection); *see also Sage Realty*, 91 N.Y.2d at 34-38 (describing

2

jurisdictional dispute regarding attorney property rights in work product and exceptions to disclosure requirements); *Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus*, 824 S.W.2d 92, 98-99 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (describing limitations on attorney duty to provide work product to former clients based on client's informational need). Accordingly, Brown Rudnick's production of documents and examination may be properly subject to certain legal or ethical limitations, the nature and extent of which will be subject to further discussions with the Trustee and/or the Debtor and, if not fully agreed, may be subject to further orders of this Court.

9. To the extent the 2004 Motion is granted, Brown Rudnick reserves all rights to object to any particular discovery request on any basis, including but not limited to the protections afforded to Brown Rudnick and other parties by applicable law.

Dated: August 5, 2022

### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**

By: /s/ *William R. Baldiga* BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com

Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Attn: Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrundnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com

## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**

:

:

:

Debtor.[1](#page-3-0)

:

In re: : Chapter 11

Ho Wan Kwok, : Case No. 22-50073

## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**

I, William R. Baldiga, hereby certify that on the 5th day of August, 2022, the *Response and*

*Reservation of Rights of Brown Rudnick LLP to Chapter 11 Trustee's Discovery Motion* was sent

by e-mail to all appearing parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system.

:

Dated: Aug. 5, 2022

#### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**

By: /s/ *William R. Baldiga* BROWN RUDNICK LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Attn: Dylan Kletter, Esq. Telephone: (860) 509-6500 Facsimile: (860) 509-6653 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com

Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com jjonas@brownrudnick.com bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com

64799957 v2

<span id="page-3-0"></span>¹ The Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.