{"id":"court_ctb_1924_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1924,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*,\n\nDebtors.<sup>1</sup>\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nJune 22, 2023\n\n# **G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTION TO TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR RELATED RELIEF**\n\nG Club Operations LLC (\"**G Club**\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, supplements its preliminary objection (the \"**Preliminary Objection**\") (Docket No. 1846) to the motion filed by Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"**Trustee**\") of the above-captioned debtors (collectively, the \"**Debtors**\"), seeking to compel G Club to comply (\"**Motion to Compel**\") (Docket No. 1805), with the Subpoena for a Rule 2004 Examination served on G Club on December 6, 2022 (the \"**Subpoena**\"). The Subpoena was issued pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b), Rule 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"**Bankruptcy Rules**\"), Bankruptcy Rule 2004, and Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1.\n\nAs set forth below, the Motion to Compel is unnecessary as G Club has formally responded to the Subpoena and begun the production of documents, but G Club recognizes that setting a discovery schedule and limiting the scope of the Subpoena is necessary to facilitate a production consistent with applicable law and minimize further disputes. Accordingly, G Club requests that the Motion to Compel be denied, the Subpoena be limited and modified, and it be given 60 days\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Debtor\"), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nto complete the production of documents.\n\n### **Preliminary Statement/Update on Production Status**\n\nNotwithstanding its good faith efforts to reach an agreement with the Trustee over the scope of the Subpoena, G Club and the Trustee were unable to do so. During this process, G Club's senior management with the ability to direct any production resigned. Aware of this practical impediment to any production, the Trustee nonetheless filed the Motion to Compel. G Club filed its Preliminary Objection on June 1, 2023, and the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Compel on June 6, 2023. On June 9, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring that G Club supplement its preliminary objection by June 22, 2023, and the Trustee respond to the supplement by June 23, 2023. The Court also has scheduled a hearing on the Motion to Compel for June 27, 2023.\n\nConsistent with counsel's representations during the June 6, 2023 hearing, the independent manage of G Club, appointed on June 1, 2023, and his team, have worked diligently with counsel to identify responsive documents and to begin producing documents. As of the date of this filing, G Club has (1) served the Trustee with amended objections and responses to the Rule 2004 Subpoena identifying what it will produce (\"**Amended Rule 2004 Subpoena Objections**\") (copy attached as Exhibit A) and (2) produced over 300 responsive documents. More documents will be produced as G Club's review of documents continues. Under these circumstances, the Motion to Compel is unnecessary and should be denied.\n\nG Club, however, also respectfully requests that the Court address the following issues to facilitate production and minimize future disputes:\n\nFirst, the Court should impose a reasonable schedule to finish production and resolve any remaining disputes. G Clubs believes that 60 days to complete production consistent with its Amended Rule 2004 Subpoena Objections, subject to extension by agreement or Court order, is reasonable, and scheduling a status conference for resolving remaining disputes, if any, shortly thereafter would save judicial resources.\n\nSecond, the Court should exercise its discretion to impose limits on the Trustee's document requests so that they are proportional to the issues currently under investigation by the Trustee, as required by the Federal Rules and this Court's Local Rules. The Trustee has asked for every document and communication of G Club regardless of their relationship to the Debtor. The Trustee had refused to narrow any request because his position is that he is entitled to every G Club document as if G Club were a debtor before this Court because the Court pre-approved it. As explained below, however, this assertion that G Club is synonymous with the Debtor is merely an allegation and cannot serve as a premise to exceed the legitimate boundaries of Rule 2004. Accordingly, the Court should limit the Trustee's Subpoena to documents reflecting any relationship, contracts, payments or other financial transactions between G Club and the Debtor, specifically identified members of his family and specifically identified entities and certain limited information about G Club's operations and contracts with third parties consistent with the objections set forth in the Amended Rule 2004 Subpoena Objections, and the Court should specifically exclude from the Subpoena information about G Club's members, their payments, and other identifying information, and requests equivalent to a forensics analysis of G Club.\n\n### **ARGUMENT**\n\n#### **I. The Motion to Compel Is Unnecessary**\n\nDuring the hearing on June 6, 2023, counsel represented to the Court that as of June 1, 2023, an independent manager had been appointed, and that the manager was aware that addressing the Subpoena was a priority. Indeed, the independent manager worked with counsel, including\n\nthrough a holiday weekend, to expedite the initial production of responsive documents. As of the date of this filing, more than 300 documents have been produced in compliance with the ESI protocols demanded by the Trustee.\n\nSince the June 6th hearing, G Club also amended its formal objections to the Subpoena. On June 21, 2023, the Amended Rule 2004 Subpoena Objections were served, and G Club is working on supplemental productions consistent with it. Despite its best efforts, G Club needs sufficient time to finish that production, and proposes that a discovery schedule, rather than an order compelling production, is appropriate at this time.\n\n#### **II. The Requests Seek Documents Beyond the Scope of Rule 2004**\n\nAs set forth in the Preliminary Objection, Rule 2004 examinations are not limitless. \"Rule 2004 examinations . . . may not be used for the purposes of abuse or harassment, and cannot stray into matters not relevant to the basic inquiry.\" *In re Orion Healthcorp, Inc.*, 596 B.R. 228, 235 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019)) (quotations omitted). They also \"may not be used as a device to launch into a wholesale investigation of a non-debtor's private business affairs,\" *In re Kearney*, 590 B.R. 913, 921 (Bankr. D. N.M. 2018) (*quoting Matter of Wilcher*, 56 B.R. 428, 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985)) (collecting cases), and they must be appropriately tailored to obtain information about the Debtor or administration of the Debtor's case, *see* Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a), and proportional. Local Rule 2004-1(a) (\"Proportionality considerations apply to a request for the production of documents or electronically stored information in connection with a FRBP 2004 examination.\"); *see also In re J&R Trucking, Inc.*, 431 B.R. 818, 822 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2010) (where a Rule 2004 examination \"goes beyond its purpose as an investigatory device arising out of the needs of the trustee, it should be carefully scrutinized.\"); *In re Yahweh Center, Inc.* No. 16-04306-6-JNC, 2017 WL 327473, at \\*2 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2017) (\"even if sufficiently related to the debtor or\n\n[his] bankruptcy case…a balancing analysis of the cost and disruptive effect\" of a Rule 2004 subpoena \"would be in order\" when compliance requires \"a voluminous document search and production.\").\n\nThe Subpoena, however, evidences no restraint at all. It seeks *all* financial documents, dealings, and matters of G Club *without limitation to the Debtor*. The Trustee has steadfastly refused any proposed limitations, contending that this Court has allowed discovery this broad, and not proportionately limited, to the Debtor's finances, conduct and affairs. G Club's Preliminary Objection sets forth specific examples of overbreadth and lack of proportionality (ECF No. 1846 at 4-5), which, like the entire Preliminary Objection, is incorporated here by reference.\n\nIn its Amended Rule 2004 Subpoena Objections, G Club has agreed to produce documents that are proportional and appropriately tailored for the Trustee to be able to evaluate the relationship between G Club, on the one hand, and the Debtor, the Debtor's Family and Associated Entities, on the other. The requests that go farther, which, by way of example, seek information about all sources of income, every bank account, and all tax records, are not proportional or within the proper bounds of Rule 2004, and in the absence of a compelling showing of need for this additional detail to answer the basic questions about the relationship between G Club, on the one hand, and the Debtor, the Debtor's Family and Associated Entities, on the other, should be eliminated from the Subpoena.\n\n### **III. The Basis for the Subpoena Is an Erroneous Presumption About G Club**\n\nThe Trustee tries to justify the overbreadth of the Subpoena on the presumption that G Club does not exist independently of the Debtor. He claims he is entitled to do so based on a Preliminary Injunction Order entered by this Court concerning a harassment campaign between the Debtor and the Trustee. (*See generally* Adv. Pro. 22-05032, ECF No. 128 (the \"Adversary Proceeding\")). The Trustee's reliance on the Preliminary Injunction Order, however, is misplaced. There is no basis to conclude that any findings have been made against *G Club*. Significantly (as detailed in the Preliminary Objection):\n\n- The Preliminary Injunction Order demonstrates that, while the Court stated that \"[t]he Debtor founded and controls GNews,\" and that \"[t]he Debtor created GFashion,\" it made no such comment with respect to G Club, (*id*. ¶ 3);\n- At most, the Preliminary Injunction Order states that G Club is part of \"GSeries\" and that GSeries is one of several entities that \"serve the purpose of the Debtor\" and \"serve as business vehicles\" for the Debtor, without any evidence that G Club is in fact one of those entities, is synonymous with the Debtor or otherwise under the Debtor's actual or improper control, (*id*. ¶¶ 2, 7);\n- The transcripts of the underlying hearing do not reflect any evidence from which to support a finding that the Debtor controls G Club, (Adv. Pro., 22-05032, ECF No. 119); and\n- G Club was not a party to the relevant adversary proceeding or served with notice of it or its request for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief.\n\nAny reference contained in the Preliminary Injunction Order implying a control relationship between the Debtor and G Club or that the Debtor and G Club are synonymous, therefore, cannot be a \"finding\" by which G Club is bound or otherwise is unable to challenge. G Club is not collaterally estopped by any such finding. \"Federal principles of collateral estoppel, which we apply to establish the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment, require that (1) the identical issue was raised in a previous proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the previous proceeding; (3) the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the resolution of the issue was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.\" *Ball* v. *A.O. Smith Corp.*, 451 F.3d 66, 69 (2d Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). Here, (1) the identical issue advanced by the Trustee that G Club and the Debtor are synonymous was not raised or decided in the context of the Preliminary Injunction, (2) the issue thus was not litigated, (3) G Club was not provided any opportunity to litigate the issue and (4) the issue was not necessary to resolve the question of restraining the social media harassment campaign and there has been no final judgment on the merits.\n\nPrinciples of *res judicata* similarly do not apply to bind G Club to anything that happened in the Adversary Proceeding for three independent reasons, any one of which bars the application of the principle. *Hecht* v. *United Collection Bureau, Inc.*, 691 F.3d 218, 221-22 (2d Cir. 2012). First, *res judicata* applies only to a final judgment on the merits. *Id.* It is beyond dispute that a preliminary injunction is not a final judgment on the merits. Second, only parties can be bound in a subsequent proceeding by a prior final judgment on the merits. *Id.* G Club was not a party to the Adversary Proceeding. Finally, the latter action must assert the same cause of action as the former action. *Id.* The Adversary Proceeding does not assert a cause of action that the Debtor and G Club are synonymous.\n\nIn sum, reliance on a limited reference in the Preliminary Injunction Order is not sufficient to support a wholesale forensics examination of non-debtor G Club. Without considered findings after discovery and a fully developed adversarial process, the Trustee presumes the conclusion of his investigation into the relationship between G Club, on the one hand, and the Debtor, the Debtor's Family and Associated Entities, on the other, to demand every piece of information, data and document from G Club. For now, at least, the Trustee should be limited in that effort to the relationship between G Club, on the one hand, and the Debtor, the Debtor's Family and Associated Entities, on the other, reserving for another day any right to more information from G Club unrelated to that relationship.\n\n# **CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL**\n\nOn June 21, 2023, the Trustee, through counsel, rejected G Club's request for 60 days to produce documents consistent with the Amended Rule 2004 Subpoena Objections.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nWHEREFORE, G Club respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion to compel; order the Trustee to modify or otherwise limit the Rule 2004 requests to be consistent with the Amended Rule 2004 Subpoena Objections; order G Club to produce documents consistent with the Amended Rule 2004 Subpoena Objections within 60 days, unless extended by agreement between the Trustee and G Club or Court order; schedule a status conference on the modified Subpoena shortly thereafter; and grant G Club such other relief as is just and proper.\n\n> By: */s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz*  GREEN & SKLARZ LLC Jeffrey M. Sklarz (ct20938) Kellianne Baranowsky (ct26684) One Audobon St, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Tel: 203-285-8545 jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n> > PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Carolina A. Fornos (*pro hac vice*) 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-858-1558 carolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\n*Attorney for G Club Operations LLC*\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on the date set forth below, a copy of the foregoing was served via CM/ECF. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDate: June 22, 2023 /s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz","body_zh":"IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n债务人。1\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并审理）\n\n2023年6月22日\nG CLUB OPERATIONS LLC 对受托人强制作出答复动议的补充异议及相关救济请求\n\nG Club Operations LLC（G 俱乐部运营有限责任公司，简称「G Club」）通过其下述署名律师，就 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯宾斯）以被标为上述债务人（统称「债务人」）的第 11 章受托人（简称「受托人」）身份提起的动议，对其初步异议（简称「初步异议」）（案卷第 1846 号）进行补充；该受托人动议寻求强制 G Club 遵守（简称「强制作出答复动议」）（案卷第 1805 号）于 2022年12月6日 送达给 G Club 的根据第 2004 条规则进行审查的传票（简称「传票」）。该传票是依据《美国法典》第 11 编第 1109(b) 条、《联邦破产程序规则》（简称「《破产规则》」）第 9016 条规则、《破产规则》第 2004 条规则以及《本地破产规则》第 2004-1 条规则发出的。\n\n如下文所述，强制作出答复动议是不必要的，因为 G Club 已对传票作出了正式答复并开始提供文件，但 G Club 认识到，设定证据开示时间表并限制传票范围是必要的，以便在符合适用法律的前提下推进文件提供工作，并最大程度减少进一步争议。因此，G Club 请求驳回强制作出答复动议，对传票予以限制和修改，并给予其 60 天时间\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（简称「债务人」）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n以完成文件的提供。\n初步陈述/文件提供现状更新\n\n尽管 G Club 尽了最大诚意努力就传票范围与受托人达成协议，但 G Club 与受托人未能达成共识。在此过程中，G Club 有能力指挥任何文件提供工作的高级管理人员辞职。受托人在明知这一阻碍任何文件提供的实际困难的情况下，仍然提交了强制作出答复动议。G Club 于 2023年6月1日 提交了初步异议，法院于 2023年6月6日 就强制作出答复动议举行了听证会。2023年6月9日，法院发布命令，要求 G Club 在 2023年6月22日 之前对其初步异议作出补充，受托人在 2023年6月23日 之前对该补充作出答复。法院还定于 2023年6月27日 就强制作出答复动议举行听证会。\n\n与律师在 2023年6月6日 听证会上的陈述一致，于 2023年6月1日 任命的 G Club 独立经理及其团队，已与律师勤勉合作，以识别应答文件并开始提供文件。截至本文件提交之日，G Club 已经：(1) 向受托人送达了针对第 2004 条规则传票的经修改异议与答复，其中指明了其将提供的内容（简称「经修改第 2004 条规则传票异议」）（副本作为附件 A 附后）；以及 (2) 提供了超过 300 份应答文件。随着 G Club 对文件的审查继续进行，还将提供更多文件。在此种情况下，强制作出答复动议是不必要的，应当予以驳回。\n\n然而，G Club 还恳请法院处理以下事项，以促进文件提供并最大程度减少未来争议：\n\n第一，法院应当设定一个合理的时间表，以完成文件提供并解决任何剩余争议。G Club 认为，根据其经修改第 2004 条规则传票异议在 60 天内完成文件提供（可根据协议或法院命令延长）是合理的，并且在此后不久安排一次状态会议以解决剩余争议（如有）将节省司法资源。\n\n第二，法院应当行使其自由裁量权，对受托人的文件调取请求施加限制，以使其与受托人目前正在调查的问题相适应，正如《联邦规则》及本院《本地规则》所要求的那样。受托人索取了 G Club 的每一份文件和通信，不论其与债务人之间存在何种关系。受托人一直拒绝缩小任何请求的范围，因为他的立场是，他有权获取 G Club 的每一份文件，就如同 G Club 是本院审理案件中的债务人一样，原因在于法院事先批准了该请求。然而，如下文所述，关于 G Club 与债务人属于同一主体的这一断言仅仅是一种指控，不能作为逾越第 2004 条规则正当界限的前提。因此，法院应当将受托人的传票限制在反映 G Club 与债务人、其经特别指明的家庭成员以及经特别指明的实体之间的任何关系、合同、付款或其他财务交易的文件，以及与经修改第 2004 条规则传票异议中所列异议一致的关于 G Club 运营及与第三方合同的某些有限信息；法院应当特别将关于 G Club 成员、其付款及其他身份识别信息，以及相当于对 G Club 进行司法法务鉴定的请求排除在传票范围之外。\n抗辩理由\nI. 强制作出答复动议是不必要的\n\n在 2023年6月6日 的听证会上，律师向法院陈述，截至 2023年6月1日 已任命了一名独立经理，且该经理知晓处理该传票是一项优先事项。事实上，该独立经理与律师通力合作（包括在整个假日周末期间），以加快应答文件的初步提供。截至本文件提交之日，已按照受托人要求的 ESI（电子存储信息）方案提供了 300 多份文件。\n\n自 6月6日 听证会以来，G Club 还修改了其对传票的正式异议。2023年6月21日，经修改第 2004 条规则传票异议已送达，G Club 正在根据该异议进行补充文件提供工作。尽管 G Club 竭尽全力，但仍需要充足的时间来完成该项提供工作，并建议此时设定证据开示时间表而非发布强制作出答复命令是妥当的。\nII. 这些请求所索取的文件超出了第 2004 条规则的范围\n\n如初步异议中所述，第 2004 条规则审查并非毫无限制。「第 2004 条规则审查……不得用于滥用或骚扰之目的，且不得偏离与基本调查无关的事项。」In re Orion Healthcorp, Inc., 596 B.R. 228, 235 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019)（引文省略）。它们还「不得用作对非债务人的私人生意事务发起全面调查的手段」，In re Kearney, 590 B.R. 913, 921 (Bankr. D. N.M. 2018) (quoting Matter of Wilcher, 56 B.R. 428, 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985))（汇总案例），并且它们必须经过适当裁剪以获取有关债务人或债务人案件管理的信息，参见 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a)，且具有相称性。《本地规则》第 2004-1(a) 条（「相称性考量适用于与 FRBP 2004 审查相关的提供文件或电子存储信息的请求。」）；另见 In re J&R Trucking, Inc., 431 B.R. 818, 822 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2010)（当第 2004 条规则审查「超出其作为出于受托人需求而产生的调查手段之目的时，应当受到严格审查。」）；In re Yahweh Center, Inc. No. 16-04306-6-JNC, 2017 WL 327473, at *2 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2017)（「即使与债务人或其破产案件有充分关联……当遵守要求需要『进行庞杂的文件检索和提供』时，对第 2004 条规则传票的成本和破坏性影响进行权衡分析也是适宜的。」）。\n\n然而，该传票未显示出任何克制。它索取 G Club 的所有财务文件、交易和事务，而不限于与债务人相关的范围。受托人坚决拒绝任何拟议的限制，主张本院已允许如此宽泛、且未与债务人的财务、行为和事务成比例限制的证据开示。G Club 的初步异议阐述了范围过宽和缺乏相称性的具体示例（ECF 第 1846 号第 4-5 页），正如整个初步异议一样，在此引为参考。\n\n在其经修改第 2004 条规则传票异议中，G Club 已同意提供相称且经过适当裁剪的文件，以便受托人能够评估一方面为 G Club，另一方面为债务人、债务人家属及关联实体之间的关系。超出此范围的请求（例如索取有关所有收入来源、每一个银行账户以及所有税务记录的信息）既不具有相称性，也不在第 2004 条规则的正当界限之内，并且在没有令人信服地证明需要这些额外细节来回答有关一方面为 G Club，另一方面为债务人、债务人家属及关联实体之间关系的基本问题的情况下，应当从传票中予以剔除。\nIII. 传票的依据是对 G Club 的错误推定\n\n受托人试图基于 G Club 并非独立于债务人而存在的推定来为其传票的过宽范围进行辩护。他声称其有权依据本院就债务人与受托人之间的骚扰活动所作出的《初步禁令裁定》（参见 Adversary Proceeding（对席诉讼程序），案号 22-05032，ECF 第 128 号，统称「对席诉讼」）来这样做。然而，受托人对《初步禁令裁定》的依赖是不当的。没有任何根据可以得出已针对 G Club 作出任何认定的结论。显而易见的是（详见初步异议）：\n\n- 《初步禁令裁定》表明，虽然法院指出「债务人创立并控制了 GNews」，且「债务人创建了 GFashion」，但法院并未对 G Club 作出此类表述（同上，第 3 段）；\n- 《初步禁令裁定》充其量仅指出 G Club 是「GSeries」的一部分，且 GSeries 是「为债务人的目的服务」并充当债务人「商业工具」的若干实体之一，但没有任何证据证明 G Club 实际上属于这些实体之一、与债务人属于同一主体、或以其他方式处于债务人的实际或不当控制之下（同上，第 2、7 段）；\n- 基础听证会的笔录未反映出任何足以支持债务人控制 G Club 这一认定的证据（对席诉讼，案号 22-05032，ECF 第 119 号）；以及\n- G Club 并非相关对席诉讼的当事人，亦未收到有关该诉讼或其临时或初步禁令救济请求的送达通知。\n\n因此，《初步禁令裁定》（Preliminary Injunction Order）中包含的任何暗示债务人（Debtor）与 G Club 之间存在控制关系或债务人与 G Club 为同义词的提述，均不能构成对 G Club 具有约束力或使其无法提出异议的“裁定事实”（finding）。G Club 并不受任何此类裁定事实的争点排除效力（collateral estoppel）约束。“我们用以确定先前联邦判决的排除效力的联邦争点排除原则，要求：(1) 在先前的程序中提出了相同的问题；(2) 该问题在先前的程序中经过了实际诉讼并作出了裁决；(3) 当事人获得了就该问题进行诉讼的充分且公正的机会；以及 (4) 该问题的解决对于支持一项关于实体问题的有效且终局的判决是必不可少的。”Ball v. A.O. Smith Corp., 451 F.3d 66, 69 (2d Cir. 2006)（文本经清理）。在本案中，(1) 受托人（Trustee）提出的关于 G Club 与债务人系同一主体的相同问题，在初步禁令的背景下并未被提出或作出裁决，(2) 因此该问题并未经过诉讼，(3) G Club 未获得任何就该问题进行诉讼的机会，并且 (4) 该问题对于解决限制社交媒体骚扰活动的争议并非必不可少，且目前尚未作出关于实体问题的终局判决。\n\n既判力（res judicata）原则同样不适用，不能因对抗性诉讼程序（Adversary Proceeding）中发生的任何事情而对 G Club 产生约束力，原因有三个独立的事由，其中任何一项均排除该原则的适用。Hecht v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 691 F.3d 218, 221-22 (2d Cir. 2012)。首先，既判力仅适用于关于实体问题的终局判决。同上。毫无争议的是，初步禁令并非关于实体问题的终局判决。其次，在后程序中，仅有当事人会受到先前的实体问题终局判决的约束。同上。G Club 并非对抗性诉讼程序的当事人。最后，后案必须主张与前案相同的诉由。同上。该对抗性诉讼程序并未主张债务人与 G Club 系同一主体这一诉由。\n\n总而言之，依赖《初步禁令裁定》中的有限提述，不足以支持对非债务人 G Club 进行全面的司法取证审查。在缺乏开示程序后的审慎裁定以及充分展开的对抗性程序的情况下，受托人预设了其对一方为 G Club 与另一方为债务人、债务人家族及关联实体之间关系的调查结论，从而要求 G Club 提供每一项信息、数据和文件。至少就目前而言，受托人在这方面的调查应限于一方为 G Club 与另一方为债务人、债务人家族及关联实体之间的关系，并保留日后向 G Club 索取与该关系无关的更多信息的任何权利。\n\n律师证明\n\n2023年6月21日，受托人通过其律师，拒绝了 G Club 提出的按照《破产规则第 2004 条修正传票异议》（Amended Rule 2004 Subpoena Objections）在 60 天内提供文件的请求。\n\n结论\n\n据此，G Club 谨请求法院驳回强制作出命令的动议（motion to compel）；命令受托人修改或以其他方式限制第 2004 条调查请求，使其与《破产规则第 2004 条修正传票异议》保持一致；命令 G Club 在 60 天内按照《破产规则第 2004 条修正传票异议》提供文件，除非经受托人与 G Club 协议或法院裁定予以延长；在此后不久就修改后的传票安排一次案件进展会议；并授予 G Club 法院认为公正且适当的其他救济。\n\n签署人：/s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz  GREEN & SKLARZ LLC Jeffrey M. Sklarz (ct20938) Kellianne Baranowsky (ct26684) One Audobon St, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 电话：203-285-8545 jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com\n\nPILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Carolina A. Fornos (pro hac vice/特别委任律师) 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 电话：212-858-1558 carolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\nG Club Operations LLC 代理律师\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，于下方载明的日期，本文件的副本已通过 CM/ECF 系统送达。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本呈递文件。\n\n日期：2023年6月22日 /s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","G Clubs","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":119,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":128,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1846,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2476,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:14:50"}