{"id":"court_ctb_2244_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2244,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","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\nSeptember 29, 2023\n\n## **G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC'S RESPONSE TO TRUSTEE'S MEMORANDUM CHALLENGING G CLUB'S PRIVILEGE ASSERTIONS IN DOCUMENTS IN HCHK'S POSSESSION AND OPPOSITION TO THE TRUSTEE'S RELATED PROPOSED ORDER**\n\nG Club Operations LLC (\"**G Club**\") objects to the Chapter 11 Trustee's *Memorandum of*\n\n*Law in Support of Chapter 11 Trustee's Argument that G-Club Operations LLC has Waived any Privilege and has no Right to Object to Responsiveness as to G-Club Documents Turned Over from the Assignee of HCHK Technologies, Inc. to the Trustee Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 Settlement Agreement* (Adv. Proc. 23-05013, ECF No. 86)<sup>2</sup> (the \"Memorandum\" or \"Mem.\"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court properly considered the arguments and properly issued an order that protects G Club's due process rights and does not prejudice the Trustee.\n\n# **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. In its July 28, 2023 Order Approving Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 the Chapter 11 Trustee's Settlement With Assignee of HCHK Entities Under New York Court Assignment Proceedings (ECF No. 2038, the \"**Order**\"), the Court ordered the Assignee to \"make available to G-Club all corporate records (including in electronic form) and other documents\" that\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\n<sup>2</sup> G Club refers to Adv. Proc. 23-05013 as the \"Adversary Proceeding\" or \"Adv. Proc.\" herein.\n\n\"were at any point the property of G Club.\" (Order ¶ 6(a)). G Club was to \"review such corporate records and other documents for privilege and responsiveness to the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoena of G-Club and produce a privilege log and responsiveness log.\" *Id*. The Court's Order thus strikes a balance between G Club's rights and the Chapter 11 Trustee's demands. The procedure set out by the Order is sufficient, and only stands to prevent the Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"**Trustee**\") from reviewing documents that are either privileged or non-responsive – documents to which the Trustee is not entitled to review in the first instance.\n\n2. Nevertheless, the Trustee accuses G Club of \"gamesmanship,\" claiming its \"goal\" is \"to demand the return of [its] documents\" from its vendor, HCHK Technologies (\"**HCHK**\") so that \"there will be no documents left.\" (Mem. ¶ 21). To date, G Club has produced 124,876 documents to the Trustee and G Club is in the process of finishing its review ahead of a production of an additional 10,000 documents, as well as a privilege log. Thus, the facts contradict the Trustee's assertion that G Club's goal was to prevent the Trustee from reviewing G Club's documents. Instead, the Trustee's efforts to obtain G Club's property through a settlement agreement with a different entity, HCHK, are an attempt to deny G Club its right to determine which documents are responsive and non-privileged and circumvent the proper and orderly process by which document review and production is conducted.\n\n3. Contrary to the Trustee's assertions, which lack basis in both fact and law, G Club has not waived any rights. G Club contracted with HCHK for the administration of a cloud-based storage and email system for its communications (among other services). That system, Microsoft 365, is a cloud-based enterprise system which is routinely utilized by corporations and law firms. That HCHK was the system's administrator is not relevant to G Club's assertion of privilege; the documents were maintained in \"the cloud,\" and the Trustee has made no assertions (nor can he) that a single individual other than G Club employees ever reviewed documents maintained on the cloud that hosted G Club domain names. Privileged documents stored in a cloud system administered by a third party simply do not lose their protected status.\n\n4. The Trustee also erroneously claims that *HCHK* must produce G Club documents that are not responsive to the Trustee's subpoena (the \"**Subpoena**\") (Mem. ¶2), but the Trustee cannot avoid the limits of his own Subpoena. G Club is entitled to perform its review of its own documents in due course like any other party. The Trustee does not get access to any and all documents in existence, to then determine, for himself, what documents are responsive to his own Subpoena or constitute a privileged communication between G Club and its counsel.\n\n5. Recognizing his argument's weaknesses, the Trustee pivots and now argues that G Club documents in HCHK's possession may actually be responsive to the Trustee's subpoena of *HCHK*, complaining that HCHK has turned over fewer than 150 documents. (Mem. ¶¶14, 16). Conspicuously, while the Memorandum mentions the size of HCHK's production to date three times (Mem. ¶¶ 2, 7, 16), it does not mention the size of G Club's production once, because G Club has complied and continues to comply with its discovery obligations.\n\n6. If the Trustee has an issue with HCHK's document production, that dispute is between the Trustee and HCHK; G Club's documents should not be dragged into that dispute. There is no basis for the Trustee to demand HCHK supplement its own production with any documents, much less privileged and non-responsive documents, that belong to G Club.\n\n#### **RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY**\n\n7. In its Order, the Court properly protected G Club's due process rights in connection with the Rule 9019 Settlement by allowing G Club to access its documents. Specifically, the Order stated:\n\n3\n\nthe Assignee shall make available to G-Club all corporate records (including in electronic form) and other documents pertaining to the HCHK Entities in the possession of the Assignee, which were at any point the property of G-Club. Upon receipt, G-Club shall immediately review such corporate records and other documents for privilege and responsiveness to the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoena of G-Club and produce a privilege log and responsiveness log. G-Club may designate materials it will produce to the Trustee as \"confidential\" or \"highly confidential\" in accordance with the Protective Order. (Order ¶ 6(a)).\n\n8. This procedure, as set out by the Court, ensures that G Club can access its information and perform the review that any party undertakes before producing documents. The Order followed the Court's consideration of G Club's submissions and arguments relating the Rule 9019 Motion, including G Club's Notice of Position Regarding 9019 Motion and Proposed Order (ECF No. 1977, the \"Notice\") and G Club's Supplemental Notice to Modify the Revised Proposed Order Relating to Motion, Pursuant to Rule 9019, Re: Settlement with Assignee of HCHK Entities (ECF No. 2007, the \"Supplemental Notice\")*.* G Club incorporates both Notices herein.\n\n9. The Order also provided an August 11, 2023 deadline for the Trustee to \"file a brief in support of the Trustee's argument that G-Club has waived any privilege and has no right to object to responsiveness.\" (Order ¶ 6(b)). On August 11, 2023, the Trustee filed the Memorandum in an Adversary Proceeding to which G Club is not a party, and he failed to file the Memorandum in the main case or otherwise serve G Club. (*See* G Club's Opposition to Trustee's Proposed Supplemental Order Regarding G Club Documents Pursuant to Order Approving Chapter 11 Trustee's Settlement With Assignee of HCHK Entities Under New York Court Assignment Proceedings, ECF No. 2233 at 2).\n\n10. When the August 11, 2023 deadline passed without (to G Club's knowledge) a filing from the Trustee on this issue, G Club assumed that the Trustee recognized that the procedure ordered by the Court would allow it to review any and all non-privileged, responsive documents belonging to G Club in due course and declined to litigate the issue further in the interest of judicial\n\n4\n\nefficiency and the preservation of the Chapter 11 estate's resources. (*See* Mem. ¶ 3 (\"A key aspect of the Rule 9019 Settlement Agreement was to preserve the Chapter 11 estate's resources, including those that would be expended on contested discovery.\")).\n\n11. On September 19, 2023, the Court \"inquired about this issue during a hearing.\" (*See* ECF No. 2237). The Trustee's counsel \"represented it was his belief that the Trustee's counsel was trying to reach out to G-Club to determine the status of this issue.\" *Id*.\n\n12. Without having reached out or connected with G Club's counsel about these documents or his Memorandum before or after September 19, 2023, on September 26, 2023, the Trustee's counsel filed (in the same Adversary Proceeding only) a Proposed Supplemental Order compelling G Club to produce to the Trustee all documents produced to G Club by the Assignee. (Adv. Proc. ECF No. 130, Ex. A). This time, however, counsel for the Trustee emailed one of the three attorneys listed as counsel of record for G Club. The Trustee's September 26, 2023 email was the first, and to date, only, communication G Club has received from the Trustee since the Court's Order.\n\n13. That same day, G Club filed an objection to the Trustee's Proposed Supplemental Order, requesting seven days to respond to the Memorandum. (ECF. No. 2233) On September 28, 2023, the Court sustained the objection in part, giving G Club until 5:00 p.m. on September 29, 2023, to respond to the Memorandum.<sup>3</sup> (ECF No. 2237).\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n14. As G Club first stated in its Notice, shortly after the filing of the Rule 9019 Motion, \"[n]othing in the proposed settlement between the Trustee and HCHK Technologies, or in any\n\n<sup>3</sup> The Trustee's tactics with respect to the Memorandum, filing it in an Adversary Proceeding to which G Club is not a party and never providing an unredacted copy of the Memorandum to G Club, and the Proposed Supplemental Order, filing it in the same Adversary Proceeding but sending just one of three G Club counsel of record a copy of it by email, give the impression that the Trustee is engaging in, to use the Trustee's word, \"gamesmanship.\"\n\nproposed order, should waive G Club's rights.\" (ECF No. 1977 at 1). The Trustee's arguments are unavailing for two simple reasons: First, G Club has not waived any privilege through the use of IT services. Indeed, the Trustee's misguided conception of waiver would implicate any business, including any law firm, that employs cloud-based solutions using a third-party for document management. Second, the Trustee's claim that he is entitled to non-responsive documents or documents from *HCHK* ignores that it is in receipt of nearly 125,000 responsive documents which G Club produced, with more to be produced shortly, along with a privilege log.\n\n#### **I. G Club Has Not Waived Any Privilege**\n\n15. The Trustee's assertion that \"G-Club has waived any privilege to its documents\" provided to HCHK is based on a false premise and misstatement of the law. (Mem. ¶ 26). The Trustee states that G Club has \"voluntarily disclosed the contents of those documents to three thirdparties,\" but nowhere in the Memorandum does the Trustee identify any document that was \"disclosed\" and any individual who actually saw the \"contents\" of a document. *Id*. That is because G Club did not disclose privileged documents to HCHK; HCHK was simply the administrator of a cloud-based enterprise system which is routinely utilized by corporations and law firms. G Club did not \"share its purportedly privileged information with\" HCHK; it simply contracted for the operation of a document management system with a third-party. *Id*. ¶ 27. It cannot be that any person or entity who employs a similar system has waived the attorney-client privilege.\n\n16. Recently, the Court of Chancery of Delaware held that having a third party \"provide hosting services did not result in a waiver.\" *Metro Storage Int'l LLC v. Herron*, 275 A.3d 810, 871 (Del. Ch. 2022). There, the court found that email storage by a third-party resulted in an \"obligation to keep the informational confidential,\" and that \"[t]he situation is no different than when a lawyer contracts with a services provider to provide email services or to maintain confidential documents in the cloud.\" *Id*. In a footnote, the Court cited a journal article and an American Bar Association publication, both of which approved of cloud storage; the former even cited Microsoft 365, the cloud-based solution at issue here, as one example that \"does not necessarily lead to privilege waiver.\" *Id*. at 871 n.35.\n\n17. In seeking G Club's privileged documents, the Trustee performs some sleight of hand, characterizing G Club as giving HCHK \"access to its documents,\" but then cites several cases that have nothing to do with *access*. The Trustee fails to point to a single case in which a third-party that provided a cloud-based solution broke privilege. They each involve a third-party who actually learned the substance of the privileged material and several of the Trustee's cases predate cloud-based technology. *See Strougo v. BEA Assocs.*, 199 F.R.D. 515, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (finding that the presence of nine non-directors and non-attorneys at in-person board meeting waived the potential privilege of board minutes); *Niceforo v. UBS Glob. Asset Mgmt. Americas, Inc*., 20 F. Supp. 3d 428, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding that a physical notebook maintained by an employee at her employer's office, which her employer reviewed, was not privileged because she did not demonstrate the notebook contained attorney-client communications and she did not make \"a reasonable attempt to keep these statements confidential\"); *United States v. Mejia*, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011) (finding privilege did not cover a phone call made from prison to a family member where the defendant was aware that it was recorded by prison staff); *United States v. Ackert*, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir.1999) (finding that oral communications between a party's lawyer and a third-party investment advisor regarding financial transaction were not covered by the party's privilege where the conversations were to improve the lawyer's understanding of the transaction); *Ampa Ltd. v. Kentfield Capital LLC*, No. 00 Civ. 0508 NRB AJP, 2000 WL 1156860, \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2000) (finding board minutes\n\nwere not privileged where an outside accountant was present at the board meeting and not involved in the legal issue discussed); *In re Horowitz*, 482 F.2d 72, 82 (2d Cir. 1973) (finding privilege was waived where potentially privileged physical documents were comingled with non-privileged documents in file cabinets to which a third party had ready access and actively reviewed).\n\n18. The Trustee does not provide any support for the notion that use of a cloud-based solution for document management can waive privilege because there is none.\n\n19. With HCHK merely hosting G Club's data, HCHK could not have shared any of the contents with the Assignee. Indeed, pursuant to the Master Services Agreement, HCHK was obligated to maintain confidentiality. The Assignee certainly had no right or authority to access email domain accounts belonging to G Club and there are no allegations that any member of the Assignee's team did so.<sup>4</sup> Thus, there is no reason to assert any waiver that would have involved the Assignee.\n\n20. The Trustee also mistakenly argues that G Club failed to object to the assignee process by which the assets owned or controlled by HCHK would be sold to G News. (Mem ¶¶ 31, 32). As the Trustee well knows, he filed the Supplemental Emergency *Ex Parte* Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (\"TRO Motion\") on June 9, 2023, halting any action in the HCHK assignment proceedings. (Adv. Proc. ECF No. 14.) The Court granted the TRO Motion (Adv. Proc. ECF No. 18), prior to the June 12, 2023 deadline for parties to file objections and the June 13, 2023 hearing date set by the New York Supreme Court regarding the sale of HCHK's assets to G News. Therefore, G Club did not have a meaningful opportunity to object to either the assignment of HCHK's assets to the Assignee, nor\n\n<sup>4</sup> And, even if members of the Assignee's team had accessed these accounts, the Assignee was not authorized by G Club to do so. To the contrary, G Club made sure that Assignee and the Trustee were aware the documents were not the Assignee's to access or review, in writing on July 5, 2023.\n\nto the proposed sale of the same assets to G News. Regardless, such sale never occurred so the Trustee's argument of waiver triggered by a proposed sale is simply meritless.\n\n#### **II. The Trustee Has No Right to Review Non-Responsive Documents**\n\n21. Just as the Trustee is not entitled to review G Club's privileged documents, he is not entitled to review G Club documents that are not responsive to the Subpoena. In response to the Subpoena, G Club has produced almost 125,000 documents, and is planning on producing more soon, along with a privilege log. G Club anticipates finishing all its document review and a privilege log by mid-October 2023. To the extent that the Trustee wishes it had subpoenaed other documents, it may not use HCHK as a tool to obtain those documents; it must request them from G Club.\n\n22. The Trustee further improperly attempts to use the Subpoena served on *HCHK – and not* G Club, to obtain G Club's property, stating that HCHK's productions \"have been woefully deficient.\" (Mem. ¶ 16). That, however, is irrelevant. The Trustee may not use HCHK's purported failure to produce a meaningful number of documents to force HCHK to produce documents that do not belong to HCHK. The Trustee theorizes that HCHK \"was a pass through for monies he was attaining through his 'business' activities that he used in part to fund his opulent lifestyle,\" and that the Trustee needs \"documents related to the services provided\" from HCHK. (Mem. ¶ 20). G Club does not object to HCHK's production of HCHK documents responsive to the Trustee's subpoena, nor could it. But G Club documents do not belong to HCHK. If the Trustee has issues with HCHK's alleged non-compliance, that is not G Club's issue, nor does it bear any relevance to the Trustee's requested modification of the Order.\n\n23. Accordingly, the Trustee's smear that \"entities like G Club\" are engaging in \"gamesmanship\" so that the Trustee will not have the \"ability to review\" documents is baseless.\n\n9\n\n(Mem. ¶ 21). G Club has complied with its discovery obligations and will continue to comply.\n\nThe Trustee should similarly comply with due process rights, including service obligations.\n\n**WHEREFORE**, for the reasons set forth above, G Club requests that the Court (i) deny\n\nthe Trustee's demand for HCHK's production of G Club's privileged and non-responsive\n\ndocuments and request to modify the Order and (ii) grant G Club such other relief as is just.\n\n## **G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC**\n\nBy: */s/ Kellianne Baranowsky*\n\nGREEN & 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\nPILLSBURY 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*Attorneys 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 by CM/ECF and/or mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\nDate: September 29, 2023 /s/ Kellianne Baranowsky","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\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9月29日\nG CLUB OPERATIONS LLC 对受托人质疑 G CLUB 对 HCHK 所持文件中特权主张的备忘录的答复及对受托人相关拟定命令的反对意见\n\nG Club Operations LLC（“G Club”）对第 11 章受托人的《支持第 11 章受托人主张 G-Club Operations LLC 已放弃任何特权且无权对受让人根据破产规则第 9019 条和解协议移交给受托人的 G-Club 文件的关联性提出异议的法律备忘录》（对抗性程序案号 23-05013，ECF No. 86）2（下称“备忘录”或“Mem.”）提出异议。基于下述理由，法院已妥善考虑相关抗辩，并妥善发布了保护 G Club 正当程序权利且不对受托人造成损害的命令。\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 在其2023年7月28日发布的《关于根据破产规则第 9019 条批准第 11 章受托人与纽约州法院转让程序下 HCHK 实体受让人和解的命令》（ECF No. 2038，下称“命令”）中，法院命令受让人“向 G-Club 提供在任何时间点属于 G Club 财产的所有公司记录（包括电子形式）及其他文件”。（命令第 6(a) 段）。G Club 应“就特权以及对受托人依据规则第 2004 条向 G-Club 发出的传票的关联性审查此类公司记录及其他文件，并出具特权清单和关联性清单”。同上。因此，法院的命令在 G Club 的权利与第 11 章受托人的要求之间取得了平衡。该命令所规定的程序是充分的，其目的仅在于防止第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）审查享有特权或无关联性的文件——受托人自始便无权审查这些文件。\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（“债务人”）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 由 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团受托人 Luc A. Despins 转交（仅用于接收通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2 G Club 在本文件中将对抗性程序案号 23-05013 称为“对抗性程序”或“Adv. Proc.”。\n\n2. 尽管如此，受托人仍指责 G Club 搞“策略博弈”，声称其“目标”是“要求其供应商 HCHK Technologies（‘HCHK’）返还[其]文件”，从而导致“不再有任何文件留下”。（备忘录第 21 段）。迄今为止，G Club 已向受托人提供了 124,876 份文件，且 G Club 正在完成审查，准备在近期再提供 10,000 份文件以及一份特权清单。因此，事实与受托人关于 G Club 旨在阻止受托人审查 G Club 文件的断言相矛盾。相反，受托人企图通过与另一个实体 HCHK 达成的和解协议获取 G Club 的财产，这是企图剥夺 G Club 确定哪些文件具有关联性且不享有特权的权利，并企图规避进行文件审查和提供的正当且有序的程序。\n\n3. 与受托人缺乏事实和法律依据的断言相反，G Club 未放弃任何权利。G Club 与 HCHK 签约，由其为其通信等提供基于云端的存储和电子邮件系统的管理服务。该系统 Microsoft 365 是一套基于云端的企业系统，为各公司和律师事务所常规使用。HCHK 担任该系统的管理员与 G Club 主张特权无关；文件保存在“云端”，受托人并未主张（他也无法主张）除 G Club 员工之外有任何其他人曾审查过托管 G Club 域名云端上保存的文件。存储在由第三方管理的云系统中的特权文件绝不会丧失其受保护的地位。\n\n4. 受托人还错误地声称 HCHK 必须提供与受托人传票（“传票”）无关的 G Club 文件（备忘录第 2 段），但受托人不能逾越其自身传票的范围限制。G Club 有权像任何其他当事人一样在适当时机对其自身文件进行审查。受托人无权获取所有现存文件，然后由他自己来确定哪些文件与他自己的传票具有关联性，或哪些文件构成了 G Club 与其律师之间的特权通信。\n\n5. 认识到其论点的弱点后，受托人调转方向，现辩称 HCHK 所持有的 G Club 文件实际上可能与受托人向 HCHK 发出的传票具有关联性，并抱怨 HCHK 移交的文件少于 150 份。（备忘录第 14、16 段）。引人注目的是，虽然备忘录三次提及 HCHK 迄今为止提供文件的规模（备忘录第 2、7、16 段），但一次也没有提及 G Club 提供文件的规模，因为 G Club 已经并继续履行其证据开示义务。\n\n6. 如果受托人对 HCHK 提供文件的做法有异议，该争议属于受托人与 HCHK 之间的事情；G Club 的文件不应被卷入该争议中。受托人没有任何依据要求 HCHK 用属于 G Club 的任何文件（更不用说享有特权和无关联性的文件）来补充其自身的证据提供。\n\n相关程序历史\n\n7. 在其命令中，法院通过允许 G Club 查阅其文件，就规则第 9019 条和解妥善保护了 G Club 的正当程序权利。具体而言，该命令规定：\n受让人应向 G-Club 提供受让人持有的、在任何时间点属于 G-Club 财产的与 HCHK 实体有关的所有公司记录（包括电子形式）及其他文件。收到后，G-Club 应立即就特权以及对受托人依据规则第 2004 条向 G-Club 发出的传票的关联性审查此类公司记录及其他文件，并出具特权清单和关联性清单。G-Club 可根据保护令将其向受托人提供的材料指定为“机密”或“高度机密”。（命令第 6(a) 段）。\n\n8. 法院所规定的这一程序确保了 G Club 能够查阅其信息，并进行任何当事人在提供文件前都会进行的审查。该命令是在法院审议了 G Club 就规则第 9019 条动议提交的文件和抗辩后作出的，包括 G Club 的《关于 9019 动议和拟定命令的立场通知》（ECF No. 1977，下称“通知”）和 G Club 的《修改与依据规则第 9019 条关于与 HCHK 实体受让人和解的动议相关的经修订拟定命令的补充通知》（ECF No. 2007，下称“补充通知”）。G Club 将这两份通知并入本文件。\n\n9. 该命令还规定了 2023年8月11日 的截止日期，要求受托人“提交一份书面辩论意见，以支持受托人关于 G-Club 已放弃任何特权且无权对关联性提出异议的主张”。（命令第 6(b) 段）。2023年8月11日，受托人在一份 G Club 并非当事人的对抗性程序中提交了备忘录，且他未能将该备忘录在主案中提交或以其他方式送达 G Club。（参见 G Club 的《对受托人根据批准第 11 章受托人与纽约州法院转让程序下 HCHK 实体受让人和解的命令关于 G Club 文件的拟定补充命令的反对意见》，ECF No. 2233 第 2 页）。\n\n10. 当 2023年8月11日 截止日期过去而（据 G Club 所知）受托人未就该问题提交任何文件时，G Club 认为受托人已认识到法院命令的程序将允许其在适当时机审查属于 G Club 的所有无特权且具关联性的文件，并出于司法效率和维护第 11 章破产财团资源的考虑，决定不再就该问题进一步进行诉讼。（参见备忘录第 3 段（“规则第 9019 条和解协议的一个关键方面是维护第 11 章破产财团的资源，包括那些将耗费在争议性证据开示上的资源。”））。\n\n11. 2023年9月19日，法院“在一次听证会上询问了该问题”。（参见 ECF No. 2237）。受托人的律师“表示他认为受托人的律师正试图联系 G-Club 以确定该问题的进展”。同上。\n\n12. 在 2023年9月19日 之前或之后均未就这些文件或其备忘录联系过 G Club 的律师的情况下，受托人的律师于 2023年9月26日 提交了（仅在同一对抗性程序中）一份拟定补充命令，强迫 G Club 向受托人提供受让人向 G Club 提供的所有文件。（对抗性程序 ECF No. 130，附件 A）。然而这一次，受托人的律师向 G Club 记录在案的三名代理律师中的一位发送了电子邮件。受托人于 2023年9月26日 发送的电子邮件是自法院发布命令以来 G Club 收到的来自受托人的第一封、也是迄今为止唯一一封通信。\n\n13. 同一天，G Club 对受托人的拟定补充命令提出异议，请求给予七天时间对备忘录作出答复。（ECF No. 2233）。2023年9月28日，法院部分支持了该异议，给予 G Club 截至 2023年9月29日 下午 5:00 的时间对备忘录作出答复。3（ECF No. 2237）。\n\n论辩\n\n14. 正如 G Club 在规则第 9019 条动议提交后不久在其通知中首次指出的那样，“受托人与 HCHK Technologies 之间的拟定和解中，或任何拟定命令中，没有任何内容应放弃 G Club 的权利。”（ECF No. 1977 第 1 页）。受托人的抗辩毫无效力，原因有二：第一，G Club 并未通过使用 IT 服务而放弃任何特权。事实上，受托人对放弃特权的错误理解将波及任何使用第三方进行文件管理并采用云端解决方案的企业，包括任何律师事务所。第二，受托人关于其有权获得无关联性文件或来自 HCHK 的文件的声称，忽视了其已收到 G Club 提供的近 125,000 份具有关联性的文件这一事实，且更多文件以及一份特权清单很快就将提供。\n\n3 受托人就备忘录采取的策略（将其提交在 G Club 并非当事人的对抗性程序中，且从未向 G Club 提供备忘录的未涂抹副本）以及就拟定补充命令采取的策略（将其提交在同一对抗性程序中，但仅通过电子邮件向 G Club 三名记录在案律师中的一人发送副本），给人的印象是受托人正在进行——用受托人自己的话来说——“策略博弈”。\n\nI. G Club 未放弃任何特权\n\n15. 受托人（Trustee）关于「G-Club 已放弃向 HCHK 提供的其文件之任何特权」的断言，是基于错误前提和对法律的错误陈述。(备忘录第 26 段)。受托人称 G Club 已「自愿向三个第三方披露了这些文件的内容」，但在备忘录中，受托人没有指认任何一份被「披露」的文件，也没有指出任何实际看到文件「内容」的个人。同上。这是因为 G Club 并未向 HCHK 披露享有特权的文件；HCHK 仅是企业云端系统的管理员，而此类系统为公司和律师事务所常规使用。G Club 并未与 HCHK「分享其据称享有特权的信息」；它只是就文档管理系统的运营与第三方签订了合同。同上第 27 段。绝不能认为任何使用类似系统的人或实体都已放弃律师-委托人保密特权（attorney-client privilege）。\n\n16. 最近，Court of Chancery of Delaware（特拉华州衡平法院）裁定，让第三方「提供托管服务并未导致特权放弃」。见 Metro Storage Int'l LLC v. Herron, 275 A.3d 810, 871 (Del. Ch. 2022)。在该案中，法院认定由第三方存储电子邮件产生了「保持信息保密的义务」，且「这种情况与律师与服务提供商签订合同以提供电子邮件服务或在云端保存机密文件毫无二致」。同上。在脚注中，法院引用了一篇期刊文章和 American Bar Association（美国律师协会）的一份出版物，二者均认可云存储；前者甚至将 Microsoft 365（即本案中争议的基于云的解决方案）作为「不必然导致特权放弃」的一个例子加以引用。同上，第 871 页脚注 35。\n\n17. 在索取 G Club 享有特权的文件时，受托人玩弄了一些障眼法，将 G Club 定性为向 HCHK 提供「对其文件的访问权限」，但随后引用的数起判例均与访问权限无关。受托人未能指出任何一起第三方提供基于云的解决方案导致特权被打破的判例。那些案件均涉及第三方实际获悉了特权材料的实质内容，且受托人引用的若干判例早于基于云的技术出现。参见 Strougo v. BEA Assocs., 199 F.R.D. 515, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)（认定九名非董事且非律师人士出席现场董事会会议导致董事会会议纪要可能享有的特权被放弃）；Niceforo v. UBS Glob. Asset Mgmt. Americas, Inc., 20 F. Supp. 3d 428, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)（认定一名雇员在其雇主办公室保存的纸质笔记本不享有特权，因为该笔记本被其雇主审阅过，且她未能证明笔记本包含律师-委托人交流，亦未「合理尝试对这些陈述保密」）；United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011)（认定特权不涵盖从监狱打给家庭成员的电话，因为被告明知该通话被监狱工作人员录音）；United States v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir.1999)（认定当事人律师与第三方投资顾问之间关于金融交易的口头沟通不受当事人特权保护，因为该谈话旨在增进律师对该交易的理解）；Ampa Ltd. v. Kentfield Capital LLC, No. 00 Civ. 0508 NRB AJP, 2000 WL 1156860, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2000)（认定董事会会议纪要不享有特权，因为外部会计师出席了董事会会议且未参与讨论的法律问题）；In re Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72, 82 (2d Cir. 1973)（认定特权已被放弃，因为可能享有特权的纸质文件与非特权文件混存放在第三方可随意接触并主动审阅的文件柜中）。\n\n18. 受托人没有为使用基于云的文档管理解决方案可能导致特权放弃这一观点提供任何依据，因为根本不存在依据。\n\n19. 鉴于 HCHK 仅仅是托管 G Club 的数据，HCHK 不可能向受让人（Assignee）分享任何内容。事实上，根据《主服务协议》（Master Services Agreement），HCHK 负有保密义务。受让人显然无权或无授权访问属于 G Club 的电子邮件域名账户，并且没有任何指控称受让人团队的任何成员曾这样做过。4 因此，毫无理由主张涉及受让人的任何特权放弃。\n\n20. 受托人还错误地主张 G Club 未能对 HCHK 所拥有或控制的资产出售给 G News 的受让人程序提出异议。(备忘录第 31、32 段)。正如受托人深知的那样，受托人于 2023年6月9日 提交了《第11章受托人关于临时限制令及初步禁令的补充紧急单方动议》（「TRO 动议」），暂停了 HCHK 转让诉讼程序中的任何行动。(对抗诉讼 ECF No. 14。) 法院在各方提交异议的截止日期（2023年6月12日）以及 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）就向 G News 出售 HCHK 资产设定的听证日期（2023年6月13日）之前，批准了 TRO 动议（对抗诉讼 ECF No. 18）。因此，G Club 没有有意义的机会对 HCHK 向受让人的资产转让提出异议，亦没有机会\n\n4 而且，即使受让人团队的成员访问了这些账户，受让人也未获得 G Club 的授权。相反，G Club 于 2023年7月5日 书面确保受让人和受托人知晓这些文件不属于受让人访问或审阅的范围。\n\n对拟向 G News 出售相同资产提出异议。无论如何，该出售从未发生，因此受托人关于拟议出售引发特权放弃的主张完全毫无根据。\n\nII. 受托人无权审阅不具备关联性的文件\n\n21. 正如受托人无权审阅 G Club 享有特权的文件一样，受托人亦无权审阅 G Club 不符合传票要求的文件。针对该传票，G Club 已出示了近 125,000 份文件，并计划近期出示更多文件连同特权清单（privilege log）。G Club 预计在 2023年10月中旬 完成所有文件审阅并出具特权清单。如果受托人希望其当初传唤了其他文件，受托人不得利用 HCHK 作为获取这些文件的工具；受托人必须向 G Club 提出索取要求。\n\n22. 受托人进一步不当地企图利用送达给 HCHK（而非 G Club）的传票来获取 G Club 的财产，声称 HCHK 的文件出示「严重不足」。(备忘录第 16 段)。然而，这毫无关联。受托人不得利用 HCHK 据称未能出示相当数量文件的情况，强迫 HCHK 出示不属于 HCHK 的文件。受托人提出理论称 HCHK 是「他通过其『商业』活动获取资金的通道，他将这些资金部分用于资助其奢靡的生活方式」，且受托人需要从 HCHK 处获得「与所提供服务相关的文档」。(备忘录第 20 段)。G Club 不反对 HCHK 出示符合受托人传票要求的 HCHK 自身文件，G Club 也无法反对。但 G Club 的文件并不属于 HCHK。如果受托人对 HCHK 据称的不配合有异议，那不是 G Club 的问题，也与受托人请求修改该裁定（Order）毫无关联。\n\n23. 因此，受托人关于「像 G Club 这样的实体」正在进行「操弄博弈」以使受托人没有「审阅能力」的抹黑是毫无根据的。\n(备忘录第 21 段)。G Club 已遵守其证据开示义务，并将继续遵守。\n\n受托人同样应遵守正当程序权利，包括送达义务。\n\n据此，基于上述理由，G Club 请求法院：(i) 驳回受托人关于要求 HCHK 出示 G Club 享有特权和不具备关联性文件的要求以及修改该裁定的请求；以及 (ii) 授予 G Club 法院认为公正的其他救济。\n\nG CLUB OPERATIONS LLC\n\n签字人：/s/ Kellianne Baranowsky\n\nGREEN & 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\nPILLSBURY 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\nG Club Operations LLC 之代理律师\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，在下文注明的日期，本文件的副本已通过 CM/ECF 和/或邮寄方式送达给任何无法接受电子提交的人员。本项提交的通知将通过法院电子提交系统的运作以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本项提交。\n\n日期：2023年9月29日 /s/ Kellianne Baranowsky","key_entities":["HCHK","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":14,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":18,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":130,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1977,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2007,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2038,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2233,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2237,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3276,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:34:56"}