{"id":"court_ctb_2336_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2336,"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.1\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nNovember 15, 2023\n\n#### **NOTICE OF APPEAL**\n\nPLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001 *et seq.,* G Club\n\nOperations, LLC (\"**G Club Operations**\"), hereby files notice of its appeal from the Bankruptcy\n\nCourt's November 13, 2023 *Order Granting Motion for Order Requiring Production of G-Club*\n\n*Documents* (Filed only in the Adv. Proc. 23-5013, the \"**Ruling**\"), 2 granting the Trustee, Luc A.\n\nDespins, Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"**Trustee**\") access to all G Club Operations documents stored\n\nelectronically with HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"**HCHK**\") further to the *Trustee's Memorandum*\n\n*of Law in Support of Chapter 11 Trustee's Argument that G-Club Operations LLC Has Waived*\n\n*any Privilege and Has No Right to Object to Responsiveness* (the \"**Motion**\") (filed only in Adv.\n\nProc. 23-5013, ECF No. 86). A copy of the Ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit A\n\n1 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{00340394.2 } 2 G Club Operations is not a party to, was never served in, and no counsel has an appearance in Adv. Proc. 23-5013 (the \"**HCHK AP**\"). The Ruling relates to G Club's opposition to certain elements of an order entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9019 (Main Case ECF No. 2038), approving certain aspects of a settlement of the HCHK AP between the Trustee and HCHK. *See* Main Case ECF Nos. 2270, 2242, 2237, 2233, 2077, 2038, 1977). The Ruling appealed from, however, was entered only in the Adversary Proceeding, and thus this Notice is also filed in the Adversary Proceeding.\n\nThe names of all parties to the Court's order appealed from and the names, addresses and\n\ntelephone numbers of their respective attorneys are as follows:\n\n**Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne T. Baranowsky** Green & Sklarz LLC One Audubon Street, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 285-8545 Fax: (203) 823-4546 [jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com](mailto:jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com) [kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com](mailto:kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com) *Representing*\n\n**G Club Operations LLC** 53 Calle Palmeras, Suite 1401 Puerta De Tierra San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901\n\n*Party-in-Interest and Appellant*\n\nand\n\nCarolina A. Fornos (*pro hac vice*) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-858-1558 carolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\n\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781- 2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com and\n\nand\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n{00340394.2 } and\n\n*Representing* **Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee** PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166\n\n*Chapter 11 Trustee and Appellee*\n\nAvram E. Luft (pro hac vice) Douglass Barron (pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\nCounsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee\n\n# THE PARTY-IN-INTEREST G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC\n\nBy: /s/Jeffrey M. Sklarz Jeffrey M. Sklarz (ct20938) Green & Sklarz LLC 700 State St, Suite 100 New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 285-8545 Fax: (203) 823-4546 jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on the date set forth below a copy of the foregoing was served by CMECF 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 or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\nDate: November 15, 2017 /s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n{00340394.2 }\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n| In re: | )
)
Chapter 11
) |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., | )
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1 | )
)
(Jointly Administered)
) |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR THE
ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK,
Plaintiff, | )
)
Adv. P. No. 23-05013 (JAM)
)
)
Re: ECF No. 86
) |\n| v. | )
)
) |\n| HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HCHK PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, INC., LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND )
STAFFING, INC., HOLY CITY HONG KONG
VENTURES, LTD., ANTHONY DIBATTISTA,
YVETTE WANG, and BRIAN W. HOFMEISTER,
ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, | )
)
)
)
) |\n| Defendants. | )
)
) |\n| | |\n\n### **ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF G-CLUB DOCUMENTS**\n\n### **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\nBefore the Court is the Memorandum of Law in Support of Chapter 11 Trustee's\n\nArgument that G-Club Operations LLC Has Waived any Privilege and Has No Right to Object to\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, 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\nResponsiveness (the \"Motion\") (ECF No. 86)2 filed by Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the estate of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok, pursuant to decretal paragraph 6(b) of the Order Approving Chapter 11 Trustee's Settlement with Assignee of HCHK Entities (the \"Order Approving Settlement\") (ECF No. 70). For the reasons stated below, the relief requested in Motion is granted and an order requiring G-Club Operations LLC (\"G-Club\") and/or Mr. Brian Hofmeister, in his capacity as assignee for the benefit of creditors (the \"Assignee\") of HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"HCHK Tech\"), HCHK Property Management, Inc., and Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. (collectively, the \"HCHK Entities\") to produce documents possessed, previously as the case may be, by the Assignee, which documents were provided to G-Club by the Assignee pursuant to the Order Approving Settlement.\n\n#### **II. BACKGROUND**\n\nOn July 11, 2023 and July 18, 2023, hearings were held on, respectively, the Motion Regarding Settlement with Assignee of HCHK Entities under New York Court Assignment Proceedings (the \"Settlement Motion\") (Main Case ECF No. 1936; ECF No. 25) and a revised proposed order (the \"Revised Proposed Order\") regarding the Settlement Motion (Main Case ECF No. 2004; ECF No. 55), both filed by the Trustee. G-Club filed objections to the Settlement Motion and the Revised Proposed Order. (Main Case ECF Nos. 1977, 2007.) On July 28, 2023, the Court entered the Order Approving Settlement, which granted the Settlement Motion and approved the settlement between the Trustee and the Assignee. (Main Case ECF No. 2038; ECF No. 70.)\n\n2 References to the docket in this adversary proceeding will be styled \"ECF.\" References to the docket in the main case, *In re Kwok*, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), will be styled \"Main Case ECF.\"\n\nParagraph 6 of the Order Approving Settlement addressed to G-Club's only remaining objection to the Settlement Motion (*see* Main Case ECF No. 2030, at 128:5–48:8) by setting a briefing schedule whereby the Trustee and G-Club would contest whether G-Club had the right to review G-Club documents in the possession of the Assignee for responsiveness to the Rule 2004 subpoena served on G-Club and for privilege prior to the documents being produced to the Trustee. (Main Case ECF No. 2038 ¶ 6; ECF No. 70 ¶ 6.) On August 11, 2023, the Trustee timely filed the Motion arguing that G-Club did not have any right to review the documents for either responsiveness or privilege. (ECF No. 87.) On September 29, 2023, after certain developments (*see* Main Case ECF No. 2237), G-Club filed a response to the Trustee's memorandum (Main Case ECF No. 2244), arguing that G-Club had rights to review the documents for both responsiveness and privilege.\n\nOn October 24, 2023, a hearing was held on the arguments raised by the Trustee in the Motion. The Trustee and G-Club both appeared and argued their respective positions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement.\n\nThe dispute between the Trustee and G-Club is ripe for decision.\n\n#### **III. JURISDICTION**\n\nThe United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). This Court has authority to hear and determine this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and the Order of Reference of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dated September 21, 1984. The instant adversary proceeding in which the instant discovery dispute arises is a statutorily core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (O).\n\nVenue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n# **IV. DISCUSSION3**\n\nAt the outset, the Trustee and G-Club dispute the terms of the Order Approving Settlement and whether the Motion seeks relief from that order. The Trustee argues that the Order Approving Settlement provided for the parties to litigate the issues raised by the Motion. G-Club argues that it determined the issues in G-Club's favor. The Trustee is clearly correct. While decretal paragraph 6(a) of the Order Approving Settlement provides that the Assignee was to provide G-Club access to G-Club's documents in his possession and G-Club was afforded the opportunity to check for responsiveness to the Rule 2004 subpoena served on G-Club and privilege before producing the documents to the Trustee, decretal paragraph 6(b) provides that the Trustee and G-Club were to brief whether or not G-Club had any right to check the documents for responsiveness and/or privilege before G-Club and/or the Assignee produced them to the Trustee. Essentially, the Order Approving Settlement reserved the issues while providing a mechanism for discovery to continue pending a determination of the issues presently before the Court.\n\nThe Court did not previously decide the issues in G-Club's favor and will consider the parties' arguments regarding responsiveness and privilege below.\n\n#### **A. Responsiveness**\n\nThe Trustee argues that G-Club cannot object to the Assignee's production of the HCHK Entities' documents pursuant to the Order Approving Settlement on the basis that such documents are not responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena served on G-Club in Mr. Kwok's Chapter 11 case. Rather than relating to the G-Club subpoena, the Trustee contends, the\n\n3 The following constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, made applicable by Rule 7001 in adversary proceedings.\n\nsettlement reached with the Assignee relates to the discovery the Trustee would have otherwise pursued in this adversary proceeding and the Rule 2004 subpoena served on HCHK Tech in Mr. Kwok's Chapter 11 case.\n\nG-Club responds that the Trustee cannot obtain G-Club's property through discovery from HCHK Tech. Therefore, G-Club argues, the Trustee may only obtain documents from G-Club pursuant to the Rule 2004 subpoena served on it, subject to a responsiveness review by G-Club.\n\nThe Court agrees with the Trustee. First, the instant dispute is separate and distinct from the dispute over G-Club's compliance with the Rule 2004 subpoena served on it. The HCHK Entities provided the Assignee with the authority to settle with the Trustee in the deeds of assignment. (*See, e.g.*, Complaint Ex. 13, Affidavit and Petition of Brian Hofmeister Ex. B, § 4.) The Assignee did so: the Order Approving Settlement approved a settlement between the Trustee and the Assignee regarding this adversary proceeding and, in pertinent part, discovery therein – not a settlement between the Trustee and G-Club regarding discovery in Mr. Kwok's Chapter 11 case.\n\nIn this adversary proceeding, the Trustee alleges that the HCHK Entities are the *alter egos* of Mr. Kwok and/or Mr. Kwok beneficially owns the HCHK Entities and/or their assets. The Trustee additionally alleges that Mr. Kwok operates a tangled network of entities, relatives, and loyal followers to hide assets from his creditors. G-Club is allegedly one of those entities. But for the settlement with the Assignee, the Trustee would have pursued discovery from the HCHK Entities relating to their connection to G-Club. Indeed, the Trustee sought such discovery pre-litigation through the service of Rule 2004 subpoenas. The settlement between the Assignee and the Trustee seeks to resolve discovery issues between the Trustee and the HCHK\n\nEntities. The Rule 2004 subpoena served on G-Club is a separate issue and does not provide a basis for G-Club to object to the Assignee producing G-Club documents to the Trustee pursuant to the settlement.\n\nSecond, the Assignee, with the powers and rights assigned to him by HCHK Tech, may disclose G-Club documents. (Complaint Ex. 13, Affidavit and Petition of Brian Hofmeister Ex. B, §§ 1, 4.) Under the terms of the Master Services Agreement (the \"MSA\") between HCHK Tech and G-Club, the Assignee may disclose G-Club's documents to a third party as required by law. (Mot. Ex. A, § 6.2.)\n\nBefore such disclosure, however, the Assignee must inform G-Club to provide an opportunity for G-Club to seek a protective order or other appropriate relief. The Assignee has complied with his obligations under the MSA. G-Club was provided notice of the Settlement Motion, which was filed in Mr. Kwok's Chapter 11 case pursuant to D. Conn. L. Bankr. R. 9019- 1(a)(2) – in which G-Club receives notice through electronic notice and service upon appearing counsel – as well as in this adversary proceeding. Indeed, G-Club initially objected on confidentiality grounds – in line with the provisions of the MSA – as well as on responsiveness and privilege grounds. At the final hearing, however, G-Club abandoned its confidentiality objection because under the Revised Proposed Order, the Assignee would designate produced documents as \"confidential\" under the protective order entered in Mr. Kwok's Chapter 11 case (Main Case ECF No. 923). (Main Case ECF No. 2030, Hr'g Tr. at 128:5–48:8.) As the abandonment of this objection demonstrates, the settlement protects G-Club as envisioned by the MSA.\n\nFor all these reasons, the Court concludes that the Assignee may produce G-Club's documents without such documents being subject to G-Club's review for responsiveness to the\n\nRule 2004 subpoena served on G-Club in Mr. Kwok's Chapter 11 case. G-Club must, therefore, turn over to the Trustee the documents the Assignee produced to them pursuant to decretal paragraph 6a of the Order Approving Settlement without regard to whether any documents are responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena served on it.\n\n#### **B. Privilege**\n\nThe Trustee argues that G-Club has waived any privilege in the documents in the custody, control, and/or possession of the Assignee at the time of his settlement with the Trustee. G-Club, the Trustee asserts, waived any and all privilege in the documents when, first, G-Club entered into the MSA with HCHK Tech, wherein the Trustee contends HCHK Tech agreed to provide services beyond mere hosting of G-Club's documents and was provided access to those documents; second, G-club failed to object to the assignment of, allegedly, substantially all HCHK Tech's property to the Assignee, including G-Club's documents; and, third, G-Club failed to object to the Assignee's motion to sell HCHK Tech's assets to G-News Operations, LLC (\"G-News\").\n\nG-Club responds that the present facts and circumstances do not support the conclusion that G-Club has waived any privilege. Namely, G-Club argues that, notwithstanding the terms of the MSA, HCHK Tech merely hosted G-Club documents and did not access them; and G-Club's time to object to the assignment of HCHK Tech's assets to the Assignee and the proposed sale to G-News had not elapsed at the time the Court entered the temporary restraining order regarding the prosecution of the assignment proceedings. G-Club analogizes HCHK Tech's services to G-Club to Microsoft Corporation's (\"Microsoft\") provision of cloud storage and cloud-based office software to myriad individuals and entities and warns that an adverse ruling would have farreaching implications contrary to established law.\n\nThe Court agrees with the Trustee.\n\n\"[A]s with all privileges, the person claiming the attorney client privilege has the burden of establishing all essential elements.\" *In re Horowitz*, 482 F.2d 72, 82 (2d Cir. 1973) (citing *United States v. Kovel*, 296 F.2d 918, 923 (2d Cir. 1961)). \"The party asserting the privilege . . . bears the burden of establishing\" that the communications to be protected are \"communications (1) between a client and his or her attorney (2) that are intended to be, and in fact were, kept confidential (3) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.\" *United States v. Mejia*, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011); *see Strougo v. BEA Assocs.*, 199 F.R.D. 515, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing *United States v. Constr. Prod. Rsch., Inc.*, 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir. 1996)). \"A party seeking the protections of the attorney-client privilege must affirmatively act to protect her communications.\" *Niceforo v. UBS Glob. Asset Agmt. Ams., Inc.*, 20 F. Supp. 3d 428, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Undertaking actions that \"'will predictably lead to the disclosure' of privileged communications\" results in waiver of the attorney-client privilege, *Niceforo*, 20 F. Supp. 3d at 437; *see Horowitz*, 482 F.2d at 82, \"unless such disclosure was 'necessary, or at least highly useful, for the effective consultation between the client and the lawyer which the privilege is designed to permit'\", *Strougo*, 199 F.R.D. at 522 (citing case quoting *Kovel*, 296 F.2d at 922). Nevertheless, \"this extension [under *Kovel*] has always been a cabined one, and '[t]o that end, the privilege protects communications between a client and an attorney, not communications that prove important to an attorney's legal advice to a client.'\" *Mejia*, 655 F.3d at 132 (citing *United States v. Ackert*, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir. 1999)); *see Horowitz*, 482 F.2d at 80–82 (distinguishing *Kovel*).\n\nThe \"'common interest' doctrine\" presents an exception to waiver where multiple parties are represented by the same counsel and \"working together . . . towards a common goal\" or are\n\nrepresented by different counsel engaged in \"a common legal enterprise\" such that \"the nature of the [shared] interest be identical, not similar, and be legal, not solely commercial.\" *Strougo*, 199 F.R.D. at 520 (internal citations omitted). Nevertheless, the attorney-client privilege \"ought to be strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent with the logic of its principle.\" *Horowitz*, 482 F.2d at 81; *see Mejia*, 655 F.3d at 132.\n\nIn this case, the Affidavit and Petition of Brain Hofmeister similarly states that HCHK Tech provided \"a la carte consulting services across Technology, Product Development, Engineering, Human Resources, Recruitment, Legal, Finance, and R&D.\" (Complaint Ex. 13, Affidavit and Petition of Brian Hofmeister ¶ 4.) G-Club was a consumer of these wide-ranging services pursuant to the terms of the MSA. (*Id.* Ex. 13, Affidavit and Petition of Brian Hofmeister ¶ 5.) HCHK Tech provided those services as an independent contractor. (Mot. Ex. A, § 10.1.) Section 1.1 of the MSA states that the services HCHK Tech will provide to G-Club are listed on an exhibit to the MSA. (*Id.* Ex. A, § 1.1.) Exhibit A to the MSA lists five categories of service in addition to information technology support services, the sole category of service acknowledged by G-Club in its arguments. (*Id.* Ex. A, Ex. A.) Additional categories of service include, among other things, legal services, human resources services, financial services, and engineering/development services. (*Id.* Ex. A, Ex. A.) Section 6.2 of the MSA makes clear that HCHK Tech may use G-Club's documents in the course of providing the services listed on exhibit A to the agreement. (*Id.* Ex. A, § 6.2.) Despite G-Club's assertions to the contrary, HCHK Tech's relationship to G-Club is disanalogous to the relationships Microsoft has with the average consumer of its cloud services and cloud-based office software.\n\nFor that reason, *Metro Storage International v. Harron*, 275 A.2d 810, 868–72 (Del. Ch. 2022), cited by G-Club, is not persuasive on the instant facts. In that case, in pertinent part, the\n\nemployee defendant argued that the corporate plaintiffs' argument that he had breached confidentiality provisions in the plaintiffs' operating agreements through, *inter alia*, arguing that the plaintiffs had waived confidentiality by sharing their documents with a non-party corporation. *Harron*, 275 A.2d at 822–24, 868, 870–71. In *Harron*, the non-party corporation provided property management and related services as well as information technology services and stored all of the plaintiffs' electronic documents on its servers. *Id.* at 870–71. The Delaware Court of Chancery equated these technical services to those of, *e.g.*, g-mail or Microsoft 365, *Id.* at 871 n. 35, and held that the non-party was the plaintiffs' agent bound to maintain the confidentiality of the documents and, hence, in sharing the documents with the non-party did not constitute a waiver of confidentiality, *Id.* at 871.\n\nAs discussed above, however, unlike in *Harron*, in this case, HCHK Tech provided \"a la carte\" services over a variety of fields under the MSA, including fields that would require it to access the contents of the documents. (Mot. Ex. A, Ex. A.) Notwithstanding the terms of the MSA, G-Club argues that HCHK Tech was only the information technology manager for G-Club's domain name and did not have access to the documents. (ECF 168, Hr'g Tr. at 34:10– 37:13.) G-Club provides no evidence supporting this assertion and contradicting the MSA. G-Club additionally contends the Trustee has not proven that HCHK Tech accessed G-Club's documents. (*Id.*) In making these arguments, G-Club attempts to shirk its burden. *Mejia*, 655 F.3d at 132; *Horowitz*, 482 F.2d at 82; *Kovel*, 296 F.2d at 923; *Strougo*, 199 F.R.D. at 519. The Court declines to follow G-Club into error.\n\nThe burden is not on the Trustee to prove that HCHK accessed documents. Indeed, the Second Circuit held in *Horowitz* that a party waived the attorney-client privilege where he \"treated the communications between himself and counsel on the same basis as all other records,\n\nwith Horowitz, who was an independent contractor and not a servant, having a free run to look at what he pleased,\" 482 F.2d at 82, despite noting that \"[t]he record concerning Horowitz' use of the files containing communications between the Kassers and lawyers is meagre,\" *id.* at 80, and acknowledging Horowitz's contradictory testimony. The former was the basis of the holding in *Horowitz*, not the latter. *Id.* at 82.\n\nG-Club has not sought to fit its disclosure of privileged documents to HCHK Tech within an exception to waiver. G-Club makes no argument that disclosure to HCHK Tech was either necessary or highly useful in its consultation with its counsel. Similarly, G-Club makes no argument that HCHK Tech and G-Club share a common legal interest, either in shared representation or as part of a shared legal enterprise.\n\nTherefore, the Court concludes that through disclosure of its communications with HCHK Tech, G-Club waived the attorney-client privilege. Moreover, while it is true that G-Club's time to object to the assignment proceedings and/or the proposed sale of, *inter alia*, HCHK Tech to G-News through said assignment proceedings had not passed before the issuance of the temporary restraining order in this adversary proceeding, the Trustee is correct that G-Club has not established that it had any intent to oppose either the assignment or the sale. This further establishes that G-Club has treated its communications in ways that \"'predictably lead to the disclosure' of privileged communications.\" *Niceforo*, 20 F. Supp. 3d at 437; *see Horowitz*, 482 F.2d at 82.\n\nFor all these reasons, the Court concludes that G-Club has not met its burden to establish that the attorney-client privilege applies. The Assignee may produce G-Club's documents without such documents being subject to G-Club's review for privilege. G-Club must, therefore, turn over to the Trustee the documents the Assignee produced to them pursuant to decretal\n\nparagraph 6a of the Order Approving Settlement without regard to whether any documents are privileged.\n\n#### **V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER**\n\nAccordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED:** The relief requested in the Motion is **GRANTED**. On or before November 17, 2023, G-Club shall make available to the Trustee all documents provided to G-Club by the Assignee in accordance with paragraph 6(a) of the Order Approving Settlement; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** On or before November 17, 2023, the Assignee shall make available to the Trustee all copies retained by the Assignee of documents provided to G-Club by the Assignee in accordance with paragraph 6(a) of the Order Approving Settlement; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** All documents produced to the Trustee pursuant to this order shall be considered documents designated as \"confidential\" and subject to the protective order entered as ECF No. 923 in the jointly administered cases captioned *In re Kwok*, Case 22-50073 (JAM); and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** On or before November 14, 2023, the Trustee shall serve this Order on G-Club and the Assignee. On or before November, 15, 2023, the Trustee shall file a certificate of service evidencing compliance with this Order.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 13th day of November, 2023.","body_zh":"美利坚合众国康涅狄格地区破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n债务人。1\n\n第11章\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并管理）\n\nNovember 15, 2023\n\n上诉通知\n\n特此通知，根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001 及以下条款，G Club Operations, LLC（G Club Operations有限责任公司，以下简称“G Club Operations”）现就破产法院于 November 13, 2023 作出的准许要求提交 G-Club 文件之动议的命令（仅提交于对抗程序 23-5013，以下简称“裁定”）2 提出上诉；该裁定准许第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯，以下简称“受托人”）查阅 G Club Operations 以电子方式存储于 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK Technologies公司，以下简称“HCHK”）的全部文件，该等文件涉及受托人为支持其主张 G-Club Operations LLC 已放弃任何特权且无权对响应性提出异议而提交的法律备忘录（以下简称“动议”）（仅提交于对抗程序 23-5013，ECF No. 86）。裁定副本作为附件 A 随附于此。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）（以下简称“债务人”）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（Paul Hastings律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n{00340394.2 } 2 G Club Operations 并非对抗程序 23-5013（以下简称“HCHK 对抗程序”）的当事人，从未在该程序中获送达，且没有律师在该程序中提交出庭登记。该裁定涉及 G Club 对根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9019 作出的命令（主案 ECF No. 2038）中某些要素的反对；该命令批准了受托人与 HCHK 就 HCHK 对抗程序达成的和解的某些方面。见主案 ECF Nos. 2270, 2242, 2237, 2233, 2077, 2038, 1977)。然而，被上诉的裁定仅在对抗程序中作出，因此本通知亦提交于该对抗程序中。\n\n被上诉法院命令的所有当事人姓名，以及其各自律师的姓名、地址和电话号码如下：\n\nJeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）\nKellianne T. Baranowsky（凯莉安娜·T·巴拉诺夫斯基）\nGreen & Sklarz LLC（Green & Sklarz有限责任公司）\nOne Audubon Street, 3rd Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n(203) 285-8545\n传真：(203) 823-4546\n[jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com]\n[kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com]\n代理\n\nG Club Operations LLC\n53 Calle Palmeras, Suite 1401\nPuerta De Tierra\nSan Juan, Puerto Rico 00901\n\n利害关系方及上诉人\n\n以及\n\nCarolina A. Fornos（卡罗莱纳·A·福尔诺斯）（临时准许出庭）\nPILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP（PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN律师事务所）\n31 West 52nd Street\nNew York, NY 10019\n电话：212-858-1558\ncarolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH专业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781- 2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n以及\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（临时准许出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（Paul Hastings律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n{00340394.2 } 以及\n\n代理第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n第11章受托人及被上诉人\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（临时准许出庭）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（临时准许出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人的律师\n利害关系方 G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC\n\n签字人：/s/Jeffrey M. Sklarz\nJeffrey M. Sklarz (ct20938)\nGreen & Sklarz LLC\n700 State St, Suite 100\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n(203) 285-8545\n传真：(203) 823-4546\njsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于下述日期，上述文件副本已通过 CMECF 和/或邮寄方式送达给任何无法接受电子提交的人。根据法院电子提交系统的运行，本次提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人；或者，如电子提交通知中所示，将邮寄给任何无法接受电子提交的人。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交。\n\n日期：November 15, 2017 /s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz\n\n附件 A\n\n{00340394.2 }\n\n美利坚合众国康涅狄格地区破产法院\n（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）\n\n关于： )\n)\n第11章\n)\n\nHO WAN KWOK等人， )\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1 )\n)\n（合并管理）\n)\nLUC A. DESPINS，作为\nHO WAN KWOK 遗产的第11章受托人，\n原告， )\n)\n对抗程序编号：23-05013 (JAM)\n)\n)\n关于：ECF No. 86\n)\n诉 )\n)\n)\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.、HCHK PROPERTY\nMANAGEMENT, INC.、LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND )\nSTAFFING, INC.、HOLY CITY HONG KONG\nVENTURES, LTD.、ANTHONY DIBATTISTA（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）、\nYVETTE WANG（伊薇特·王）及 BRIAN W. HOFMEISTER（布赖恩·W·霍夫迈斯特），\n为债权人利益的受让人， )\n)\n)\n)\n)\n被告。 )\n)\n)\n\n准许要求提交 G-CLUB 文件之动议的命令\n\nI. 引言\n\n法院现审理由 Luc A. Despins 先生以 Ho Wan Kwok 先生遗产第11章受托人身份（以下简称“受托人”）提交的、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响应性提出异议的法律备忘录（以下简称“动议”）（ECF No. 86）2，该动议依据准许第11章受托人与 HCHK Entities 受让人达成和解的命令（以下简称“准许和解命令”）（ECF No. 70）判令第6(b)段提出。基于下述理由，准许动议所请求的救济，并命令 G-Club Operations LLC（以下简称“G-Club”）和/或 Brian Hofmeister 先生以 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（以下简称“HCHK Tech”）、HCHK Property Management, Inc. 及 Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（统称“HCHK Entities”）为债权人利益的受让人身份（以下简称“受让人”），提交由受让人目前或曾经持有（视具体情况而定）的文件；该等文件系受让人依照准许和解命令向 G-Club 提供的文件。\n\nII. 背景\n\n2023年7月11日和2023年7月18日，法院分别就受托人提交的、关于在纽约法院让与程序中与 HCHK Entities 受让人达成和解的动议（以下简称“和解动议”）（主案 ECF No. 1936；ECF No. 25），以及关于和解动议的经修订拟议命令（以下简称“经修订拟议命令”）（主案 ECF No. 2004；ECF No. 55）举行听证。G-Club 对和解动议及经修订拟议命令提出异议。（主案 ECF Nos. 1977, 2007。）2023年7月28日，法院作出准许和解命令，准许和解动议并批准受托人与受让人之间的和解。（主案 ECF No. 2038；ECF No. 70。）\n\n2 对本对抗程序案卷的引用将标为“ECF”。对主案 In re Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) 案卷的引用将标为“主案 ECF”。\n\n准许和解命令第6段通过设定书面陈述时间表处理了 G-Club 对和解动议仅剩的异议（见主案 ECF No. 2030，第128:5–48:8页）；依该时间表，受托人与 G-Club 将就 G-Club 在文件提交给受托人前，是否有权审阅受让人持有的 G-Club 文件，以核查其对送达给 G-Club 的 Rule 2004 传票的响应性及特权问题进行争议。（主案 ECF No. 2038 ¶ 6；ECF No. 70 ¶ 6。）2023年8月11日，受托人及时提交动议，主张 G-Club 无权为响应性或特权而审阅该等文件。（ECF No. 87。）2023年9月29日，在出现某些进展后（见主案 ECF No. 2237），G-Club 就受托人的备忘录提交答复（主案 ECF No. 2244），主张 G-Club 有权审阅该等文件的响应性和特权问题。\n\n2023年10月24日，法院就受托人在动议中提出的论点举行听证。受托人与 G-Club 均出庭并就各自立场进行了辩论。听证结束时，法院将该事项留待审议。\n\n受托人与 G-Club 之间的争议现已适于作出裁决。\n\nIII. 管辖权\n\nUnited States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美利坚合众国康涅狄格地区联邦地区法院）依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本事项具有管辖权。本法院依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 于 September 21, 1984 作出的移送命令，有权审理并裁决本事项。产生本发现争议的本对抗程序是法定核心程序。28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (O)。\n\n依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本地区为适格审判地。\n\nIV. 讨论3\n\n首先，受托人与 G-Club 对准许和解命令的条款以及该动议是否寻求免除该命令的救济存在争议。受托人主张，准许和解命令规定当事人就动议提出的问题进行诉讼。G-Club 主张，该命令已就该等问题作出有利于 G-Club 的裁决。受托人的主张显然正确。尽管准许和解命令判令第6(a)段规定，受让人应允许 G-Club 查阅其持有的 G-Club 文件，并给予 G-Club 机会在将文件提交给受托人前，核查其对送达给 G-Club 的 Rule 2004 传票的响应性及特权问题，但判令第6(b)段规定，受托人与 G-Club 应就 G-Club 在 G-Club 和/或受让人向受托人提交文件前，是否有权核查文件的响应性和/或特权问题进行书面陈述。实质上，准许和解命令保留了这些问题，同时提供了一种机制，使发现程序在等待对目前提交法院的问题作出裁决期间得以继续进行。\n\n法院此前并未作出有利于 G-Club 的裁决，并将在下文审议当事人关于响应性和特权的论点。\n\nA. 响应性\n\n受托人主张，G-Club 不得以根据准许和解命令提交的 HCHK Entities 文件对郭先生第11章案件中送达给 G-Club 的 Rule 2004 传票不具响应性为由，对受让人的提交提出异议。受托人认为，该和解并非涉及 G-Club 传票，而是涉及受托人原本会在本对抗程序中寻求的发现，以及在郭先生第11章案件中送达给 HCHK Tech 的 Rule 2004 传票。\n\n3 下述内容构成法院根据 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 第7052条作出的事实认定和法律结论；该规则依据第7001条适用于对抗程序。\n\nG-Club 回应称，受托人不能通过向 HCHK Tech 进行发现取得 G-Club 的财产。因此，G-Club 主张，受托人只能依据向其送达的 Rule 2004 传票从 G-Club 取得文件，但须由 G-Club 审查其响应性。\n\n本院同意受托人的意见。首先，本案争议与就向G-Club（G俱乐部）送达的Rule 2004传票而言的G-Club遵从问题，彼此独立且有所区别。HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）在转让契据中授予受让人与受托人和解的权限。（见，例如，Complaint Ex. 13, Affidavit and Petition of Brian Hofmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特） Ex. B, § 4。）受让人已如此行事：批准和解命令批准了受托人与受让人就本对抗性程序以及其中相关的证据开示达成的和解，而非受托人与G-Club就Kwok先生（郭文贵）的第11章案件中的证据开示达成的和解。\n\n在本对抗性程序中，受托人主张，HCHK实体是Kwok先生的另一个自我，和/或Kwok先生实益拥有HCHK实体和/或其资产。受托人还主张，Kwok先生通过一个错综复杂的实体、亲属及忠实追随者网络，向其债权人隐匿资产。据称，G-Club是其中一个实体。若非与受让人达成和解，受托人本会就HCHK实体与G-Club之间的关联向HCHK实体寻求证据开示。事实上，受托人在诉前已通过送达Rule 2004传票寻求此类证据开示。受让人与受托人之间的和解旨在解决受托人与HCHK实体之间的证据开示问题。向G-Club送达的Rule 2004传票属于独立问题，不能构成G-Club反对受让人根据和解向受托人提交G-Club文件的依据。\n\n第二，受让人凭借HCHK Tech（HCHK技术公司）向其转让的权力和权利，可以披露G-Club文件。（Complaint Ex. 13, Affidavit and Petition of Brian Hofmeister Ex. B, §§ 1, 4。）根据HCHK Tech与G-Club之间的《主服务协议》（以下简称“MSA”）条款，受让人可在法律要求的情况下向第三方披露G-Club的文件。（Mot. Ex. A, § 6.2。）\n\n但是，在作出该等披露之前，受让人必须通知G-Club，以便G-Club有机会寻求保护令或其他适当救济。受让人已履行其在MSA项下的义务。G-Club已收到和解动议的通知；该动议依D. Conn. L. Bankr. R. 9019- 1(a)(2)在Kwok先生的第11章案件中提交——在该案件中，G-Club通过电子通知以及向出庭代理律师送达而收到通知——并且亦在本对抗性程序中提交。事实上，G-Club最初基于保密性理由——符合MSA的规定——以及响应性和特权理由提出异议。然而，在最终听证会上，G-Club放弃了其保密性异议，因为根据修订后的拟议命令，受让人将依Kwok先生第11章案件中作出的保护令，将已提交文件指定为“保密”（Main Case ECF No. 923）。（Main Case ECF No. 2030, Hr'g Tr. at 128:5–48:8。）如放弃该异议所表明，和解以MSA所设想的方式保护了G-Club。\n\n基于上述所有理由，本院认定，受让人可提交G-Club的文件，而无须使该等文件接受G-Club审查，以确定其是否对在Kwok先生第11章案件中向G-Club送达的Rule 2004传票具有响应性。因此，G-Club必须依照批准和解命令主文第6a段，将受让人根据该段向其提交的文件交付给受托人，而不论任何文件是否对向其送达的Rule 2004传票具有响应性。\n\nB. 特权\n\n受托人主张，在其与受托人和解时由受让人保管、控制和/或占有的文件中，G-Club已放弃任何特权。受托人主张，G-Club在以下情形中放弃了文件中的任何及所有特权：第一，G-Club与HCHK Tech订立MSA，其中受托人认为HCHK Tech同意提供超出仅托管G-Club文件之外的服务，并获准访问该等文件；第二，G-Club未对据称将HCHK Tech几乎全部财产（包括G-Club文件）转让给受让人提出异议；第三，G-Club未对受让人出售HCHK Tech资产给G-News Operations, LLC（“G-News”）的动议提出异议。\n\nG-Club答称，当前的事实和情形并不支持G-Club已放弃任何特权的结论。具体而言，G-Club主张，尽管MSA有相关条款，HCHK Tech仅托管G-Club文件而未访问该等文件；并且，在本院就推进转让程序作出临时限制令时，G-Club对将HCHK Tech资产转让给受让人及拟议出售给G-News提出异议的期限尚未届满。G-Club将HCHK Tech向G-Club提供的服务类比于Microsoft Corporation（微软公司）向众多个人和实体提供云存储及基于云的办公软件，并警告称，不利裁决将产生违背既定法律的深远影响。\n\n本院同意受托人的意见。\n\n“如同所有特权一样，主张律师—当事人特权的人负有证明全部必要要件的责任。”In re Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72, 82 (2d Cir. 1973) (citing United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 923 (2d Cir. 1961))。“主张特权的一方……负有证明责任”，即寻求保护的通信是“通信：（1）当事人与其律师之间的通信；（2）意图并且事实上均保持保密的通信；（3）为取得或提供法律意见而进行的通信。”United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011); see Strougo v. BEA Assocs., 199 F.R.D. 515, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing United States v. Constr. Prod. Rsch., Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir. 1996))。“寻求律师—当事人特权保护的一方必须积极采取行动保护其通信。”Niceforo v. UBS Glob. Asset Agmt. Ams., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 3d 428, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)。采取“‘可预见地导致’特权通信被披露”的行动，会导致放弃律师—当事人特权，Niceforo, 20 F. Supp. 3d at 437; see Horowitz, 482 F.2d at 82，除非该等披露“‘对于该特权旨在允许的当事人与律师之间的有效咨询而言是必要的，或者至少是高度有用的’”，Strougo, 199 F.R.D. at 522 (citing case quoting Kovel, 296 F.2d at 922)。然而，“这一［Kovel项下的］扩展始终受到严格限制，并且‘为此，特权保护的是当事人与律师之间的通信，而非证明对律师向当事人提供法律意见具有重要意义的通信。’”Mejia, 655 F.3d at 132 (citing United States v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir. 1999)); see Horowitz, 482 F.2d at 80–82 (distinguishing Kovel)。\n\n在多方由同一律师代理并且“共同……致力于一个共同目标”，或者由不同律师代理且从事“共同法律事业”时，“共同利益”原则构成放弃的一项例外；在此情况下，“［共享］利益的性质必须相同而非相似，并且必须是法律利益，而非仅是商业利益。”Strougo, 199 F.R.D. at 520 (internal citations omitted)。然而，律师—当事人特权“应当在符合其原理逻辑的最狭窄可能范围内受到严格限制。”Horowitz, 482 F.2d at 81; see Mejia, 655 F.3d at 132。\n\n在本案中，Brian Hofmeister的宣誓书及申请书同样记载，HCHK Tech提供“涵盖技术、产品开发、工程、人力资源、招聘、法律、财务及研发的按需咨询服务”。（Complaint Ex. 13, Affidavit and Petition of Brian Hofmeister ¶ 4。）G-Club根据MSA条款使用该等广泛服务。（Id. Ex. 13, Affidavit and Petition of Brian Hofmeister ¶ 5。）HCHK Tech以独立承包商身份提供该等服务。（Mot. Ex. A, § 10.1。）MSA第1.1节规定，HCHK Tech将向G-Club提供的服务列于MSA的附件中。（Id. Ex. A, § 1.1。）MSA附件A除信息技术支持服务——G-Club在其论证中承认的唯一服务类别——外，还列有五类服务。（Id. Ex. A, Ex. A。）其他服务类别包括但不限于法律服务、人力资源服务、财务服务和工程/开发服务。（Id. Ex. A, Ex. A。）MSA第6.2节明确规定，HCHK Tech可在提供协议附件A所列服务的过程中使用G-Club文件。（Id. Ex. A, § 6.2。）与G-Club相反的主张不同，HCHK Tech与G-Club之间的关系，不同于Microsoft（微软）与其云服务和基于云的办公软件普通消费者之间的关系，二者不具有可比性。\n\n因此，G-Club援引的Metro Storage International v. Harron, 275 A.2d 810, 868–72 (Del. Ch. 2022)，对本案事实没有说服力。在该案中，与本案相关的是，雇员被告主张，公司原告关于其违反原告运营协议中保密条款的论点，其中包括主张原告因与一家非当事人公司共享文件而放弃保密性。Harron, 275 A.2d at 822–24, 868, 870–71。在Harron案中，该非当事人公司提供物业管理及相关服务以及信息技术服务，并将原告的所有电子文件存储在其服务器上。Id. at 870–71。特拉华州衡平法院将这些技术服务等同于例如g-mail或Microsoft 365的服务，Id. at 871 n. 35，并认定该非当事人是原告的代理人，负有维护文件保密性的义务，因此，与该非当事人共享文件不构成放弃保密性，Id. at 871。\n\n然而，如上所述，与Harron案不同，在本案中，HCHK Tech根据MSA在多个领域提供“按需”服务，包括要求其访问文件内容的领域。（Mot. Ex. A, Ex. A。）尽管MSA有相关条款，G-Club主张，HCHK Tech仅是G-Club域名的信息技术管理者，并无权访问该等文件。（ECF 168, Hr'g Tr. at 34:10– 37:13。）G-Club未提供任何支持该主张且与MSA相矛盾的证据。G-Club还主张，受托人未证明HCHK Tech访问过G-Club文件。（Id.）G-Club提出这些论点，意图逃避其举证责任。Mejia, 655 F.3d at 132; Horowitz, 482 F.2d at 82; Kovel, 296 F.2d at 923; Strougo, 199 F.R.D. at 519。本院拒绝随G-Club陷入错误。\n\n举证责任不在受托人，而在于证明HCHK访问过文件。事实上，第二巡回法院在Horowitz案中裁定，一方在以下情形中放弃了律师—当事人特权：其“以对待所有其他记录的相同方式对待其本人与律师之间的通信，Horowitz作为独立承包商而非受雇人，可随意查阅其所愿查阅的任何内容”，482 F.2d at 82，尽管该法院指出，“关于Horowitz使用包含Kasser家族与律师之间通信的文件的记录很少”，id. at 80，且承认Horowitz存在相互矛盾的证词。前者而非后者，构成Horowitz案裁决的依据。Id. at 82。\n\nG-Club（G-Club）未试图使其向 HCHK Tech（HCHK Tech）披露享有特权的文件符合任何豁免放弃的例外情形。G-Club 并未主张，向 HCHK Tech 披露该等文件对于其与律师的磋商而言是必要的或极其有用的。同样，G-Club 亦未主张 HCHK Tech 与 G-Club 存在共同法律利益，无论是在共同代理中，还是作为共同法律事务的一部分。\n\n因此，本院认定，G-Club 通过向 HCHK Tech 披露其通信内容，放弃了律师—客户特权。此外，诚然，在本对抗程序中临时限制令签发之前，G-Club 对转让程序及／或通过所述转让程序向 G-News（G-News）出售包括 HCHK Tech 在内的财产提出异议的期限尚未届满；但受托人正确指出，G-Club 未能证明其有意反对该转让或该出售。本院进一步认定，G-Club 对其通信内容的处理方式“可预见地导致”享有特权的通信内容被披露。Niceforo, 20 F. Supp. 3d at 437; see Horowitz, 482 F.2d at 82。\n\n基于上述全部理由，本院认定，G-Club 未能履行其证明律师—客户特权适用的举证责任。受让人可提交 G-Club 的文件，而该等文件无需先由 G-Club 审查其是否享有特权。因此，无论任何文件是否享有特权，G-Club 必须向受托人交付受让人依据《批准和解裁定》主文第6a段向其提交的文件。\n\nV. 结论及命令\n\n据此，基于上述理由，现命令如下：\n\n命令：准许该动议所请求的救济。于2023年11月17日或之前，G-Club 应向受托人提供受让人根据《批准和解裁定》第6(a)段向 G-Club 提供的全部文件；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：于2023年11月17日或之前，受让人应向受托人提供受让人所保留的、受让人根据《批准和解裁定》第6(a)段向 G-Club 提供的全部文件副本；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：根据本命令向受托人提交的全部文件，均应视为被指定为“保密”的文件，并受在共同管理的、题为 In re Kwok, Case 22-50073 (JAM) 的案件中作为 ECF No. 923 登记的保护令约束；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：于2023年11月14日或之前，受托人应向 G-Club 和受让人送达本命令。于2023年11月15日或之前，受托人应提交送达证明，以证明其遵守本命令。\n\n于2023年11月13日，订立于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。","key_entities":["HCHK","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Guo","Miles Guo","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":25,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":55,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":70,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":87,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":168,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":923,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1936,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2004,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2030,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2038,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2237,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2244,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4193,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:32:51"}