{"id":"court_ctb_2338_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2338,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-11-13","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In re:","summary_zh":"上诉期间中止执行动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2338（2023-11-13立案）。G Club Operations LLC 依据破产规则第 8007 条申请紧急中止执行破产法院 2023 年 11 月 13 日的裁定，以防在对文件移交及特权放弃认定提起上诉审理前被强制移交相关文件。","summary_en":"Motion to Stay Pending Appeal — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2338 (filed Nov 13, 2023). G Club Operations LLC moves under Bankruptcy Rule 8007 for an emergency stay pending appeal of the Bankruptcy Court's November 13, 2023 order requiring turnover of documents held by HCHK Technologies to the Trustee by November 17, 2023.","body_en":"### **IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.*,\n\nDebtors.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n### **G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC'S MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 8007**\n\nPursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8007(a)(1)(A), G Club Operations LLC (\"G Club Operations\") requests a stay of the Court's Order, dated November 13, 2023, granting the Chapter 11 Trustee's *Motion that G-Club Operations LLC Has Waived any Privilege and Has No Right to Object to Responsiveness. Despins et al v. HCHK Technologies, Inc. et al*, No. 23-05013 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jun. 8, 2023) (Dkt No. 179) (the \"Order\"). That final appealable Order requires that G Club Operations and the Assignee of HCHK Technologies turn over to the Trustee privileged communications of G Club Operations, among other documents, by November 17, 2023 (less than the 14 days a party has to appeal an Order) because HCHK Technologies acted as an internet administrator to G Club Operations, as well as other customers. This Order is erroneous and creates a dangerous precedent that essentially holds that when a business or individual outsources its IT services to a provider which may also provide additional services, then that business or individual loses all rights to and in its documents, including the right to protect from disclosure attorney-client and work-product privileged communications. Respectfully, the Court erred in issuing this Order and G Club Operations has filed a Notice of Appeal to the District Court challenging the Order.\n\nAs explained herein, G Club Operations satisfies the requisite elements for a stay pending\n\nappeal because (1) failure to grant the stay and forcing G Club Operations to turn privileged communications over to the Trustee before an appeal is heard will effectively deprive G Club Operations of the right to appeal by rendering the appeal moot and irrevocably impacting its due process rights; (2) there is no harm to the Trustee as the Trustee has already received more than 140,000 documents from G Club Operations in connection with the Rule 2004 process, in addition to having issued far in excess of 200 Rule 2004 subpoenas; (3) the ruling is against public policy as it implicates the privacy and constitutionally protected rights of millions of customers; and (4) G Club Operations is likely to succeed on the merits because the Court's reasoning is incorrect. Accordingly, a stay pending appeal should be granted so protected documents are not turned over before the issues on appeal are finally resolved.\n\nBecause the Order requires compliance by November 17, 2023, exigent circumstances exist to address this motion on an emergency motion. Further, G Club Operations respectfully requests that, to the extent practical, the Court rule on this motion no later than Thursday, November 16, 2023, so that G Club Operations may have the opportunity to seek further appropriate relief from the District Court if necessary. In the absence of a ruling, G Club Operations intends to file a motion to stay in the District Court on Friday, November 15, 2023.\n\n### **RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND<sup>1</sup>**\n\n1. On June 23, 2023, the Trustee filed a Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Regarding Settlement with Assignee of HCHK Entities Under New York Court Assignment\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Order arises from a Rule 9019 Motion relating to HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\"), HCHK Property Management, Inc. (\"HCHK Property\") and Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. (\"HCHK Lexington\") (collectively, \"HCHK Entities\") via the alleged authority of an Assignee, with the subject matter of the Order resolving a final discrete issue – G Club's objection on due process grounds. The Order is a final order for purposes of appeal because it \"definitively dispose of [a] discrete disputes within the overarching bankruptcy case.\" *Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC*, 140 S. Ct. 582, 586 (2020) (citation omitted). The Court has approved the Rule 9019 Motion.\n\nProceedings (No. 22-50073, Dkt No. 1936) (the \"9019 Motion\"). The 9019 Motion included a Proposed Order that HCHK Technologies turn over to the Trustee all documents to which it may have had access. (*Id.*, Dkt. No. 2004) (the \"Revised Proposed Order\"). Specifically, Paragraph 6 of the Revised Proposed Order stated:\n\n**\"Corporate Records.** The Assignee shall immediately make available to the Trustee all non-privileged corporate records (including in electronic form) and other documents pertaining to the HCHK Entities in the possession of the Assignee. All such corporate records and other documents shall be considered documents designated as \"confidential\" and subject to the protective order entered in this Chapter 11 Case on October 6, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 923].\"\n\n*Id.* at 3, ¶. 2\n\n2. On July 5, 2023, and again on July 14, 2023 (*id.*, Dkt. Nos. 1977 and 2007 respectively), G Club Operations objected to Paragraph 6 of the Proposed Order and requested an orderly process by which to preclude a wholesale turnover of confidential and privileged materials to the Trustee simply because it outsourced IT services.\n\n3. On July 28, 2023, the Court ruled on the 9019 Motion, granting the 9019 Motion\n\nbut modifying Paragraph 6 of the Proposed Order to provide:\n\n**Corporate Records:** (a) The Assignee shall immediately secure and safeguard all corporate records (including in electronic form) and other documents pertaining to the HCHK Entities in the possession of the Assignee. Within ten (10) days from the date of the entry of this Order, the Assignee shall make available to the Trustee all non-privileged corporate records (including in electronic form) and other documents pertaining to the HCHK Entities in the possession of the Assignee, *except those that were at any point the property of G-Club Operation LLC (\"G-Club\")*. All such corporate records and other documents shall be considered documents designated as \"confidential\" and subject to the protective order entered in this Chapter 11 Case on October 6, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 923] (the \"Protective Order\"). Also within ten (10) days from the date of the entry of this Order, the 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*\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Rule 9019 was entered into between the Assignee of the HCHK Entities and the Trustee. Various issues related to that Rule 9019 Order are the subject of an appeal. *See* No. 23-05013, Dkt. Nos. 70, 80, and 98.\n\n*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.\n\n*Id.*, Dkt. No. 2038 at 4, ¶ 6(a)) (emphasis added).\n\n4. The Court also provided that \"[o]n or before August 11, 2023, the Trustee shall 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. On or before August 18, 2023, G-Club shall file any response to the Trustee's brief.\" *Id.* at 5, ¶ 6(b).\n\n5. On August 11, 2023, the Trustee filed a *Memorandum of 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* (the \"Waiver Motion\"), which the Trustee filed in Adversary Proceeding No. 23-05013, ECF No. 86 (and not in No. 22-50073, as all other filings had previously been made).\n\n6. G Club Operations opposed the Waiver Motion on September 29, 2023, filing its *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*. (No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2244). 3\n\n7. On November 13, 2023, the Court issued the Order granting the Trustee's Waiver Motion and ordering production by G Club Operations and the Assignee of HCHK Technologies by November 17, 2023, which is less than the time afforded G Club Operations to appeal the Order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8002. This Order is final.\n\n<sup>3</sup> G Club filed on a different date for the reasons set forth in its *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* (No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2233).\n\n#### **A STAY OF THE ORDER PENDING APPEAL IS PROPER**\n\n8. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has established the\n\nfollowing four-part test for determining whether to grant a motion for stay pending appeal:\n\n(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.\n\n*In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig.*, 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Each factor favors a stay in this case. A stay is \"'an exercise of judicial discretion,' and '[t]he party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.'\" *Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n v. de Blasio*, 973 F.3d 41, 48 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting *Nken v. Holder*, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1760 (2009)).\n\n## **A. Absent a Stay, G Club Operations Will Be Irreparably Harmed by Deprivation of Appeal Rights and a Waiver of Privilege**\n\n9. Absent a stay, G Club Operations will suffer irreparable injury because one cannot effectively undo the wholesale turnover of privileged communications to the Trustee and, as a result, that turnover may render the appeal moot. Courts have found that irreparable injury exists when the denial of a stay creates the potential for a complete loss of a right for the moving party. *In re St. Johnsbury Trucking Co., Inc.*, 185 B.R. 687, 690 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (finding that if the government's appeal here is mooted, it will lose the ability to enforce some provisions of CERCLA and the Internal Revenue Code; it is that threatened loss rather than the loss of the right to appeal *vel non* that gives rise to the Court's irreparable injury finding). \"[W]here the denial of a stay pending appeal risks mooting *any* appeal of *significant* claims of error, the irreparable harm requirement is satisfied.\" *In re BGI, Inc.*, 504 B.R. 754, 763 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, alterations added).\n\n10. That is precisely the issue here; G Club Operations' rights absent a stay will forever be lost as production of privileged information likely would moot any meaningful remedy if the Order is overturned on appeal. The production deadline in the Order requires compliance by November 17, 2023. This production includes privileged communications between G Club Operations and its counsel. If G Club Operations, or HCHK, is forced to comply with the Order, G Club Operations will effectively forever lose its right to protect confidential communications with its attorneys. Once obtained, the Trustee and his advisors cannot unlearn the privileged communications they will see and review.\n\n### **B. A Stay Will Not Prejudice the Trustee**\n\n11. Unlike any other party in this bankruptcy matter, the Trustee has availed itself of the broad discovery afforded under Rule 2004. Indeed, the Trustee has already sought leave to file 255 Rule 2004 subpoenas.<sup>4</sup> With respect to G Club Operations specifically, the Trustee has served G Club Operations with a Rule 2004 Subpoena and G Club Operations has produced in excess of 140,000 documents. In addition, and in accordance with the Court's Order on the Rule 9019 Motion, G Club Operations also produced a privilege log to the Trustee.\n\n12. Accordingly, the Trustee will not suffer any \"substantial injury\" by allowing G\n\n<sup>4</sup> Specifically: (i) the Trustee's First Supplemental Omnibus Motion (Dkt. No. 839) seeking twenty-five (25) subpoenas; (ii) the Trustee's Second Supplemental Omnibus Motion (Dkt. No. 1116) seeking fifty-three (53) subpoenas; (iii) the Trustee's Third Supplemental Omnibus Motion (Dkt. No. 1259) seeking nineteen (19) subpoenas; (iv) the Trustee's Fourth Supplemental Omnibus Motion (Dkt. No. 1592) seeking fifty-seven (57) subpoenas; (v) the Trustee's Fifth Supplemental Omnibus Motion (Dkt. No. 1789) seeking eight (8) subpoenas; (vi) the Trustee's Sixth Supplemental Omnibus Motion (Dkt. No. 2079) seeking twenty (20) subpoenas; (vii) the Trustee's Seventh Supplemental Omnibus Motion (Dkt. No. 2249) seeking six (6) subpoenas; (viii) the Trustee's Eighth Supplemental Omnibus Motion (Dkt. No. 2304) seeking eight (8) subpoenas; and (ix) the Trustee's Ninth Supplemental Omnibus Motion (Dkt. No. 2308) seeking twenty-nine (29) subpoenas. The latter two are presently subject to objections. *See*, *e.g., Objection of Shin Hsin Yu and Jie Zhang to Eighth Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Rule 2004* (Dkt. No. 2319); *G Club Operation LLC's Limited Objection to Eighth Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Rule 2004* (Dkt No. 2320); *Objection of Shin Hsin Yu, 1332156 B.C. LTD, GWGOPNZ Limited, and Jie Zhang to Ninth Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Rule 2004* (Dkt No. 2326); *G Club Operations LLC's Objection to Ninth Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Rule 2004* (Dkt. No. 2331).\n\nClub Operations to appeal the Order which, once complied with, will render any appeal moot and will forever infringe G Club Operations' due process rights.\n\n#### **C. The Order Is Against Public Policy**\n\n13. The Order poses an immediate threat to the privacy and constitutionally-protected interests of customers who outsource their IT services. The Order is contrary to authority holding that utilization of \"hosting services did not result in a waiver.\" *See Metro Storage Int'l LLC v. Harron*, 275 A.3d 810, 871 (Del. Ch. 2022) (alterations added). There is no legal support for the proposition that simply using an outsourced, cloud-based data hosting service results in a waiver of privilege or otherwise transfers the information maintained on the cloud to the administrator.\n\n## **D. G Club Operations Has A Substantial Possibility of Success on Appeal Because the Order Is Erroneous**\n\n14. As a preliminary matter, \"[t]he requisite showing of \"substantial possibility\" of success is \"inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury plaintiff[ ] will suffer absent the stay.\" *In re BGI, Inc.*, 504 B.R. at 764 (second alteration in original, citations omitted). As noted above, the harm to G Club Operations of an unstayed order forcing the turnover of its privileged documents is a change in circumstances that cannot be undone. As such, G Club Operations \"need not always show a \"probability of success' on the merits; instead, the movant need only present a substantial case on the merits when a serious legal question is involved and show that the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.\" *Id.* (citation omitted).As explained below, however, the Order reaches an erroneous legal conclusion, assuming waiver and improperly shifting the burden to G Club Operations to establish an exception when no waiver took place, which makes it likely G Club Operations will prevail on appeal.\n\n# • **The Order Conflates Documents \"Disclosed\" to HCHK** *with* **G Club Operations Documents on the Cloud for which HCHK Acted as IT Administrator**\n\n15. In addressing the issue of responsiveness and privilege, the Order conflates documents G Club Operations *disclosed* to HCHK that became property of HCHK *versus* G Club Operations emails maintained on the cloud for which HCHK acted as IT manager and administrator and which belong only to G Club Operations, with a *gclub.com* domain name, and never became HCHK's property. This extends to any other customer that HCHK has as a customer. As a result, the Order improperly relies on the Master Services Agreement between HCHK and G Club Operations as a basis to transfer gigabytes of cloud data to the Trustee that was never *disclosed* to HCHK.\n\n16. Illustrating this mistake is the Order's improper characterization of G Club Operations' position in No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2244, as a review process. The Order states \"that G-Club had rights to review the documents for both responsiveness and privilege.\" Order at 3. In other words, the Court improperly framed the issue as G Club Operations' demand to review documents that HCHK was intending to produce to the Trustee as if G Club Operations had *disclosed* the documents on the cloud to HCHK in the first instance.\n\n17. That was not the issue raised by the Waiver Motion and challenged by G Club Operations. As G Club Operations argued in its filings:\n\n\"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\nNo. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2244, at 2-3, ¶ 3.\n\n18. Thus, the issue is whether privileged documents lose their protected status merely as a result of outsourcing IT services when there is no factual contention that the IT service provider ever had access to the privileged material.\n\n19. Underscoring this confusion is the Order's improper reliance on the Master Services Agreement (\"MSA\") between HCHK and G Club Operations. In quoting the MSA, the Court erroneously stated: \"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.)\" Order at 6.\n\n20. Section 6.2, however, cannot be read without Section 6.1, which provides: \"Confidential Information\" means any information *disclosed* under this Agreement by either party (\"*Disclosing* Party\") to the other party (\"*Receiving* Party\").\" MSA § 6.1 (emphasis added). G Club Operations documents that are maintained \"in the cloud\" are not documents *disclosed* to HCHK.\n\n21. Indeed, there is a clear distinction between documents *sent* to HCHK or *shared*  with HCHK (which should not be turned over to the Trustee without a review by G Club Operations of responsiveness and privilege) *versus* the gigabytes of data on the cloud which were not disclosed to HCHK and belong to G Club Operations and G Club Operations only.\n\n22. As such, the MSA's provisions – which describes the parties in terms of \"Receiving Party\" and \"Disclosing Party\" – do not inform the Court's analysis of whether privileged material maintained \"in the cloud\" thereby lose their protected status.\n\n## • **The Order Improperly Assumed Waiver and Erroneously Shifted the Burden to G Club Operations to Establish an Exception to Waiver**\n\n23. With respect to privilege, the Order improperly assumed waiver based solely on the Trustee's conclusory assertion \"that G-Club has waived any privilege in the documents in the\n\ncustody, control, and/or possession of the Assignee at the time of his settlement with the Trustee.\" Order at 7. \"Documents\" is not precisely defined, failing to account for the distinction explained above. And thereafter, the Order improperly concludes that there must have been a waiver because HCHK provided \"a la carte consulting services\" and \"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.)\" Order at 9. However, documents \"in the cloud\" are not documents to which HCHK had access or otherwise reviewed. In effect, the Court assumed access and review and waiver, and then improperly shifted the burden to G Club to establish an exception to waiver when there was no waiver in the first instance.\n\n24. As stated, the Court based its effective burden shifting on the concept that G Club Operations' privilege had been waived merely as a result of HCHK's provision of data hosting in the cloud together with other services under the MSA. But, there is no legal support for the proposition that the mere provision of \"a la carte consulting services\" separate and apart from data hosting (particularly where there are no facts that could show that the host actually accessed privileged material) results in waiver of privilege – unless, of course, documents are actually exchanged, shared, disclosed, or otherwise reviewed by a party. Once again, the Order improperly conflates documents that would have been exchanged in the course of providing services (like communications between G Club Operations and HCHK) *versus* an outsourced IT service for cloud administration. The Order erroneously *assumes* waiver, and thus improperly shifted the burden to G Club Operation to demonstrate an exception to waiver under \"common interest\" or *Kovel*. Order at 9-11.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n25. Under these circumstances, a stay pending appeal is proper to preserve the status\n\nquo and prevent the irreparable harm to G Club Operations of effectively losing its due process and privilege rights.\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n26. G Club Operations respectfully requests that the Court enter a stay pending appeal of the Order.\n\nDated: November 15, 2023\n\nBy: */s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz* GREEN & SKLARZ LLC Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky 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*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 via CM/ECF. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDate: November 15, 2023.\n\n */s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz* Jeffrey M. Sklarz","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）等人，\n\n债务人。\n\n第11章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并审理）\nG CLUB OPERATIONS LLC 依据《破产规则》第8007条提出的上诉期间中止执行动议\n\n依据《联邦破产程序规则》第 8007(a)(1)(A) 条，G Club Operations LLC（“G Club Operations”）请求中止执行本法院日期为 2023年11月13日 的裁定，该裁定准许了第11章破产受托人的《关于 G-Club Operations LLC 已放弃任何特权且无权对关联性提出异议的动议》。见 Despins et al v. HCHK Technologies, Inc. et al，案号 23-05013 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jun. 8, 2023)（案卷第 179 号）（下称“该裁定”）。该可上诉的终审裁定要求 G Club Operations 以及 HCHK Technologies 的受让人在 2023年11月17日 之前（少于一方当事人对裁定提起上诉所拥有的 14 天时间），向受托人移交包括 G Club Operations 受特权保护的通信在内的文件，理由是 HCHK Technologies 曾作为 G Club Operations 以及其他客户的网络管理员。该裁定是错误的，并且开创了一个危险的先例，其实质上认定：当一家企业或个人将其 IT 服务外包给一家可能同时提供其他服务的提供商时，该企业或个人即丧失对其文件的所有权利及其中权益，包括保护律师-委托人特权和工作成果特权通信免于披露的权利。谨此说明，法院作出该裁定系属错误，且 G Club Operations 已向地区法院提交上诉通知书对该裁定提出质疑。\n\n正如本文所述，G Club Operations 符合上诉期间中止执行的法定要件，因为：(1) 若不准予中止并强迫 G Club Operations 在上诉审理前将受特权保护的通信移交给受托人，将导致上诉归于无实际意义，并不可挽回地影响其正当程序权利，从而实质上剥夺 G Club Operations 的上诉权；(2) 对受托人不存在损害，因为受托人在《规则》第 2004 条程序中已经收到来自 G Club Operations 的超过 140,000 份文件，此外还发出了远超 200 份的《规则》第 2004 条传票；(3) 该裁决违背公共政策，因为它涉及数百万客户的隐私和受宪法保护的权利；以及 (4) G Club Operations 极有可能在实体问题上胜诉，因为法院的说理是不正确的。因此，应当准予在上诉期间中止执行，以使受保护的文件在上诉争议得到最终解决之前不被移交。\n\n由于该裁定要求在 2023年11月17日 之前履行，因此存在以紧急动议处理本动议的紧迫情形。此外，G Club Operations 谨请法院在可行的范围内，不迟于 2023年11月16日（星期四）对本动议作出裁决，以便 G Club Operations 在必要时有机会向地区法院寻求进一步的适当救济。在未作出裁决的情况下，G Club Operations 打算在 2023年11月15日（星期五）向地区法院提交中止执行动议。\n相关程序背景1\n\n1. 2023年6月23日，受托人依据《破产规则》第 9019 条提交了《关于根据纽约州法院转让程序与 HCHK 实体受让人达成和解的动议》（案号 22-50073，案卷第 1936 号）（下称“9019 动议”）。\n\n1 该裁定源于一项涉及 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（“HCHK Technologies”）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（“HCHK Property”）和 Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（“HCHK Lexington”）（统称“HCHK 实体”）通过一名受让人的所谓授权而提起的第 9019 条动议，该裁定的标的解决了一项最终的分立争议——即 G Club 基于正当程序理由提出的异议。就上诉目的而言，该裁定属于终审裁定，因为它“对破局性破产案件中的分立争议作出了确定性处置”。Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582, 586 (2020)（引文省略）。法院已批准该 9019 动议。\n\n9019 动议中包含一份拟议裁定，要求 HCHK Technologies 向受托人移交其可能接触过的所有文件。（同上，案卷第 2004 号）（下称“修改后拟议裁定”）。具体而言，修改后拟议裁定第 6 段载明：\n\n“公司记录。受让人应立即向受托人提供受让人占有的与 HCHK 实体有关的所有非特权公司记录（包括电子形式）及其他文件。所有此类公司记录及其他文件应被视为指定为‘机密’的文件，并受本第 11 章案件于 2022年10月6日 作出的保护令 [主案案卷第 923 号] 的约束。”\n\n同上，第 3 页，第 2 段。\n\n2. 2023年7月5日 以及 2023年7月14日（同上，分别见案卷第 1977 号和第 2007 号），G Club Operations 对拟议裁定第 6 段提出异议，并请求确立一套有序的程序，以防止仅仅因为其外包了 IT 服务就向受托人全盘移交机密和受特权保护的材料。\n\n3. 2023年7月28日，法院对 9019 动议作出裁决，准许了 9019 动议\n\n但修改了拟议裁定第 6 段，规定如下：\n\n公司记录：(a) 受让人应立即封存并妥善保管受让人占有的与 HCHK 实体有关的所有公司记录（包括电子形式）及其他文件。自本裁定载入案卷之日起十 (10) 天内，受让人应向受托人提供受让人占有的与 HCHK 实体有关的所有非特权公司记录（包括电子形式）及其他文件，但曾于任何时期属于 G-Club Operation LLC（“G-Club”）财产的文件除外。所有此类公司记录及其他文件应被视为指定为‘机密’的文件，并受本第 11 章案件于 2022年10月6日 作出的保护令 [主案案卷第 923 号]（下称‘保护令’）的约束。同样在自本裁定载入案卷之日起十 (10) 天内，受让人应向 G-Club 提供受让人占有的与 HCHK 实体有关的、且曾于任何时期属于 G-Club 财产的所有公司记录（包括电子形式）及其他文件。在收到后，G-Club 应立即审查此类公司记录及其他\n\n2 该第 9019 条和解协议由 HCHK 实体的受让人与受托人之间订立。与该第 9019 条裁定相关的各项争议属于上诉标的。参见案号 23-05013，案卷第 70、80 和 98 号。\n\n文件是否存在特权以及是否符合受托人对 G-Club 发出的《规则》第 2004 条传票的关联性要求，并制作特权清单和关联性清单。G-Club 可根据保护令将其将要向受托人提供的材料指定为‘机密’或‘高度机密’。\n\n同上，案卷第 2038 号第 4 页，第 6(a) 段（强调为后加）。\n\n4. 法院还规定：“受托人应于 2023年8月11日 或之前提交一份辩护状，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。G-Club 应于 2023年8月18日 或之前对受托人的辩护状提交任何答辩。”同上，第 5 页，第 6(b) 段。\n\n5. 2023年8月11日，受托人提交了《关于支持第11章受托人主张 G-Club Operations LLC 就 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 受让人依据破产规则第 9019 条和解协议移交给受托人的 G-Club 文件已放弃任何特权且无权对关联性提出异议的法律备忘录》（下称“放弃特权动议”），受托人将该动议提交于第 23-05013 号附随诉讼，ECF 第 86 号（而非像此前所有其他文件那样提交于第 22-50073 号案件）。\n\n6. G Club Operations 于 2023年9月29日 反对放弃特权动议，提交了其《对受托人质疑 G Club 对 HCHK 占有文件中主张特权的备忘录的答辩以及对受托人相关拟议裁定的反对意见》。（案号 22-50073，案卷第 2244 号）。3\n\n7. 2023年11月13日，法院作出裁定，准许了受托人的放弃特权动议，并命令 G Club Operations 及 HCHK Technologies 的受让人在 2023年11月17日 之前进行提供，该时间少于依据《破产规则》第 8002 条给予 G Club Operations 对该裁定提起上诉的时间。该裁定为终审裁定。\n\n3 G Club 于不同日期提交系出于其在《对受托人关于依据批准第11章受托人根据纽约州法院转让程序与 HCHK 实体受让人和解之裁定的 G-Club 文件的拟议补充裁定的反对意见》（案号 22-50073，案卷第 2233 号）中所阐明的原因。\n在上诉期间中止执行该裁定是正当的\n\n8. 美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院确立了\n\n以下四要素审查标准，用以确定是否准予在上诉期间中止执行的动议：\n\n(1) 申请中止人是否作出了其极有可能在实体问题上胜诉的有力证明；(2) 若无中止，申请人是否将遭受不可挽回的损害；(3) 签发中止令是否会对诉讼中存在权益的其他当事人造成重大损害；以及 (4) 公共利益何在。\n\nIn re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007)（引文省略）。在本案中，每一项因素均支持中止执行。中止执行属于“司法裁量权的行使”，且“请求中止的一方承担证明有关情形证明行使该裁量权系属正当的举证责任。”Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n v. de Blasio, 973 F.3d 41, 48 (2d Cir. 2020)（援引 Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1760 (2009)）。\nA. 若无中止，G Club Operations 将因上诉权被剥夺和特权被放弃而遭受不可挽回的损害\n\n9. 若无中止，G Club Operations 将遭受不可挽回的损害，因为任何人都无法有效撤回向受托人全盘移交受特权保护通信的行为，且结果是，该移交可能导致上诉失去实际意义。法院已经认定，当拒绝中止会导致动议方完全丧失某项权利的可能性时，即存在不可挽回的损害。In re St. Johnsbury Trucking Co., Inc., 185 B.R. 687, 690 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)（认定如果政府在此的上诉归于无实际意义，其将失去执行 CERCLA 和《国内税收法典》某些条款的能力；正是这种受威胁的丧失，而非单纯上诉权的丧失本身，构成了法院作出不可挽回损害认定的依据）。“如果拒绝上诉期间的中止执行会面临使任何关于重大错误主张的上诉归于无实际意义的风险，则满足了不可挽回损害的要件。”In re BGI, Inc., 504 B.R. 754, 763 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)（内部引号和引文省略，修改为后加）。\n\n10. 这恰恰是本案的核心争议所在；若无中止，G Club Operations 的权利将被永久剥夺，因为如果该裁定在上诉中被推翻，受特权保护信息的提供很可能会使任何有实质意义的救济归于无实际意义。该裁定中的提供截止日期要求在 2023年11月17日 之前履行。该等提供包括 G Club Operations 与其法律顾问之间受特权保护的通信。如果强迫 G Club Operations 或 HCHK 遵守该裁定，G Club Operations 实质上将永远丧失保护其与其律师之间机密通信的权利。一旦获取，受托人及其顾问便无法抹去他们将看到和审阅的受特权保护的通信内容。\nB. 中止执行不会对受托人造成损害\n\n11. 与本破产案件中的任何其他当事方不同，受托人（Trustee）利用了 Rule 2004 赋予的广泛证据开示权。事实上，受托人已申请许可发出255份 Rule 2004 传票。4 具体就 G Club Operations（G俱乐部运营公司）而言，受托人已向 G Club Operations 送达了一份 Rule 2004 传票，且 G Club Operations 已出示了超过140,000份文件。此外，根据法院关于 Rule 9019 Motion（Rule 9019 动议）的裁定（Order），G Club Operations 还向受托人出示了特权清单（privilege log）。\n\n12. 相应地，允许 G\n\n4 具体如下：(i) 受托人第一份补充综合动议（Dkt. No. 839），申请二十五（25）份传票；(ii) 受托人第二份补充综合动议（Dkt. No. 1116），申请五十三（53）份传票；(iii) 受托人第三份补充综合动议（Dkt. No. 1259），申请十九（19）份传票；(iv) 受托人第四份补充综合动议（Dkt. No. 1592），申请五十七（57）份传票；(v) 受托人第五份补充综合动议（Dkt. No. 1789），申请八（8）份传票；(vi) 受托人第六份补充综合动议（Dkt. No. 2079），申请二十（20）份传票；(vii) 受托人第七份补充综合动议（Dkt. No. 2249），申请六（6）份传票；(viii) 受托人第八份补充综合动议（Dkt. No. 2304），申请八（8）份传票；以及 (ix) 受托人第九份补充综合动议（Dkt. No. 2308），申请二十九（29）份传票。后两者目前正受到异议。参见，例如，Shin Hsin Yu 与 Jie Zhang 对第11章受托人根据 Rule 2004 作出裁定的第八份补充综合动议的异议（Dkt. No. 2319）；G Club Operation LLC 对第11章受托人根据 Rule 2004 作出裁定的第八份补充综合动议的有限异议（Dkt. No. 2320）；Shin Hsin Yu、1332156 B.C. LTD、GWGOPNZ Limited 与 Jie Zhang 对第11章受托人根据 Rule 2004 作出裁定的第九份补充综合动议的异议（Dkt. No. 2326）；G Club Operations LLC 对第11章受托人根据 Rule 2004 作出裁定的第九份补充综合动议的异议（Dkt. No. 2331）。\n\nClub Operations 就该裁定提起上诉不会使受托人遭受任何“实质性损害”；而该裁定一旦得到遵照执行，将使任何上诉归于无实际意义，并永久侵犯 G Club Operations 的正当程序权利。\nC. 该裁定违背公共政策\n\n13. 该裁定对外包 IT 服务的客户的隐私及受宪法保护的利益构成了即刻威胁。该裁定与认定使用“托管服务并不构成放弃”的判例权威相悖。参见 Metro Storage Int'l LLC v. Harron, 275 A.3d 810, 871 (Del. Ch. 2022)（后加修改）。没有任何法律依据支持仅使用外包的、基于云的数据托管服务就会导致特权放弃、或以其他方式将云端维护的信息转移给管理员这一主张。\nD. G Club Operations 上诉具有实质性的胜诉可能性，因为该裁定是错误的\n\n14. 首先，“对胜诉‘实质性可能性’的必要证明，与原告在未获中止情况下将遭受的不可弥补损害的程度‘成反比’。”In re BGI, Inc., 504 B.R. at 764（第二处修改见原文，引文省略）。如上所述，一项未被中止的、强迫交出其特权文件的裁定给 G Club Operations 造成的损害是一种无法挽回的情势改变。因此，G Club Operations “并非必须始终证明实体审理中的‘胜诉概率’；相反，在涉及重大法律问题时，动议人只需在实体审理中提出具有实质根据的主张，并证明各方利益衡量明显倾向于准予中止。”同上（引文省略）。然而，如下文所述，该裁定得出了错误的法律结论，在未发生放弃的情况下推定存在放弃，并不当地将确立例外情况的举证责任转移给 G Club Operations，这使得 G Club Operations 很可能在上诉中胜诉。\n• 该裁定混淆了“披露”给 HCHK 的文件与 HCHK 作为 IT 管理员的 G Club Operations 云端文件\n\n15. 在处理相关性与特权问题时，该裁定混淆了 G Club Operations 向 HCHK 披露并成为 HCHK 财产的文件，与 G Club Operations 维护在云端且由 HCHK 担任 IT 经理及管理员的电子邮件；后者仅属于 G Club Operations，拥有 gclub.com 域名，从未成为 HCHK 的财产。这也延伸适用于作为 HCHK 客户的任何其他客户。因此，该裁定不当地以 HCHK 与 G Club Operations 之间的 Master Services Agreement（主服务协议）为依据，向受托人转移数千兆字节从未向 HCHK 披露过的云端数据。\n\n16. 该裁定对 G Club Operations 在 No. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2244 中立场的定性不当，正说明了这一错误，将其定性为一个审查程序。该裁定指出“G-Club 有权就相关性和特权对文件进行审查”。裁定第3页。换言之，法院不当地将问题归结为 G Club Operations 要求审查 HCHK 打算向受托人出示的文件，就好像 G Club Operations 最初就向 HCHK 披露了云端文件一样。\n\n17. 这并不是 Waiver Motion（豁免动议）所提出、且被 G Club Operations 所质疑的问题。正如 G Club Operations 在其提交的文件中所主张的：\n\n“G Club 与 HCHK 签订合同，由其管理用于其通信的基于云的存储和电子邮件系统（除其他服务外）。该系统 Microsoft 365 是一套基于云的企业系统，常用于公司和律师事务所。HCHK 是该系统的管理员这一事实与 G Club 主张特权无关；文件是在‘云端’维护的，受托人没有（也无法）声称除 G Club 员工之外有任何单个人审查过托管 G Club 域名的云端所维护的文件。存储在由第三方管理的云系统中的特权文件根本不会丧失其受保护的地位。”\n\nNo. 22-50073, Dkt. No. 2244, at 2-3, ¶ 3.\n\n18. 因此，问题在于：在没有事实指称 IT 服务提供商曾经接触过特权材料的情况下，特权文件是否仅仅因为外包 IT 服务就会丧失其受保护的地位。\n\n19. 该裁定不当依赖 HCHK 与 G Club Operations 之间的 Master Services Agreement（“MSA”，主服务协议），进一步凸显了这种混乱。在引用 MSA 时，法院错误地指出：“根据 HCHK Tech 与 G-Club 之间的 Master Services Agreement（‘MSA’）条款，受让人可依法向第三方披露 G-Club 的文件。(Mot. Ex. A, § 6.2.)”裁定第6页。\n\n20. 然而，第6.2条不能脱离第6.1条来解读，第6.1条规定：“‘保密信息’系指任一方（‘披露方’）根据本协议向另一方（‘接收方’）披露的任何信息。”MSA § 6.1（强调为后加）。在“云端”维护的 G Club Operations 文件并不是向 HCHK 披露的文件。\n\n21. 事实上，发送给 HCHK 或与 HCHK 共享的文件（在 G Club Operations 对相关性和特权进行审查之前，不应移交给受托人），与云端数千兆字节未向 HCHK 披露且仅属于 G Club Operations 的数据之间存在明确的区别。\n\n22. 因此，MSA 的条款——其以“接收方”和“披露方”来描述各当事方——并不能为法院分析维护在“云端”的特权材料是否因此丧失其受保护地位提供依据。\n• 该裁定不当地推定存在放弃，并错误地将确立放弃例外的举证责任转移给 G Club Operations\n\n23. 关于特权问题，该裁定仅仅基于受托人结论性的断言，即不当地推定存在放弃，受托人称“在受让人与受托人和解时，G-Club 已放弃了对受让人保管、控制和/或占有的文件中的任何特权。”裁定第7页。“文件”一词未被精确定义，未能考虑到上述区别。此后，该裁定不当地得出结论，认为必定存在放弃，因为 HCHK 提供了“定制咨询服务”，且“MSA 第6.2条明确规定，HCHK Tech 可以在提供协议附件 A 所列服务的过程中使用 G-Club 的文件。(Id. Ex. A, § 6.2.)”裁定第9页。然而，“云端”的文件并非 HCHK 接触过或以其他方式审查过的文件。实际上，法院先是假定了接触、审查和放弃，随后又在最初根本未发生放弃的情况下，不当地将确立放弃例外的举证责任转移给 G Club。\n\n24. 如前所述，法院实质上的举证责任转移，是建立在 G Club Operations 的特权仅仅由于 HCHK 提供云端数据托管以及根据 MSA 提供其他服务即告放弃这一概念之上的。但是，没有任何法律依据支持这一主张，即仅仅提供独立于数据托管之外的“定制咨询服务”（特别是在没有任何事实可以表明托管方实际接触了特权材料的情况下）会导致特权的放弃——当然，除非文件确实被当事方实际交换、共享、披露或以其他方式审查。该裁定再次不当地混淆了在提供服务过程中本应交换的文件（如 G Club Operations 与 HCHK 之间的通信），与用于云管理的外包 IT 服务。该裁定错误地推定存在放弃，从而不当地将证明根据“共同利益”或 Kovel 构成放弃例外的举证责任转移给 G Club Operation。裁定第9-11页。\n结论\n\n25. 在这些情况下，为维持现状并防止 G Club Operations 遭受实际丧失其正当程序和特权权利的不可弥补损害，在上诉期间予以中止是适当的。\n请求的救济\n\n26. G Club Operations 谨请求法院在上诉审理期间对该裁定予以中止。\n\n日期：2023年11月15日\n\n签署人：/s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz GREEN & SKLARZ LLC Jeffrey M. Sklarz Kellianne Baranowsky 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 代理律师\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，在下列日期，本文件的副本已通过 CM/ECF 送达。当事方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本文件。\n\n日期：2023年11月15日。\n\n/s/ Jeffrey M. Sklarz Jeffrey M. Sklarz","key_entities":["HCHK","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":179,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":839,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1116,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1259,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1592,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1789,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1936,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2004,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2038,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2079,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2233,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2244,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2249,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2304,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2308,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2319,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2320,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2326,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2331,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3688,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-11-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-11-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:45:52"}