{"id":"court_ctb_2345_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2345,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-11-15","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In re:","summary_zh":"上诉通知书 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2345-1（2023-11-15立案）。利害关系方 G Club Operations, LLC 就破产法院 2023 年 11 月 13 日裁定（关联诉讼 23-5013 ECF #179，要求移交存放在 HCHK Technologies 的相关文件且认定特权豁免）正式向联邦地区法院提起上诉。","summary_en":"Notice of Appeal — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2345-1 (filed Nov 15, 2023). G Club Operations, LLC files notice appealing to the District Court from the Bankruptcy Court's November 13, 2023 order (Adv. Proc. 23-5013 ECF No. 179) requiring turnover of G Club documents held by HCHK Technologies without privilege redaction.","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 Court's November 13, 2023 *Order Granting Motion for Order Requiring Production of G-Club Documents* (Filed only in the Adv. Proc. 23-5013, the \"**Ruling**\"), ² granting the Trustee, Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"**Trustee**\") access to all G Club Operations documents stored electronically with HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"**HCHK**\") further to the *Trustee's 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* (the \"**Motion**\") (filed only in Adv. Proc. 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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 2 of 17 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 2 of 17\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**\n\n**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 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\n## and\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\n## and\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 3 of 17 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 3 of 17\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 5 of 17 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 5 of 17\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n{00340394.2 }\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 6 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 Filed 11/13/23 Entered 11/13/23 11:09:21 Page 1 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 6 of 17\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 7 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 Filed 11/13/23 Entered 11/13/23 11:09:21 Page 2 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 7 of 17\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 8 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 Filed 11/13/23 Entered 11/13/23 11:09:21 Page 3 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 8 of 17\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 10 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 11/13/23 11/13/23 11:09:21 5 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 10 of 17\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 11 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 11/13/23 11/13/23 11:09:21 6 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 11 of 17\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 12 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 11/13/23 11/13/23 11:09:21 7 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 12 of 17\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 13 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 11/13/23 11/13/23 11:09:21 8 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 13 of 17\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 14 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 11/13/23 11/13/23 11:09:21 9 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 14 of 17\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 15 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 Filed 11/13/23 Entered 11/13/23 11:09:21 Page 10 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 15 of 17\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 16 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 Filed 11/13/23 Entered 11/13/23 11:09:21 Page 11 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 16 of 17\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\n11\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2336 Filed 11/15/23 Entered 11/15/23 14:33:00 Page 17 of 17 Case 23-05013 Doc 179 Filed 11/13/23 Entered 11/13/23 11:09:21 Page 12 of 12 Case 22-50073 Doc 2345-1 Filed 11/16/23 Entered 11/16/23 16:59:06 Page 17 of 17\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":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n债务人。1\n\n第11章\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并管理）\n\nNovember 15, 2023\n上诉通知\n\n兹通知，根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001 及以下条款，G Club Operations, LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司，以下简称“G Club Operations”）特此就破产法院于 November 13, 2023 作出的《准许要求提交 G-Club 文件之命令的动议的裁定》（仅提交于对抗程序 23-5013，以下简称“裁定”）2 提起上诉；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”）查阅存储于 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK技术公司，以下简称“HCHK”）的所有 G Club Operations 电子文件，此前受托人已提交《支持第11章受托人关于 G-Club Operations LLC 已放弃任何特权且无权就相关性提出异议之论点的法律备忘录》（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（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司，税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n{00340394.2 } 2 G Club Operations 并非对抗程序 23-5013 的当事人，从未在该程序中获送达，且没有律师在对抗程序 23-5013（以下简称“HCHK AP”）中登记出庭。该裁定涉及 G Club 对根据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9019 作出的一项命令（主案 ECF No. 2038）的若干要素提出的异议；该命令批准受托人与 HCHK 就 HCHK AP 达成和解的若干方面。参见主案 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，因此本上诉通知亦提交于该对抗程序中。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2336 于 11/15/23 提交于 11/15/23 14:33:00 登记第 2 页，共 17 页案件 22-50073 文件 2345-1 于 11/16/23 提交于 11/16/23 16:59:06 登记第 2 页，共 17 页\n\n就被上诉法院命令而言，所有当事人的名称及其各自律师的名称、地址和\n\n电话号码如下：\nJeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）\n\nKellianne T. Baranowsky（凯莉安·T·巴拉诺夫斯基） Green & Sklarz LLC（格林及斯克拉兹有限责任公司） One Audubon Street, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 285-8545 传真：(203) 823-4546 jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com kbaranowsky@gs-lawfirm.com 代理\nG Club Operations LLC 53 Calle Palmeras, Suite 1401 Puerta De Tierra San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901\n\n利害关系方及上诉人\n及\n\nCarolina A. Fornos（卡罗琳娜·A·福尔诺斯）（pro hac vice） PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP（皮尔斯伯里温斯罗普肖皮特曼律师事务所） 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 电话：212-858-1558 carolina.fornos@pillsburylaw.com\n\n＊\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616） Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781- 2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com 及\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（pro hac vice） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n{00340394.2 } 及\n\n代理第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166\n\n第11章受托人及被上诉人\n案件 22-50073 文件 2336 于 11/15/23 提交于 11/15/23 14:33:00 登记第 3 页，共 17 页案件 22-50073 文件 2345-1 于 11/16/23 提交于 11/16/23 16:59:06 登记第 3 页，共 17 页\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（pro hac vice） Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（pro hac vice） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n利害关系方 G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC\n\n签署人：/s/Jeffrey M. Sklarz Jeffrey M. Sklarz（ct20938） Green & Sklarz LLC 700 State St, Suite 100 New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 285-8545 传真：(203) 823-4546 jsklarz@gs-lawfirm.com\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于下列日期，前述文件副本已通过 CMECF 和/或邮寄方式送达给任何无法接受电子提交的人士。本次提交的通知将通过法院电子提交系统自动以电子邮件发送给所有当事人，或按照《电子提交通知》中所示，以邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子提交的人士。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案件 22-50073 文件 2336 于 11/15/23 提交于 11/15/23 14:33:00 登记第 5 页，共 17 页案件 22-50073 文件 2345-1 于 11/16/23 提交于 11/16/23 16:59:06 登记第 5 页，共 17 页\n附件A\n\n{00340394.2 }\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2336 于 11/15/23 提交于 11/15/23 14:33:00 登记第 6 页，共 17 页案件 23-05013 文件 179 于 11/13/23 提交于 11/13/23 11:09:21 登记第 1 页，共 12 页案件 22-50073 文件 2345-1 于 11/16/23 提交于 11/16/23 16:59:06 登记第 6 页，共 17 页\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n\n关于：　)\n)\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK 等，　)\n)\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)\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HCHK PROPERTY\nMANAGEMENT, INC., LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND )\nSTAFFING, INC., HOLY CITY HONG KONG\nVENTURES, LTD., ANTHONY DIBATTISTA,\nYVETTE WANG, 及 BRIAN W. HOFMEISTER，\n债权人利益受让人，　)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n被告。　)\n)\n\n准许要求提交 G-CLUB 文件之命令的动议的裁定\n一、引言\n\n本院现审理的是 Luc A. Despins 先生以 Ho Wan Kwok 先生遗产第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，根据《批准第11章受托人与 HCHK 实体受让人和解之命令》（以下简称“批准和解命令”）（ECF No. 70）的判令第6(b)段提交的《支持第11章受托人关于 G-Club Operations LLC 已放弃任何特权且无权就相关性提出异议之论点的法律备忘录》（以下简称“动议”）（ECF No. 86）2。基于下述理由，准许该动议所请求的救济，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 实体”）之债权人利益受让人（以下简称“受让人”）身份，提交受让人现时或此前（视具体情况而定）持有的、受让人根据批准和解命令向 G-Club 提供的文件。\n\n二、背景\n\n于 July 11, 2023 和 July 18, 2023，分别就受托人提交的《关于纽约法院让与程序中与 HCHK 实体受让人和解的动议》（以下简称“和解动议”）（主案 ECF No. 1936；ECF No. 25）以及有关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）举行了听证。G-Club 对和解动议和经修订拟议命令提出异议。（主案 ECF Nos. 1977, 2007。）于 July 28, 2023，本院作出批准和解命令，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示为“ECF”。对主案《关于 Kwok 一案》，案件编号 22-50073 (JAM) 的案卷引用将标示为“主案 ECF”。\n案件 22-50073 文件 2336 于 11/15/23 提交于 11/15/23 14:33:00 登记第 7 页，共 17 页案件 23-05013 文件 179 于 11/13/23 提交于 11/13/23 11:09:21 登记第 2 页，共 12 页案件 22-50073 文件 2345-1 于 11/16/23 提交于 11/16/23 16:59:06 登记第 7 页，共 17 页\n\n批准和解命令第6段通过设定书面陈述时间表，处理了 G-Club 对和解动议唯一尚未解决的异议（见主案 ECF No. 2030，第128:5–48:8页）；根据该时间表，受托人与 G-Club 将就 G-Club 是否有权在将文件提交给受托人之前，审查受让人持有的 G-Club 文件，以确定其对向 G-Club 送达的 Rule 2004 传票是否具有相关性以及是否享有特权，进行争辩。（主案 ECF No. 2038 ¶ 6；ECF No. 70 ¶ 6。）于 August 11, 2023，受托人及时提交动议，主张 G-Club 无权审查文件的相关性或特权。（ECF No. 87。）于 September 29, 2023，在某些事态发展后（见主案 ECF No. 2237），G-Club 对受托人的备忘录作出答复（主案 ECF No. 2244），主张 G-Club 有权审查文件的相关性和特权。\n\n于 October 24, 2023，就受托人在动议中提出的论点举行了听证。受托人和 G-Club 均出庭并陈述各自立场。听证结束时，本院将该事项留待审议。\n\n受托人与 G-Club 之间的争议已具备裁决条件。\n\n三、管辖权\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本事项享有管辖权。本院依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 以及美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院于 September 21, 1984 作出的移送命令，有权审理并裁定本事项。本次取证争议所产生的本对抗程序属于法定核心程序。28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (O)。\n\n依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本地区的审判地适格。\n\n四、讨论3\n\n首先，受托人与 G-Club 对批准和解命令的条款以及该动议是否请求免除该命令的效力存在争议。受托人主张，批准和解命令规定当事人应就动议提出的问题进行诉讼。G-Club 主张，该命令已就这些问题作出有利于 G-Club 的裁决。受托人显然正确。尽管批准和解命令的判令第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 在将文件提交给受托人之前核查其对向 G-Club 送达的 Rule 2004 传票是否具有相关性及是否享有特权的机会，但该命令的判令第6(b)段规定，受托人与 G-Club 应就 G-Club 在 G-Club 和/或受让人将文件提交给受托人之前，是否有权核查文件的相关性和/或特权提交书面陈述。实质上，批准和解命令保留了相关问题，同时提供一种机制，使取证可在本院目前待决问题获得裁定之前继续进行。\n\n本院此前并未作出有利于 G-Club 的问题裁决，并将在下文审议当事人关于相关性和特权的论点。\n\nA. 相关性\n\n受托人主张，G-Club 无权以该等文件并非对在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的 Chapter 11 破产案件中向 G-Club 送达的 Rule 2004 传票具有回应性为由，反对受让人根据《批准和解命令》提交 HCHK Entities（HCHK 实体）的文件。受托人主张，该受让人达成的和解并非涉及 G-Club 传票，而是涉及受托人原本将在本对抗程序中寻求的证据开示，以及在郭文贵的 Chapter 11 破产案件中向 HCHK Tech（HCHK 科技）送达的 Rule 2004 传票。\n\n3 根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 7052 条（经第 7001 条规定适用于对抗程序），以下构成本院的事实认定和法律结论。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2336 提交 11/15/23 登记 11/15/23 14:33:00 第 10 页，共 17 页案件 23-05013 文档 179 11/13/23 11/13/23 11:09:21 第 5 页，共 12 页案件 22-50073 文档 2345-1 提交 11/16/23 登记 11/16/23 16:59:06 第 10 页，共 17 页\n\n受让人达成的和解涉及受托人原本将在本对抗程序中寻求的证据开示，以及在郭文贵的 Chapter 11 破产案件中向 HCHK Tech 送达的 Rule 2004 传票。\n\nG-Club 回应称，受托人不能通过从 HCHK Tech 取得的证据开示获得 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 获得文件，但须由 G-Club 对其回应性进行审查。\n\n本院同意受托人的意见。首先，本争议与关于 G-Club 是否遵从向其送达的 Rule 2004 传票的争议彼此独立且不同。HCHK Entities 在转让契据中授予受让人与受托人达成和解的权力。（见，例如，起诉状附件 13，Brian Hofmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特）的宣誓书及申请书附件 B，第 4 节。）受让人已如此行事：《批准和解命令》批准了受托人与受让人之间就本对抗程序，尤其是其中的证据开示所达成的和解，而非受托人与 G-Club 就郭文贵 Chapter 11 破产案件中的证据开示所达成的和解。\n\n在本对抗程序中，受托人主张，HCHK Entities 是郭文贵的另我实体，和/或郭文贵实益拥有 HCHK Entities 和/或其资产。受托人还主张，郭文贵运营着一个由实体、亲属和忠实追随者构成的错综复杂网络，以向其债权人隐匿资产。据称，G-Club 是该等实体之一。若非与受让人达成和解，受托人本会向 HCHK Entities 寻求与其同 G-Club 关系有关的证据开示。事实上，受托人在提起诉讼前已通过送达 Rule 2004 传票寻求该等证据开示。受让人与受托人之间的和解旨在解决受托人与 HCHK Entities 之间的证据开示问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2336 提交 11/15/23 登记 11/15/23 14:33:00 第 11 页，共 17 页案件 23-05013 文档 179 11/13/23 11/13/23 11:09:21 第 6 页，共 12 页案件 22-50073 文档 2345-1 提交 11/16/23 登记 11/16/23 16:59:06 第 11 页，共 17 页\n\n向 G-Club 送达的 Rule 2004 传票是一个独立问题，并不构成 G-Club 反对受让人依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 向其转让的权力和权利，可以披露 G-Club 的文件。（起诉状附件 13，Brian Hofmeister 的宣誓书及申请书附件 B，第 1、4 节。）根据 HCHK Tech 与 G-Club 之间《主服务协议》（以下简称“MSA”）的条款，法律要求时，受让人可以向第三方披露 G-Club 的文件。（动议附件 A，第 6.2 节。）\n\n但是，在进行该等披露之前，受让人必须通知 G-Club，以使 G-Club 有机会申请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 已收到关于和解动议的通知；该动议依据 D. Conn. L. Bankr. R. 9019- 1(a)(2) 在郭文贵的 Chapter 11 破产案件中提出——G-Club 通过电子通知及向出庭律师送达而获得通知——且该动议亦在本对抗程序中提出。事实上，G-Club 最初基于保密性理由——符合 MSA 的规定——以及回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，因为根据经修订的拟议命令，受让人将根据在郭文贵 Chapter 11 破产案件中作出的保护令，将所提交文件指定为“保密”（主案 ECF No. 923）。（主案 ECF No. 2030，听证记录第 128:5–48:8 页。）如放弃该异议所表明，和解按照 MSA 所设想的方式保护了 G-Club。\n\n基于所有这些理由，本院认定，受让人可以提交 G-Club 的文件，而无须使该等文件接受 G-Club 对其是否对在郭文贵 Chapter 11 破产案件中向 G-Club 送达的 Rule 2004 传票具有回应性的审查。因此，G-Club 必须根据《批准和解命令》裁定主文第 6a 段，将受让人向其提交的文件移交给受托人，而不论任何文件是否对向其送达的 Rule 2004 传票具有回应性。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2336 提交 11/15/23 登记 11/15/23 14:33:00 第 12 页，共 17 页案件 23-05013 文档 179 11/13/23 11/13/23 11:09:21 第 7 页，共 12 页案件 22-50073 文档 2345-1 提交 11/16/23 登记 11/16/23 16:59:06 第 12 页，共 17 页\n\nB. 特权\n\n受托人主张，就受让人与受托人达成和解时由受让人保管、控制和/或占有的文件而言，G-Club 已放弃任何特权。受托人声称，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 签订 MSA，其中受托人主张 HCHK Tech 同意提供超出仅托管 G-Club 文件范围的服务，并获准访问该等文件；第二，G-Club 未对据称向受让人转让 HCHK Tech 几乎全部财产（包括 G-Club 文件）提出异议；以及第三，G-Club 未对受让人将 HCHK Tech 资产出售给 G-News Operations, LLC（“G-News”）的动议提出异议。\n\nG-Club 回应称，目前的事实和情形不支持 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；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 资产转让给受让人以及拟议出售给 G-News 提出异议的期限尚未届满。G-Club 将 HCHK Tech 向 G-Club 提供的服务类比为 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，不利裁决将产生违反既定法律的深远影响。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2336 提交 11/15/23 登记 11/15/23 14:33:00 第 13 页，共 17 页案件 23-05013 文档 179 11/13/23 11/13/23 11:09:21 第 8 页，共 12 页案件 22-50073 文档 2345-1 提交 11/16/23 登记 11/16/23 16:59:06 第 13 页，共 17 页\n\n本院同意受托人的意见。\n\n“[与所有特权一样，主张律师—当事人特权的一方负有证明所有必要要件的责任。]”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”拟受保护的通信为“通信：（1）在当事人与其律师之间；（2）意图并且事实上保持保密；且（3）为取得或提供法律意见之目的”的责任。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“可预见地将导致”特权通信被披露的行动，将导致放弃律师—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“对于特权旨在允许的当事人与律师之间进行有效磋商而言是‘必要的，或至少是高度有用的’”，Strougo, 199 F.R.D. at 522 (citing case quoting Kovel, 296 F.2d at 922). 尽管如此，“该项扩展[根据 Kovel]始终受到严格限制，并且‘为此目的，特权保护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性的通信。’”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当多个当事人由同一律师代理并且“为实现共同目标……共同工作”，或由不同律师代理但参与“一项共同法律事业”时，如“[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为商业利益”，“共同利益”原则构成放弃的例外。Strougo, 199 F.R.D. at 520 (internal citations omitted). 尽管如此，律师—当事人特权“应在与其原则逻辑相一致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，Brain Hofmeister 的宣誓书及申请书同样载明，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”。（起诉状附件 13，Brian Hofmeister 的宣誓书及申请书第 4 段。）G-Club 根据 MSA 的条款使用这些广泛的服务。（同上，附件 13，Brian Hofmeister 的宣誓书及申请书第 5 段。）HCHK Tech 作为独立承包商提供该等服务。（动议附件 A，第 10.1 节。）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。（同上，附件 A，第 1.1 节。）MSA 附件 A 除信息技术支持服务外，还列有五类服务；信息技术支持服务是 G-Club 在其论证中承认的唯一服务类别。（同上，附件 A，附件 A。）其他服务类别包括但不限于法律服务、人力资源服务、财务服务及工程/开发服务。（同上，附件 A，附件 A。）MSA 第 6.2 节明确规定，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。（同上，附件 A，第 6.2 节。）尽管 G-Club 作出相反主张，HCHK Tech 与 G-Club 的关系不同于微软与其云服务和基于云的办公软件的一般消费者之间的关系。\n\n因此，G-Club 援引的 Metro Storage International v. Harron, 275 A.2d 810, 868–72 (Del. Ch. 2022)，对本案事实不具有说服力。在该案中，就相关部分而言，\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2336 提交 11/15/23 登记 11/15/23 14:33:00 第 15 页，共 17 页案件 23-05013 文档 179 提交 11/13/23 登记 11/13/23 11:09:21 第 10 页，共 12 页案件 22-50073 文档 2345-1 提交 11/16/23 登记 11/16/23 16:59:06 第 15 页，共 17 页\n\n该雇员被告主张，公司原告通过（除其他外）主张原告与非当事公司共享其文件而放弃保密性，违反了原告经营协议中的保密条款。Harron, 275 A.2d at 822–24, 868, 870–71。在 Harron 一案中，该非当事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于其服务器上。Id. at 870–71。Delaware Court of Chancery（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 所提供的服务，Id. at 871 n. 35，并认定该非当事方是原告的代理人，负有维护文件保密性的义务，因此，与该非当事方共享文件并不构成放弃保密性，Id. at 871。\n\n然而，如上所述，与 Harron 一案不同，在本案中，HCHK Tech 根据 MSA 在多个领域提供“按需选择”服务，包括会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 仅为 G-Club 的域名提供信息技术管理服务，并无权访问文件。（ECF 168, Hr'g Tr. at 34:10– 37:13.）G-Club 未提供任何支持该主张并与 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 的文件。（Id.）提出这些主张时，G-Club 试图推卸其举证责任。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一方，即证明 HCHK 访问了文件。实际上，Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）在 Horowitz 一案中认定，一方当事人在其“将其本人与律师之间的通信，与所有其他记录同等对待，由 Horowitz 查阅；Horowitz 是独立承包人而非雇员，可自由查看其想查看的内容”时，放弃了律师—当事人保密特权，482 F.2d at 82；尽管该法院指出，“关于 Horowitz 使用载有 Kasser 夫妇与律师之间通信的文件的记录很少”，id. at 80，并承认 Horowitz 作出了相互矛盾的证词。前者而非后者构成 Horowitz 一案裁决的依据。Id. at 82。\n\nG-Club 未试图证明其向 HCHK Tech 披露特权文件属于放弃的例外。G-Club 并未主张，向 HCHK Tech 披露对于其与律师的磋商而言是必要的或极为有用的。同样，G-Club 并未主张 HCHK Tech 与 G-Club 具有共同的法律利益，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 披露其通信而放弃了律师—当事人保密特权。此外，尽管确实，在本对抗程序中临时限制令作出之前，G-Club 对转让程序和／或拟通过该等转让程序将包括 HCHK Tech 在内的资产出售给 G-News 提出异议的期限尚未届满，但受托人正确地指出，G-Club 未证明其有意反对该转让或该出售。此进一步表明，G-Club 以“可预见地导致”特权通信被披露的方式处理其通信。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 未能履行其举证责任，以证明律师—当事人保密特权适用。受让人可出示 G-Club 的文件，而无需由 G-Club 对该等文件进行特权审查。因此，无论任何文件是否享有特权，G-Club 均必须向受托人交付受让人根据和解批准命令第 6a 裁决性段落向其出示的文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2336 于 11/15/23 提交，于 11/15/23 14:33:00 登记，第 17 页，共 17 页；案件 23-05013 文书 179 于 11/13/23 提交，于 11/13/23 11:09:21 登记，第 12 页，共 12 页；案件 22-50073 文书 2345-1 于 11/16/23 提交，于 11/16/23 16:59:06 登记，第 17 页，共 17 页\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依照和解批准命令第 6(a) 段向 G-Club 提供的全部文件；并进一步\n\n命令：于 2023 年 11 月 17 日或之前，受让人应向受托人提供其保留的、受让人依照和解批准命令第 6(a) 段向 G-Club 提供的文件的全部副本；并进一步\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，并受以 ECF No. 923 登记、在共同管理且标题为 In re Kwok（关于郭文贵案）、Case 22-50073 (JAM) 的案件中作出的保护令约束；并进一步\n\n命令：于 2023 年 11 月 14 日或之前，受托人应将本命令送达 G-Club 和受让人。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\n2023 年 11 月 13 日，于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Bridgeport（布里奇波特）签署。","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":179,"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"},{"doc_number":2336,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4702,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-11-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-11-15","updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:46:18"}