{"id":"court_ctb_3548_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3548,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK et al., 1\n\nDebtors.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nRelated Docket No: 3305, 3306, 3307\n\n# RESPONSE OF MICROSOFT CORPORATION IN OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ORDER TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE EVIDENCE AND PROPERTY OF ESTATE\n\nMicrosoft Corporation (\"Microsoft\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this response in opposition to the Emergency Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Order to Protect and Preserve Evidence and Property of Estate (SEALED Docket No. 3305) (the \"Motion\"). Microsoft requests the Court deny the Trustee's Motion as to Microsoft because: (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over Microsoft; and (2) the Stored Communications Act (\"SCA\") prevents Microsoft from taking actions or disclosing information regarding its customer accounts without the consent of the account holder.\n\n### RELEVANT BACKGROUND\n\n1. On July 25, 2023, the Trustee initiated Adversary Case No. 23-05018 seeking a declaratory judgment that non-debtor Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\") is an alter ego of the Debtor, and on December 4, 2023, the Trustee secured a default judgment against Golden Spring granting the requested relief. The Court further held that all of Golden Spring's assets were property of the Debtor's estate.\n\n2. The Trustee initiated a similar adversary proceeding on October 26, 2023 against non-debtor Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\") (Adversary Case No. 23-05023), and on\n\n<sup>1</sup> 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.\n\nFebruary 1, 2024, the Trustee secured a default judgment against Lamp Capital holding that it was an alter ego of the Debtor. The court further held that all of Lamp Capital's assets were property of the Debtor's estate.\n\n3. Seven months after securing the Golden Spring default judgment and five months after securing the Lamp Capital default judgment, the Trustee filed his current Motion seeking an order directing Microsoft to preserve information associated with two domains the Trustee believes to be connected with non-debtors Golden Spring and Lamp Capital: \"gsnyus.com\" and \"lampcapital.org.\"\n\n#### ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY\n\n# A. The Trustee's motion is improper because Microsoft is not a party to this bankruptcy proceeding.\n\n4. Microsoft is not a party to this proceeding and has not consented to the Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction over Microsoft such that it can grant the requested relief. Although 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) is implicated under the facts of this case, the Trustee's authority thereunder is properly applied to the Debtor, Golden Spring, and Lamp Capital, not Microsoft. Further, while the Court may have broad authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105, that authority does not extend to compelling non-party Microsoft to act or produce materials in the face of SCA restrictions limiting the disclosure of customer information without consent. In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd. (in Special Liquidation), 559 B.R. 627, 650–51 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016) (recognizing that the SCA does not provide a mechanism in civil litigation to compel a service provider to disclose a user's private information through a subpoena or a court order without the user's consent).\n\n5. The Trustee further suggests that the Court can grant the requested relief \"based on its inherent authority and on the authority conferred upon it by various provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\" to resolve discovery disputes. Motion at 6. However, the Rules and authority cited by the Trustee apply to parties, and Microsoft is not a party to this proceeding. For example, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 allows a court to enter pretrial orders for the \"preservation of ESI.\" However, such orders are only effective against a party to the litigation, not a non-party service provider like Microsoft. Similarly, Rules 26 and 37 outline the parameters within which a court can enter discovery-related orders against a party, not a non-party. Toussie v. Allstate, Inc. Co., the sole case cited by the Trustee for the proposition that the Court can enter the requested relief, involves a preservation dispute between parties. 15CV5235ARRCLP, 2018 WL 2766140, at \\*6 (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2018), aff'd, 15-CV-5235 (ARR)(PK), 2018 WL 11451597 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2018). It does not involve a non-party service provider subject to the SCA. Indeed, the Toussie court recognizes the limitations of preservation orders on non-parties and cites to Weitzman v. Stein, 897 F.2d 653, 655-57 (2d Cir. 1990), a case in which a \"freeze order\" was reversed because, in part, \"the district court lacked jurisdiction over the non-party.\" Id.\n\n6. While Microsoft appreciates the Trustee's concerns and desire to preserve and access information contained in any Golden Spring or Lamp Capital accounts, the Motion reflects a procedurally incorrect attempt to secure an order against non-party Microsoft.\n\n#### B. The Stored Communications Act prohibits Microsoft from implementing the requested relief.\n\n7. Even if the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction over Microsoft, Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (\"ECPA\"), 18 U.S.C. §2510 to §2711, known as the Stored Communications Act (\"SCA\"), prevents Microsoft from implementing the requested relief. Specifically, the Trustee seeks an order from the Court directing Microsoft to preserve two domains and all associated \"content, communications, data, documents, and/or electronically stored information.\" Motion at 3. The Motion further foreshadows the Trustee's intent to \"establish his right to inspect or obtain the preserved evidence as soon as possible.\" Motion at 10. However, the SCA prevents Microsoft from taking any action at the request of a third-party, including the Trustee, or disclosing any information regarding its customer accounts. Such unauthorized actions (without the consent of the account holder) could subject Microsoft and the Trustee to serious civil and criminal penalties. 18 U.S.C. § 2707.\n\n3\n\n8. The SCA does allow disclosure under certain enumerated exceptions. 18 U.S.C. §2702(b). But the present circumstances do not fall under any of those exceptions.\n\n9. Further, the SCA prohibits Microsoft from taking the action sought by the Trustee even if such a request is accompanied by a Subpoena. See, e.g., Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 4 Cal. 5th 1245, 1262-66, 1270–71, 417 P.3d 725 (2018) (discussion of O'Grady v. Superior Ct., 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423, 1442, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 72, 85 (2006), as modified, and related cases on SCA's restriction of subpoenas to internet service providers); Suzlon Energy Ltd. V. Microsoft Corp., 671 F.3d 726, 728-729 (9th Cir. 2011) (petition for production of documents by Microsoft as internet service provider quashed because production of emails would violate SCA); Theofel v. Farey–Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, 1071–72, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding that a civil subpoena to plaintiff's internet service provider violated the SCA).\n\n10. As a general matter, \"the bankruptcy court may not order relief that results in a violation [of] the U.S. Constitution or other federal law.\" In re Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in Special Liquidation), 559 B.R. at 652-653 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016) (quoting In re U.S. Fidelis, Inc., 481 B.R. 503, 515 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2012)). Here, the relief sought by the Trustee would violate the SCA, and \"the Bankruptcy Code does not include an exception to the SCA's prohibition [on disclosure].\" Id.\n\n#### CONCLUSION\n\nAlthough this motion is not properly before the Court and, even if it was, the SCA prevents Microsoft from implementing the requested relief, the Trustee is not without a path forward for gaining access to existing accounts. The quickest way to gain access to information contained in any Golden Spring or Lamp Capital account would be for the Trustee to identify the \"global administrator\" and assume access through that/those individual/s. The Trustee would then have full control over any available Microsoft accounts including passwords and the administrative features in Office 365.\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the Trustee's motion be denied as to Microsoft.\n\n4\n\n### Dated: July 25, 2024 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP\n\n/s/ Matthew J. Schenker\n\nMatthew J. Schenker (CT28912) 101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 905-2308 Facsimile: (212) 692-0940 Email: mschenker@foxrothschild.com\n\n-and-\n\nMaria A. Milano (Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming) David P. Papiez (Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming) 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98154-1192 Telephone: (206) 624-3600 Facsimile: (206) 389-1708 Email: mamilano@foxrothschild.com Email: dpapiez@foxrothschild.com\n\nAttorneys for Microsoft Corporation\n\n#### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on July 25, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing RESPONSE OF\n\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION IN OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY MOTION OF\n\nCHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ORDER TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE EVIDENCE AND\n\nPROPERTY OF ESTATE was e-filed as sealed and served electronically to:\n\nDennis M. Carnelli (CT30050) Patrick R. Linsey (CT29437) Douglas S. Skalka (CT00616) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 821-2000 dcarnelli@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com dskalka@npmlaw.com\n\nNotice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic\n\nfiling system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of\n\nElectronic Filing.\n\n# FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Matthew J. Schenker*\n\n> Matthew J. Schenker (CT28912) 101 Park Avenue 17th Floor New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 905-2308 Facsimile: (212) 692-0940\n\nAttorneys for Microsoft Corporation","body_zh":"United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n案件：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等 1\n\n债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并审理）\n\n相关案卷号：3305, 3306, 3307\n\nMicrosoft Corporation（微软公司）反对第 11 章受托人关于保护和保全破产财产证据与财产命令之紧急动议的答辩书\n\nMicrosoft Corporation（微软公司，简称“微软”），由其下述署名律师代表，特此提交本答辩书，反对第 11 章受托人关于保护和保全破产财产证据与财产命令之紧急动议（密封案卷号：3305）（简称“本动议”）。微软请求法院驳回受托人针对微软提出的动议，理由如下：(1) 法院对微软缺乏管辖权；以及 (2) Stored Communications Act（《存储通信法》，简称“SCA”）禁止微软在未经账户持有人同意的情况下采取行动或披露有关其客户账户的信息。\n\n相关背景\n\n1. 2023年7月25日，受托人提起了案号为 23-05018 的对抗性诉讼，请求作出确认性判决，认定非债务人 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，简称“Golden Spring”）是债务人的另一个人格（alter ego）；2023年12月4日，受托人获得了针对 Golden Spring 的缺席判决，准予了所请求的救济。法院进一步裁定，Golden Spring 的所有资产均为债务人破产财产。\n\n2. 受托人于 2023年10月26日 针对非债务人 Lamp Capital LLC（简称“Lamp Capital”）提起了类似的对抗性诉讼（对抗性案件案号：23-05023），并且在\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称为郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。\n\n2024年2月1日，受托人获得了针对 Lamp Capital 的缺席判决，认定其为债务人的另一个人格。法院进一步裁定，Lamp Capital 的所有资产均为债务人破产财产。\n\n3. 在获得针对 Golden Spring 的缺席判决七个月后、获得针对 Lamp Capital 的缺席判决五个月后，受托人提交了其当前的动议，寻求获得一项命令，指示微软保全受托人认为与非债务人 Golden Spring 及 Lamp Capital 相关联的两个域名的相关信息：“gsnyus.com”和“lampcapital.org”。\n\n论证与法律依据\n\nA. 受托人的动议是不正当的，因为微软并非本破产程序的当事人。\n\n4. 微软并非本程序的当事人，亦未同意接受本法院的管辖。因此，法院对微软不具有可以准予所请求救济的管辖权。尽管根据本案事实涉及 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3)，但受托人依该条所享有的权力仅适用于债务人、Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital，而不适用于微软。此外，虽然法院依据 11 U.S.C. § 105 可能拥有广泛的权力，但在面对 SCA 限制未经同意披露客户信息的规定时，该权力并不延伸至强迫非当事人微软采取行动或提供材料。参见 In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd. (in Special Liquidation), 559 B.R. 627, 650–51 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)（确认 SCA 未在民事诉讼中提供在未经用户同意的情况下通过传票或法院命令强迫服务提供商披露用户私人信息的机制）。\n\n5. 受托人进一步提出，法院可以“基于其固有权力以及《联邦民事诉讼规则》各项条款赋予其的权力”来准予所请求的救济以解决证据开示争议。动议第 6 页。然而，受托人引用的规则和依据仅适用于诉讼当事人，而微软并非本程序的当事人。例如，《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 16 条允许法院就“保全电子存储信息（ESI）”作出审前命令。然而，此类命令仅对诉讼当事人有效，对微软这样的非当事人服务提供商无效。同样，第 26 条和第 37 条概述了法院可以针对当事人而非针对非当事人作出证据开示相关命令的范围。受托人引用的用以主张法院可作出所请求救济的唯一判例 Toussie v. Allstate, Inc. Co.，涉及的是当事人之间的证据保全争议。15CV5235ARRCLP, 2018 WL 2766140, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2018), aff'd, 15-CV-5235 (ARR)(PK), 2018 WL 11451597 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2018)。该案并不涉及受制于 SCA 的非当事人服务提供商。事实上，Toussie 案法院承认保全命令对非当事人的局限性，并引用了 Weitzman v. Stein, 897 F.2d 653, 655-57 (2d Cir. 1990) 案，在该案中，“冻结令”被撤销，部分原因在于“地方法院对非当事人缺乏管辖权”。同上。\n\n6. 虽然微软理解受托人对保全和获取任何 Golden Spring 或 Lamp Capital 账户中所含信息的关切与意愿，但该动议反映出试图针对非当事人微软获取命令在程序上是不正确的。\n\nB. 《存储通信法》禁止微软执行所请求的救济。\n\n7. 即使破产法院对微软具有管辖权，Electronic Communications Privacy Act（《电子通信隐私法》，简称“ECPA”）第二编，即 18 U.S.C. §2510 至 §2711，通称为 Stored Communications Act（《存储通信法》，简称“SCA”），也禁止微软执行所请求的救济。具体而言，受托人请求法院下达命令，指示微软保全两个域名及所有相关的“内容、通信、数据、文件和/或电子存储信息”。动议第 3 页。该动议还预示了受托人意图“尽快确立其检查或获取所保全证据的权利”。动议第 10 页。然而，SCA 禁止微软应包括受托人在内的第三方的请求采取任何行动，或披露有关其客户账户的任何信息。此类未经授权的行动（未经账户持有人同意）可能会使微软和受托人面临严重的民事和刑事处罚。18 U.S.C. § 2707。\n\n8. SCA 确实在某些列举的例外情形下允许披露。18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)。但目前的情况不属于任何这些例外情形。\n\n9. 此外，即使受托人提出的此类请求附有传票，SCA 亦禁止微软采取其所要求的行动。参见，例如 Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 4 Cal. 5th 1245, 1262-66, 1270–71, 417 P.3d 725 (2018)（讨论了 O'Grady v. Superior Ct., 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423, 1442, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 72, 85 (2006)（经修改）及关于 SCA 限制对互联网服务提供商发出传票的相关判例）；Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 671 F.3d 726, 728-729 (9th Cir. 2011)（要求作为互联网服务提供商的微软提供文件的申请被撤销，因为提供电子邮件将违反 SCA）；Theofel v. Farey–Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, 1071–72, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)（认定针对原告互联网服务提供商发出的民事传票违反了 SCA）。\n\n10. 一般而言，“破产法院不得下达导致违反美国宪法或其他联邦法律的救济裁定。”In re Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in Special Liquidation), 559 B.R. at 652-653 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)（引用 In re U.S. Fidelis, Inc., 481 B.R. 503, 515 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2012)）。在本案中，受托人所请求的救济将违反 SCA，且“《破产法典》并未包含对 SCA 禁止披露规定的例外情况。”同上。\n\n结论\n\n尽管本动议不适当地提交至法院，而且即便适当地提交，SCA 也禁止微软执行所请求的救济，但这并不意味着受托人没有获取现有账户访问权限的途径。受托人获取 Golden Spring 或 Lamp Capital 任何账户中所含信息的最快途径是确定“全局管理员”，并通过该名/这些个人获取访问权限。届时受托人将完全控制任何可用的微软账户，包括密码和 Office 365 中的管理功能。\n\n基于上述理由，我们谨请求驳回受托人针对微软提出的动议。\n\n日期：2024年7月25日 Fox Rothschild LLP（福克斯·罗斯柴尔德律师事务所）\n\n/签名/ Matthew J. Schenker\n\nMatthew J. Schenker (CT28912) 101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10178 电话：(212) 905-2308 传真：(212) 692-0940 电子邮件：mschenker@foxrothschild.com\n\n—以及—\n\nMaria A. Milano（即将申请特别出庭许可） David P. Papiez（即将申请特别出庭许可） 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98154-1192 电话：(206) 624-3600 传真：(206) 389-1708 电子邮件：mamilano@foxrothschild.com 电子邮件：dpapiez@foxrothschild.com\n\nMicrosoft Corporation（微软公司）代理律师\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2024年7月25日，前述《Microsoft Corporation（微软公司）反对第 11 章受托人关于保护和保全破产财产证据与财产命令之紧急动议的答辩书》的真实准确副本已作为密封文件进行电子立案，并已通过电子方式送达至：\n\nDennis M. Carnelli (CT30050) Patrick R. Linsey (CT29437) Douglas S. Skalka (CT00616) Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 821-2000 dcarnelli@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com dskalka@npmlaw.com\n\n本立案通知将通过法院电子立案系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事人，或如电子立案通知所载，通过邮寄方式发送给任何无法接收电子立案的人员。\n\nFox Rothschild LLP（福克斯·罗斯柴尔德律师事务所）\n\n代表签署：/签名/ Matthew J. Schenker\n\nMatthew J. Schenker (CT28912) 101 Park Avenue 17th Floor New York, NY 10178 电话：(212) 905-2308 传真：(212) 692-0940\n\nMicrosoft Corporation（微软公司）代理律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1563,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:55:53"}