{"id":"court_ctb_400_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":400,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHo Wan Kwok,\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\n# **GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.'S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT 1 FROM THE HEARING OF APRIL 27, 2022, AND REQUEST FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD PRIOR TO ANY FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT**\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited (\"GSNY\"), by and through its undersigned attorneys,\n\nCohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C., hereby files this statement in further support of this Court's order sealing Exhibit 1 from the evidentiary hearing conducted on April 27, 2022. GSNY's statement is as follows:\n\n## **INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT**\n\n At an evidentiary hearing on April 27, 2022, this Court ordered Exhibit 1 (\"Exhibit 1\") sealed until further order of the Court. The Court sealed the exhibit at the request of GSNY, which expressed concern for the privacy rights of its employees. For the reasons set forth below, GSNY has substantial concerns about its employees' privacy and security. As a result, despite the withdrawal by creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") of its Motion to Unseal Exhibit 1 on May 17, 2022 (ECF No. 388), and out of an abundance of caution in the event the Court is considering whether to act *sua sponte* on the issue, GSNY files this statement in further support of this Court's initial sealing of Exhibit 1. In the event that any party seeks to unseal\n\nExhibit 1 in the future, or the Court *sua sponte* considers unsealing Exhibit 1, GSNY requests the opportunity to appear and be heard before the entry of any such unsealing order.\n\n### **PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\") filed for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. ECF No. 1.\n\n2. On March 16, 2022, the Debtor filed a motion to retain Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. as his financial adviser (the \"Verdolino Retention Motion\"). ECF No. 90.\n\n3. On March 22, 2022, the Debtor filed to obtain an interim order obtaining postpetition financing from GSNY (the \"DIP Financing Motion\"). ECF No. 117.\n\n4. On April 27, 2022, this Court conducted evidentiary hearings on the Verdolino Retention Motion and the DIP Financing Motion.\n\n5. During the hearings on April 27, PAX asked Craig Jalbert of Verdolino & Lowey to reveal the name of an employee of GSNY. GSNY objected to Mr. Jalbert responding on the record. After hearing argument from counsel, this Court directed Mr. Jalbert to write the name of the GSNY employee on a piece of paper. This Court then marked the page containing the name of the GSNY employee as Exhibit 1.\n\n6. In marking Exhibit 1, this Court ruled as follows:\n\nWould you approach, please -- and thank you -- and hand that to the courtroom deputy and she will mark that. So we just need a minute to give the courtroom deputy time to make that exhibit. And I am indicating on the record it's 11:03 a.m. I'm marking Court's Exhibit 1 under seal until further order of the Court and that is so ordered on the record.\n\n*Transcript of Proceedings, April 27, 2022,* at pp. 61-62.\n\n7. The name of the GSNY employee that had been written by Mr. Jalbert was then disclosed to counsel for PAX, counsel for the United States Trustee, counsel for the Debtor, and counsel for GSNY. No other party was privy to the GSNY employee's name.\n\n8. This Court concluded the evidentiary hearings on April 27 with no further discussion of the name of any GSNY employee and no party made any argument that related, directly or indirectly, to the named GSNY employee.\n\n9. On May 4, 2022, PAX moved pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105 and 107 to unseal Exhibit 1. ECF No. 328. On May 18, 2022, PAX withdrew its motion (ECF No. 388) and advised GSNY that it would agree to take no position on a motion to keep Exhibit 1 under seal.\n\n10. Currently pending before this Court is PAX's Motion to Dismiss the abovecaptioned bankruptcy case (the \"Motion to Dismiss\"). ECF No. 183. On May 11, 2022, after GSNY withdrew as his proposed DIP lender, the Debtor consented to the Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 344-45. At a status conference on May 17, 2022, the parties indicated that no discovery was necessary regarding the Motion to Dismiss.\n\n#### **THE SECURITY CONCERNS OF GSNY**\n\n11. The Debtor is a highly outspoken critic of the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\"). *See Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok* (\"Kwok Declaration\"), ECF No. 107, at ¶13.\n\n12. The Debtor has averred that he \"lives[s] in continuous fear of retribution by the [CCP] for [his] outspoken criticism of its corruption and human rights abuses.\" *Id.*, at ¶4. The CCP has jailed and tortured the Debtor. *Id.* The CCP killed his brother. *Id.* It also detained, tortured and imprisoned many of his family members and former colleagues. *Id.*, at ¶16.\n\n13. The Debtor has averred that his family has been subject to retribution by the CCP. He has stated:\n\nOn January 10, 2015, Wu Zheng (a/k/a \"Bruno Wu\") advised me that my brothers, my wife, and my daughter had all been arrested in China. Bruno Wu is closely associated with top CCP officials and is a registered foreign agent of the CCP . . . and he is personally bankrolling (on behalf of the CCP) the litigation efforts of numerous plaintiffs against me. In early 2015, Bruno Wu, speaking on behalf of senior members of the CCP, called me to relay that my family would be released if I stopped publicly exposing CCP corruption and threatened that, if I did not comply, INTERPOL \"Red Notices\" would be issued for both me and my son and that I would be killed.\n\n*Id.,* at *¶*13.\n\n14. GSNY is owned by another entity, which is owned by Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son.\n\n15. Like the Debtor and his family, GSNY has been subjected to harassment and intimidation by the CCP.\n\n16. The Director of Security for GSNY, an individual with more than 26 years of law enforcement and security experience, confirms that \"GSNY personnel face serious threats daily, primarily from fanatical members of the [CCP.]\" *See Security Report*, attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n17. The Security Report states that GSNY's security department has obtained verbal and physical evidence confirming that \"the perpetrators\" are loyal supporters of the CCP and that their threats against GSNY employees have been verified by a former FBI consultant. *Id.* The report also confirms that unauthorized individuals regularly attempt to enter GSNY's offices and that individuals have had to be physically removed from the premises by the NYPD. *Id.*\n\n*18.* GSNY's Security Report further confirms that there have been \"numerous incidents of GSNY employees being followed, harassed, and physically threatened, and security escorts to and from the office have been necessary to ensure their safety.\" *Id.* The Security Report describes the stalking of employees, the need for employees to obtain restraining orders, and threats of gun violence against employees. *Id.*\n\n19. Fanatical supporters of the CCP have resorted to espionage, harassment, and violence in the United States in support of their political ideology. In March 2022, the Department of Justice indicted five individuals related to efforts by the secret police of China to spy on Chinese Nationals in New York City. *See Department of Justice Press Release,* March 16, 2022, \"Five Individuals Charged Variously with Stalking, Harassing and Spying on U.S. Residents on Behalf of the PRC Secret Police,\" attached hereto as Exhibit B.\n\n20. Just four days ago, on May 15, 2022, a China-born U.S. citizen killed one man and wounded five others in California while acting on political grievances he held against the Taiwanese community. *See Wall Street Journal,* May 16, 2022, \"California Church Shooting Suspect Was Upset About China-Taiwan Relations,\" attached hereto as Exhibit C.\n\n21. The surreptitious activities of the CCP in the United States have directly concerned Debtor, its most outspoken opponent. Just two days ago, the Justice Department sued Steve Wynn for his failure to register as a lobbyist for the CCP. According to the complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit D, in an effort to protect his business interests in Macau, China, Wynn directly lobbied then President Trump and members of his administration on behalf of the former Vice Minister for Public Security of the CCP (Sun Lijun) and China itself (at the behest of President Xi) to persuade the U.S. Government to extradite the Debtor to China. *See generally* Ex. D. The importance of this suit against Wynn was underscored by the head of the Justice Department's national security division, who confirmed that the suit marks \"the first affirmative civil lawsuit under FARA in more than three decades.\" *Wall Street Journal,* May 18, 2022, \"Steve Wynn Sued by Justice Department,\" attached hereto as Exhibit E.\n\n### **ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY**\n\n*A. Exhibit 1 Was Never Filed and Is Not Part of the Docket.*\n\n22. There is a presumption of access to documents in judicial proceedings. In\n\nbankruptcy, this presumption is codified in 11 U.S.C. § 107. 11 U.S.C. § 107(a) provides:\n\nExcept as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and subject to section 112, a paper *filed in a case* under this title and the dockets of a bankruptcy court are public records and open to examination by an entity at reasonable times without charge.\n\n11 U.S.C. § 107 (emphasis added).\n\n23. Exhibit 1 was never filed in the case and is not on the docket of this case.\n\n24. 11 U.S.C. § 107(a) does not require that Exhibit 1 be open to examination because\n\nit is not on the docket and is not incorporated into any document that has been filed with the Court.\n\n*See In re Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing Techs. LLC,* 488 B.R. 281, 297 (D. Del. 2013), as\n\ncorrected (Mar. 15, 2013) (ruling that statements were subject to § 107 because court orders\n\nrequired them to be \"filed\" with the Bankruptcy Court).\n\n25. The docket is accurate, transparent, and complete without Exhibit 1. The accuracy of the docket does not require the unsealing of Exhibit 1.\n\n- *B. 11 U.S.C. § 107(c) Confirms the Propriety of This Court's on the Record Sealing Order.*\n- 26. 11 U.S.C. § 107(c) provides:\n\n(1) The bankruptcy court, for cause, may protect an individual, with respect to the following types of information to the extent the court finds that disclosure of such information would create undue risk of identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual or the individual's property:\n\n(A) Any means of identification (as defined in section 1028(d) of title 18) contained in a paper filed, or to be filed, in a case under this title.\n\n27. Section 107(c) protects \"any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual.\" *In re Motions Seeking Access to 2019 Statements*, 585 B.R. 733, 750 (D. Del. 2018), aff'd sub nom. *In re A C & S Inc.*, 775 F. App'x 78 (3d Cir. 2019), *citing* 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d).\n\n28. Unlawful injury can include injury resulting from the wrongful disclosure of private identifying information. *See In re Motions Seeking Access to 2019 Statements,* 585 B.R. at 750 (affirming the sealing of documents and citing transcript, stating: \"[t]hey don't want to be harassed by third parties. They don't want to be harassed by insurance companies who aren't paying. They don't want to be harassed by so-called investment advisers. They signed up, not to have their social security numbers and their disease spread around the country or to their neighbors or anyone else\").\n\n29. Courts have discretion to strike an appropriate balance between access to information and privacy concerns. *See Stein v. Needle,* No. 2022 WL 1212822, at \\*1 (D. Conn. 2022) (final step is to balance the weight of the presumption against competing considerations against it). When striking this balance, the Court must consider the document at issue. \"[T]he weight to be given the presumption of access must be governed by the role of the material at issue . . . . Generally, the information will fall somewhere on a continuum from matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that come within a court's purview solely to insure [sic] their irrelevance.\" *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga*, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006).\n\n30. In this case, the balancing of the competing interests of access to information versus privacy rights strongly favors the continued sealing of Exhibit 1. The document at issue was submitted to this Court on a motion to retain a professional. The document contains only a name. The name of GSNY's employee has no relevance to the retention application. Further, given the\n\ncurrent procedural posture of this case, it is possible that Court need not rule on the financial advisor's retention. The other matter at issue during the April 27 hearing, the DIP Financing Motion, was withdrawn prior to a ruling by this Court. ECF No. 345. In short, Exhibit 1 has played and will play no role in any decision in this case; nor will it be relevant to any issues of material fact in this case.\n\n31. Given the current procedural posture of this case, there is no reason to unseal Exhibit 1, or even to consider unsealing it. The Debtor has consented to PAX's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 344. At a status conference on May 17, 2022, all parties agreed that there was no need for discovery on the Motion to Dismiss and there would be no contest over whether cause exists to grant the Motion to Dismiss. At this juncture, there is no reason to compromise the security and safety of GSNY employees by disseminating their names. That information is—and if the Motion to Dismiss is granted, will remain—irrelevant to this bankruptcy case.\n\n32. On the other hand, the countervailing privacy interests of the individual involved are substantial. The privacy rights of this individual are *specifically* recognized by § 107(c) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Exhibit 1 is unquestionably a \"means of identification\" as that term is used in § 107(c). Under the circumstances of this case, as shown by the Security Report and the Kwok Declaration, the unsealing of Exhibit 1 will create an undue risk of identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual. In this case, the privacy rights of the individual involved far outweigh the presumption of access to an exhibit containing a single name that was never part of any public court record.\n\n33. In sum, there is no legitimate reason to unseal Exhibit 1 and disseminate the individual's name. As confirmed by GSNY's Director of Security and substantiated by the Kwok Declaration: \"[g]iven that the disclosure of GSNY employee names poses a serious danger to them\n\nand their families, their names must be kept confidential.\" The consequences of revealing the information in Exhibit 1 could therefore be dire.\n\nWHEREFORE, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. provides this statement in support of this Court's order on the record sealing Exhibit 1 from the proceeding conducted on April 27, 2022, and requests an opportunity to be heard by the Court prior to the entry of any order unsealing Exhibit 1.\n\n### GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LIMITED\n\n By /s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger Timothy D. Miltenberger (ct08874) Scott D. Rosen Cohn Birnbuam & Shea P.C. 100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 493-2262 Tmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on May 19, 2022 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to all appearing parties. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n /s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger Timothy D. Miltenberger","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n\n第 11 章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.（源泉（纽约）有限公司）支持对 2022 年 4 月 27 日听证会证据 1 予以封存的命令的陈述，以及请求在法院作出任何进一步命令之前给予陈述意见机会的申请\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited（“GSNY”），由其下述签字律师事务所 Cohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C. 代表，特此提交本陈述，以进一步支持本法院对 2022 年 4 月 27 日进行的证据听证会中的证据 1 予以封存的命令。GSNY 的陈述如下：\n\n引言陈述\n\n在 2022 年 4 月 27 日的证据听证会上，本法院命令将证据 1（“证据 1”）封存，直至法院另有命令。法院应 GSNY 的请求封存了该证据，GSNY 对其雇员的隐私权表达了担忧。基于下文阐述的理由，GSNY 对其雇员的隐私和安全有着极大的担忧。因此，尽管债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，下称“PAX”）已于 2022 年 5 月 17 日撤回其要求启封证据 1 的动议（ECF No. 388），并且出于高度谨慎以防法院正在考虑是否依职权主动就该问题采取行动，GSNY 提交本陈述以进一步支持本法院最初对证据 1 的封存。如果将来有任何当事人寻求启封证据 1，或者法院依职权主动考虑启封证据 1，GSNY 请求在作出任何此类启封命令之前获得出庭并陈述意见的机会。\n\n程序背景\n\n1. 2022 年 2 月 15 日，Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）根据《美国破产法典》第 11 章申请救济。ECF No. 1。\n\n2. 2022 年 3 月 16 日，债务人提交了聘请 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. 担任其财务顾问的动议（“Verdolino 聘用动议”）。ECF No. 90。\n\n3. 2022 年 3 月 22 日，债务人提出申请，以期获得从 GSNY 处取得申请后融资（DIP 融资）的临时命令（“DIP 融资动议”）。ECF No. 117。\n\n4. 2022 年 4 月 27 日，本法院就 Verdolino 聘用动议和 DIP 融资动议进行了证据听证会。\n\n5. 在 4 月 27 日的听证会期间，PAX 要求 Verdolino & Lowey 的 Craig Jalbert 披露一名 GSNY 雇员的姓名。GSNY 反对 Jalbert 先生在庭审记录中作答。在听取了律师的辩论后，本法院指示 Jalbert 先生将该 GSNY 雇员的姓名写在一张纸上。本法院随后将写有该 GSNY 雇员姓名的该页纸标为证据 1。\n\n6. 在标记证据 1 时，本法院裁定如下：\n\n请你走上前来——谢谢——把那个交给法庭副书记官，她会进行标记。我们只需要一分钟时间让法庭副书记官制作该证据。我在庭审记录中指明现在是上午 11:03。我将法院证据 1 标记为封存，直至法院另有命令，庭审记录中已如此下达命令。\n\n诉讼程序记录，2022 年 4 月 27 日，第 61-62 页。\n\n7. Jalbert 先生所写的该 GSNY 雇员的姓名随后被披露给 PAX 的律师、美国受托人（United States Trustee）的律师、债务人的律师以及 GSNY 的律师。没有其他当事人获知该 GSNY 雇员的姓名。\n\n8. 本法院结束了 4 月 27 日的证据听证会，未再进一步讨论任何 GSNY 雇员的姓名，亦无任何当事人提出与该被具名的 GSNY 雇员直接或间接相关的任何辩论主张。\n\n9. 2022 年 5 月 4 日，PAX 依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105 和 107 提议启封证据 1。ECF No. 328。2022 年 5 月 18 日，PAX 撤回了其动议（ECF No. 388），并告知 GSNY 其同意对维持证据 1 封存状态的动议不持立场。\n\n10. 目前本法院正在审理 PAX 要求驳回上述破产案件的动议（“驳回动议”）。ECF No. 183。2022 年 5 月 11 日，在 GSNY 撤回作为其拟议 DIP 出借人之后，债务人同意了驳回动议。ECF Nos. 344-45。在 2022 年 5 月 17 日的案件进展会议上，各方当事人表示针对驳回动议无需进行证据开示。\n\nGSNY 的安全关切\n\n11. 债务人是一位极其直言不讳的 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，下称“CCP”）批评者。见《Ho Wan Kwok 先生的声明》（“郭氏声明”），ECF No. 107，第 13 段。\n\n12. 债务人坚称他“一直生活在因自己对 [CCP] 的腐败和侵犯人权行为的直言批评而遭到其报复的持续恐惧中”。同上，第 4 段。CCP 曾监禁并折磨过债务人。同上。CCP 杀害了他的兄弟。同上。它还拘留、折磨并监禁了他的多名家人和前同事。同上，第 16 段。\n\n13. 债务人坚称他的家人曾遭受 CCP 的报复。他陈述道：\n\n2015 年 1 月 10 日，Wu Zheng（又名“Bruno Wu”[吴征]）告知我，我的兄弟们、我的妻子和我的女儿都在中国被捕了。Bruno Wu 与 CCP 高官关系密切，是 CCP 的注册外国代理人……并且他代表 CCP 亲自为多名原告针对我的诉讼行动提供资金支持。2015 年初，Bruno Wu 代表 CCP 高层成员致电给我，转达称如果我停止公开揭露 CCP 的腐败，我的家人就会被释放，并威胁说如果我不照办，将针对我和我儿子发布国际刑警组织“红色通缉令”，并且我会被杀害。\n\n同上，第 13 段。\n\n14. GSNY 由另一家实体所有，该实体由债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）所有。\n\n15. 与债务人及其家人一样，GSNY 一直遭受 CCP 的骚扰和恐吓。\n\n16. GSNY 的安保总监（一位拥有超过 26 年执法和安保经验的人员）证实，“GSNY 人员每天都面临严重威胁，主要来自 [CCP] 的狂热分子。”见附于本文件后的证据 A《安保报告》。\n\n17. 《安保报告》指出，GSNY 的安保部门已获得言语和实物证据，证实“作恶者”是 CCP 的忠实支持者，且他们对 GSNY 雇员的威胁已得到一名联邦调查局（FBI）前顾问的核实。同上。该报告还证实，未经授权的人员经常企图进入 GSNY 的办公室，并且有人曾不得不由纽约市警察局（NYPD）强行带离该场所。同上。\n\n18. GSNY 的《安保报告》进一步证实，“发生了多起 GSNY 雇员被跟踪、骚扰和受到人身威胁的事件，为了确保他们的安全，上下班期间提供安保护送已成为必要措施。”同上。《安保报告》描述了对雇员的尾随跟踪、雇员需要申请限制令的情况，以及对雇员的枪支暴力威胁。同上。\n\n19. CCP 的狂热支持者在美国诉诸间谍活动、骚扰和暴力手段以支持其政治意识形态。2022 年 3 月，司法部起诉了五名与中国秘密警察在纽约市从事针对中国公民的间谍活动有关的个人。见司法部 2022 年 3 月 16 日新闻通稿，“五名个人分别被控代表中华人民共和国秘密警察对美国居民进行跟踪、骚扰和间谍活动”，附于本文件后作为证据 B。\n\n20. 就在四天前的 2022 年 5 月 15 日，一名出生于中国的美国公民在加利福尼亚州杀害了一名男子并打伤了另外五人，其作案动机是他对台湾人群体抱有的政治不满。见《华尔街日报》，2022 年 5 月 16 日，“加州教堂枪击案嫌疑人曾对两岸关系感到不满”，附于本文件后作为证据 C。\n\n21. CCP 在美国的秘密活动已直接涉及到债务人——其最公开的反对者。就在两天前，司法部起诉了 Steve Wynn（史蒂芬·永利），原因是他未能注册为 CCP 的游说客。根据起诉书（附于本文件后作为证据 D），为了保护其在中国澳门的商业利益，Wynn 代表前 CCP 公安部副部长（孙力军）和中国本身（应习主席的要求），直接向当时的特朗普总统及其政府成员进行游说，以说服美国政府将债务人引渡回中国。通常见证据 D。司法部国家安全司负责人强调了针对 Wynn 的这起诉讼的重要性，他证实该诉讼标志着“三十多年来根据《外国代理人登记法》（FARA）提起的首起主动民事诉讼”。《华尔街日报》，2022 年 5 月 18 日，“史蒂芬·永利被司法部起诉”，附于本文件后作为证据 E。\n\n法律辩论及依据\n\nA. 证据 1 从未提交归档，亦不是案件卷宗的一部分。\n\n22. 在司法程序中存在对文件的公开查阅推定。在破产案件中，该推定被编入 11 U.S.C. § 107 中。11 U.S.C. § 107(a) 规定：\n\n除 (b) 和 (c) 款另有规定以及在符合第 112 条规定的前提下，在本篇项下的案件中提交归档的文书以及破产法院的案卷属于公开记录，任何实体均可在合理时间内免费查阅。\n\n11 U.S.C. § 107（后加下划线强调）。\n\n23. 证据 1 从未在本案中提交归档，也不在本案的案卷中。\n\n24. 11 U.S.C. § 107(a) 并不要求证据 1 必须公开供查阅，因为它不在案卷中，也未并入已向法院提交归档的任何文件中。参见 In re Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing Techs. LLC, 488 B.R. 281, 297 (D. Del. 2013), as corrected (Mar. 15, 2013)（裁定声明受第 107 条约束，因为法院命令要求它们向破产法院“提交归档”）。\n\n25. 在没有证据 1 的情况下，案卷是准确、透明且完整的。案卷的准确性并不要求启封证据 1。\n\nB. 11 U.S.C. § 107(c) 证实了本法院记录在案的封存命令的正当性。\n\n26. 11 U.S.C. § 107(c) 规定：\n\n(1) 破产法院可基于正当理由，在法院认定披露下述类型的信息会给个人或个人的财产带来身份盗用或其他非法损害的不当风险的范围内，对该个人提供保护：\n\n(A) 在本篇项下案件中已提交或将提交的文件中所包含的任何身份识别手段（定义见第 18 篇第 1028(d) 条）。\n\n27. 第 107(c) 款保护“可单独或与任何其他信息结合用于识别特定个人的任何姓名或号码”。In re Motions Seeking Access to 2019 Statements, 585 B.R. 733, 750 (D. Del. 2018), aff'd sub nom. In re A C & S Inc., 775 F. App'x 78 (3d Cir. 2019)，援引 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)。\n\n28. 非法损害可包括因不当披露私人身份信息而导致的损害。参见 In re Motions Seeking Access to 2019 Statements, 585 B.R. at 750（维持对文件的封存并引用庭审记录，陈述道：“他们不想受到第三方的骚扰。他们不想受到拒不赔付的保险公司的骚扰。他们不想受到所谓投资顾问的骚扰。他们报名并不是为了让自己的社会安全号码和所患疾病传播到全国，或者传给他们的邻居或其他人”）。\n\n29. 法院有权酌情在获取信息的权利与隐私权考量之间取得适当平衡。参见 Stein v. Needle 案，No. 2022 WL 1212822，第 *1 页（D. Conn.（康涅狄格区联邦地区法院）2022 年）（最后一步是权衡公开推定的分量与反对公开的相互竞争考量）。在取得这一平衡时，法院必须考虑涉案文件。「赋予获取信息推定的权重必须取决于涉案材料所起的作用……一般而言，这些信息将处于一个连续区间内的某个位置，区间一端是直接影响判决的事项，另一端则是仅为确保其不具相关性而进入法院审理范围的事项。」Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga 案，435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)。\n\n30. 在本案中，获取信息的竞争性利益与隐私权之间的平衡强烈支持对证据 1 继续予以封存。涉案文件是就聘用专业人士的动议向本法院提交的。该文件仅包含一个姓名。GSNY（Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.，金泉（纽约）有限公司）员工的姓名与聘用申请毫无关联。此外，鉴于本案目前的诉讼进程，法院可能无需就聘用财务顾问一事作出裁定。在 4 月 27 日听证会上争议的另一事项，即 DIP 融资动议，已在本法院作出裁定前被撤回。ECF No. 345。简而言之，证据 1 在本案的任何决定中均未发挥且将不会发挥任何作用；它也与本案的任何实质性事实问题无关。\n\n31. 鉴于本案目前的诉讼进程，没有任何理由解封证据 1，甚至没有理由考虑解封它。债务人已同意 PAX（PAX 投资公司）的驳回动议。ECF No. 344。在 2022 年 5 月 17 日的案件状态会议上，各方均同意无需就驳回动议进行证据开示，且对是否存在支持批准驳回动议的事由不持异议。在此节点上，没有任何理由通过传播 GSNY 员工的姓名来损害他们的安全与保障。该信息对本破产案件是不相关的——且如果驳回动议获得批准，该信息将继续保持不相关。\n\n32. 另一方面，涉案个人的对立隐私利益是重大的。该个人的隐私权受到《United States Bankruptcy Code（美国破产法典）》第 107(c) 条的明确承认。证据 1 毫无疑问属于第 107(c) 条中所指的「身份识别手段」。在本案情况下，如《安全报告》和《Kwok 声明》（郭文贵声明）所示，解封证据 1 将对该个人造成身份盗用或其他不法侵害的不当风险。在本案中，涉案个人的隐私权远远超过了获取一份仅包含单个姓名且从未构成任何公开法院记录一部分的证据的推定权利。\n\n33. 总之，解封证据 1 并传播该个人姓名没有任何正当理由。正如 GSNY 安全总监所证实并经《Kwok 声明》所证实的：「鉴于披露 GSNY 员工姓名会对他们及其家属造成严重危险，他们的姓名必须予以保密。」因此，披露证据 1 中的信息可能导致可怕的后果。\n\n为此，Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）提供本陈述，以支持本法院在庭审记录中作出的关于封存 2022 年 4 月 27 日进行之庭审程序中证据 1 的命令，并请求在法院作出任何解封证据 1 的命令之前获得陈词的机会。\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LIMITED\n\n签署人：/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger (ct08874)\nScott D. Rosen\nCohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C.\n100 Pearl Street, 12th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n(860) 493-2262\nTmiltenberger@cbshealaw.com\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，2022 年 5 月 19 日，前述文书的副本已通过电子方式归档，并将通过法院电子归档系统的运作以电子邮件形式发送给所有出庭当事人。各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本份归档文件。\n\n/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger","key_entities":["CCP","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":90,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":183,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":328,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":344,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":345,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":388,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2645,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:15:52"}