{"id":"court_sdny_400_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":400,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 400","summary_zh":"密封令支持声明 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案，康州破产法院 22-50073 ECF #400（2022 年 5 月 19 日提交）。Golden Spring (New York) Limited 要求维持 2022 年 4 月 27 日听证会证物 1 的密封令，以保护 GSNY 员工身份，该员工因 Ho Wan Kwok 与中共的公开对抗而面临安全威胁。","summary_en":"Sealing order support declaration — Ho Wan Kwok bankruptcy case, District of Connecticut Bankruptcy Court No. 22-50073, ECF #400 (filed May 19, 2022). Golden Spring (New York) Limited requests maintenance of the sealing order for Exhibit 1 from the April 27, 2022 hearing to protect the identity of a GSNY employee whose safety faces threats due to Ho Wan Kwok's public opposition to the CCP.","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":"美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n案由：\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. 支持对2022年4月27日听证会物证1予以封存之裁定的陈述，以及在法院作出任何进一步裁定前请求陈述意见机会的申请\n\nGolden Spring (New York) Limited（简称“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物证1（Exhibit 1）予以封存的裁定。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，本法院裁定将物证1（简称“物证1”）予以封存，直至法院另行作出裁定。法院应 GSNY 的请求对该物证进行了封存，GSNY 当时对其员工的隐私权表示了关切。基于下文所述的理由，GSNY 对其员工的隐私和安全抱有重大关切。因此，尽管债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（简称“PAX”）已于2022年5月17日撤回其解封物证1的动议（ECF No. 388），并且出于极其谨慎的考虑，以防法院考虑是否依职权（sua sponte）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物证1的封存。如果将来有任何当事方寻求解封物证1，或法院依职权考虑解封物证1，GSNY 请求在作出任何此类解封裁定前获得出庭和陈述意见的机会。\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（简称“Verdolino 聘用动议”）。ECF No. 90。\n\n3. 2022年3月22日，债务人申请获取从 GSNY 获得申请后融资的临时裁定（简称“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。\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 员工的姓名。GSNY 反对 Jalbert 先生在庭审记录中作答。在听取律师辩论后，本法院指示 Jalbert 先生将该 GSNY 员工的姓名写在一张纸上。本法院随后将写有该 GSNY 员工姓名的纸页标记为物证1。\n\n6. 在标记物证1时，本法院裁定如下：\n\n请你走上前来——谢谢——把那个递给法庭副书记员，她会进行标记。我们只需要一分钟时间让法庭副书记员制作该物证。我正在记录中注明现在是上午11点03分。我将法院物证1予以封存标记，直至法院另行作出裁定，这已在记录中正式裁定。\n\n《诉讼听证记录，2022年4月27日》，第61-62页。\n\n7. Jalbert 先生写下的 GSNY 员工姓名随后被披露给 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。没有其他当事方知晓该 GSNY 员工的姓名。\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 员工的姓名，也没有任何当事方提出与该指定 GSNY 员工有直接或间接关联的辩论。\n\n9. 2022年5月4日，PAX 根据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105 及 107 提出解封物证1的动议。ECF No. 328。2022年5月18日，PAX 撤回了其动议（ECF No. 388），并告知 GSNY 其同意对维持物证1封存的动议不持立场。\n\n10. 目前在本法院待决的是 PAX 要求驳回上述标题项下破产案件的动议（简称“驳回动议”）。ECF No. 183。2022年5月11日，在 GSNY 撤回作为其拟议的 DIP 贷款人后，债务人同意了驳回动议。ECF Nos. 344-45。在2022年5月17日的案件进展状态会议上，各方当事人表示就驳回动议无需进行证据开示。\n\nGSNY 的安全关切\n\n11. 债务人是中国共产党（CCP）的直言不讳的批评者。见《Ho Wan Kwok 先生的声明》（简称“郭氏声明”），ECF No. 107，第13段。\n\n12. 债务人已断言，他“因直言不讳地批评其腐败和侵犯人权行为，一直生活在遭受 [CCP] 报复的持续恐惧中”。同上，第4段。CCP 曾将债务人关押并施以酷刑。同上。CCP 杀害了他的兄弟。同上。它还拘留、酷刑折磨并监禁了他的多名家人和前同事。同上，第16段。\n\n13. 债务人已断言其家人曾遭受 CCP 的报复。他陈述道：\n\n2015年1月10日，Wu Zheng（又名“Bruno Wu / 吴征”）通知我，我的兄弟们、我的妻子和我的女儿都已在中国被捕。Bruno Wu 与 CCP 高级官员关系密切，并且是已注册的 CCP 外国代理人……而且他亲自（代表 CCP）为众多原告针对我提起的诉讼提供资金支持。2015年初，Bruno Wu 代表 CCP 高级成员致电给我，转达如果我停止公开揭露 CCP 腐败，我的家人就会被释放，并威胁称如果我不服从，国际刑警组织将对我及我的儿子发布“红色通缉令”，而且我会被杀害。\n\n同上，第13段。\n\n14. GSNY 由另一实体全资拥有，而该实体由债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）拥有。\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 的安保主管（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。”见附于本陈述之后的《安保报告》，附件A。\n\n17. 该《安保报告》指出，GSNY 的安保部门已获取口头和实物证据，证实“肇事者”是 CCP 的忠实支持者，并且他们针对 GSNY 员工的威胁已得到一名前联邦调查局（FBI）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，纽约市警察局（NYPD）曾不得不将有关人员强行带离现场。同上。\n\n18. GSNY 的《安保报告》进一步证实，曾发生“多起 GSNY 员工被跟踪、骚扰和受到人身威胁的事件，为确保其安全，往返办公室必须配备安保人员护送。”同上。《安保报告》描述了对员工的跟踪尾随、员工申请限制令的必要性，以及针对员工的枪支暴力威胁。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，美国司法部（Department of Justice）起诉了五名个人，涉及中国秘密警察在纽约市对中国公民进行间谍活动的企图。见司法部新闻稿，2022年3月16日，“五名个人因代表中华人民共和国秘密警察跟踪、骚扰和监视美国居民分别被指控”，附于本陈述之后作为附件B。\n\n20. 就在四天前，即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一人并致伤五人，其行为出于对台湾人群体的政治不满。见《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal），2022年5月16日，“加州教堂枪击案嫌疑人对两岸关系感到不满”，附于本陈述之后作为附件C。\n\n21. CCP 在美国的秘密活动已直接涉及到债务人——其最直言不讳的反对者。就在两天前，司法部起诉了 Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·韦恩），因其未能注册为 CCP 的说客。根据附于本陈述之后的起诉书（附件D），为了保护其在中国澳门的商业利益，Wynn 代表 CCP 前公安部副部长（孙力军）及中国本身（应习主席的吩咐），直接游说了当时的特朗普总统及其政府成员，试图说服美国政府将债务人引渡至中国。总见附件D。针对 Wynn 的这起诉讼的重要性得到了司法部国家安全司负责人的强调，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）提起的首起肯定性民事诉讼”。《华尔街日报》，2022年5月18日，“司法部起诉 Steve Wynn”，附于本陈述之后作为附件E。\n\n法律论证与权威依据\n\nA. 物证1从未被归档提交，亦不是案卷目录的一部分。\n\n22. 司法程序中的文件享有可公开查阅的推定。在破产程序中，该推定被编纂于 11 U.S.C. § 107。11 U.S.C. § 107(a) 规定：\n\n除本条(b)款和(c)款另有规定并受制于第112条外，根据本篇在案件中归档提交的文件以及破产法院的案卷目录属于公共记录，在合理时间内供任何实体免费查阅。\n\n11 U.S.C. § 107（强调为后加）。\n\n23. 物证1从未在该案件中归档提交，亦不在本案的案卷目录中。\n\n24. 11 U.S.C. § 107(a) 并不要求物证1公开供查阅，因为它不在案卷目录上，也未并入已提交给法院的任何文件中。见 In re Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing Techs. LLC, 488 B.R. 281, 297 (D. Del. 2013)，经更正（2013年3月15日）（裁定陈述受制于 § 107，因为法院命令要求它们向破产法院“归档提交”）。\n\n25. 即使没有物证1，案卷目录也是准确、透明和完整的。案卷目录的准确性并不要求解封物证1。\n\nB. 11 U.S.C. § 107(c) 证实了本法院记录在案的封存裁定的正当性。\n\n26. 11 U.S.C. § 107(c) 规定：\n\n(1) 破产法院可因正当理由，就以下类型的信息对个人予以保护，只要法院认定披露此类信息会造成身份盗用或对该个人或其财产造成其他非法损害的不当风险：\n\n(A) 包含在根据本篇在案件中已经归档提交或将要归档提交的文件中的任何身份识别手段（如第18篇第1028(d)条所定义）。\n\n27. 第107(c)条保护“单独使用或与任何其他信息结合使用时可用于识别特定个人的任何名称或号码”。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识别信息而导致的损害。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听证记录，陈述称：“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。他们登记加入，并不是为了让他们的社会保障号码和他们的病情在全国各地或向其邻居或其他人扩散开来”）。\n\n29. 法院有权在获取信息的权利与隐私关切之间取得适当平衡。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）（最后一步是在公众查阅推定的权重与反对该推定的对立考量之间进行权衡）。在取得这种平衡时，法院必须考量涉案文件。「赋予公众查阅推定的权重必须取决于涉案材料所起的作用……通常，这些信息处于一个连续的光谱之上，一端是直接影响裁判的事项，另一端则是仅为确保其无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，在获取信息的对立利益与隐私权之间进行的权衡，极大地倾向于对证据 1 继续予以封存。涉案文件是就聘用专业人士的动议提交给本法院的。该文件仅包含一个姓名。GSNY（Golden Spring New York / 纽约金泉公司）员工的姓名与该聘用申请毫无关联。此外，鉴于\n\n本案目前的诉讼进程，法院可能无需就财务顾问的聘用作出裁定。在 4月27日 听证会期间涉及的另一事项，即 DIP 融资动议（DIP Financing Motion），在本法院作出裁定之前已被撤回。ECF No. 345。简而言之，证据 1 在本案的任何裁决中过去没有、将来也不会起到任何作用；它也与本案中任何实质性事实争议无关。\n\n31. 鉴于本案目前的诉讼进程，没有任何理由解封证据 1，甚至没有任何理由考虑予以解封。债务人（Debtor）已同意 PAX 的驳回起诉动议（Motion to Dismiss）。ECF No. 344。在 2022年5月17日 的案件状态会议上，各方当事人均同意无需就驳回起诉动议进行证据开示，且对于是否存在批准驳回起诉动议的正当理由不持异议。在当前节点，没有任何理由通过传播 GSNY 员工的姓名来危及他们的安全与保障。该信息目前对本破产案件毫无关联——且如果驳回起诉动议获得批准，该信息仍将毫无关联。\n\n32. 另一方面，涉案个人相反的隐私利益是重大的。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) 条中所用术语的「身份识别方式」。在本案情形下，正如《安全报告》及《Kwok Declaration（郭文贵声明）》所示，解封证据 1 将给该个人带来身份盗用或其他非法侵害的不当风险。在本案中，涉案个人的隐私权远远超过对仅包含单个姓名且从未属于任何公开法院记录一部分的证据的查阅推定。\n\n33. 综上所述，没有任何合法理由解封证据 1 并传播该个人的姓名。正如 GSNY 安全总监所证实并经《郭声明》所证实的那样：「鉴于披露 GSNY 员工姓名会对其本人\n\n及其家属构成严重危险，其姓名必须予以保密。」因此，披露证据 1 中的信息可能会造成极其严重的后果。\n\n据此，Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）提交本陈述，以支持本法院在记录中作出的关于封存 2022年4月27日 进行的诉讼程序中证据 1 的命令，并请求在本法院作出任何解封证据 1 的命令之前获得听证陈述的机会。\n\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LIMITED\n\n签署人：/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger (ct08874)\nScott D. Rosen\nCohn Birnbuam & 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我特此证明，于 2022年5月19日，上述文书的一份副本已通过电子方式归档，并将通过法院的电子归档系统以电子邮件形式送达给所有出庭当事人。各方当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本份归档文书。\n\n/s/ Timothy D. Miltenberger\nTimothy D. Miltenberger","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2645,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:30:48"}