HTML Document View

Full title: Motion to Quash a Subpoena //Motion of the ASAP Parties to Quash Debtors' Notice of Deposition to Frank Yuan Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Filed by ASAP International Hotel, LLC, ASAP Property Holdings Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 6/8/2021 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 5th Fl., Courtroom #6, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 6/7/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Notice) (Gibson, Jason) (Entered: 05/26/2021)

Document posted on May 25, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 8 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each debtor’s tax identification number, as applicable, are as follows: EHT US1, Inc.(6703); 5151 Wiley Post Way, Salt Lake City, LLC (1455); ASAP Cayman Atlanta Hotel LLC (2088); ASAP Cayman Denver Tech LLC (7531); ASAP Cayman Salt Lake City Hotel LLC (7546); ASAP Salt Lake City Hotel, LLC (7146); Atlanta Hotel Holdings, LLC (6450); CI Hospitality Investment, LLC (7641); Eagle Hospitality Real Estate Investment Trust (7734); Eagle Hospitality Trust S1 Pte Ltd. (7669); Eagle Hospitality Trust S2 Pte Ltd. (7657);EHT Cayman Corp. Ltd. (7656); Sky Harbor Atlanta Northeast, LLC (6450); Sky Harbor Denver Holdco, LLC (6650); Sky Harbor Denver Tech Center, LLC (8303);UCCONT1, LLC (0463); UCF 1, LLC (6406); UCRDH, LLC (2279); UCHIDH, LLC (6497); Urban Commons 4th Street A, LLC (1768); Urban Commons Anaheim HI, LLC (3292); Urban Commons Bayshore A, LLC (2422); Urban Commons Cordova A,LLC (4152); Urban Commons Danbury A, LLC (4388); Urban Commons Highway 111 A, LLC (4497); Urban Commons Queensway, LLC (6882); Urban Commons Riverside Blvd., A, LLC (4661); and USHIL Holdco Member, LLC (4796).On March 9, 2021, the Debtors filed the Sale Motion, which seeks to sell substantially all of the Debtors’ assets, including the Hilton Atlanta Northeast hotel and an adjoining 3-acre parcel alleged to be owned by the Debtor Sky Harbor Atlanta Northeast LLC (“Sky Harbor Atlanta”), and the rights to a certain lawsuit pending since 2017 in the Northern District Court of Georgia captioned, Sky Harbor Atlanta Northeast LLC and Crestline Hotels & Resorts, LLC v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company, Case #17-CV-03910 (the “AFM Lawsuit”), which was assigned to ASAP Property on October 2, 2018.Concurrently with the filing of the Limited Objection, the ASAP Parties filed two adversary proceedings (the “ASAP Adversary Proceedings”) against Sky Harbor Atlanta, seeking, among other things: (i) a determination that certain real property known and described as a certain three (3) acre parcel of vacant land (the “Excluded Parcel”), is improperly being held in the name of the Sky Harbor Atlanta and located adjacent to the hotel currently operated as the Hilton Atlanta Northeast with an address of 5993 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Peachtree Corners, Georgia 30092 (the “Property”), which Property and Excluded Parcel, Sky Harbor Atlanta is improperly seeking to sell as part of its Sale Motion; and (ii) a determination that ASAP Property is the rightful owner of the AFM Lawsuit and the AFM Lawsuit does not constitute property of Sky Harbor Atlanta’s bankruptcy estate under Bankruptcy Code § 541.

List of Tables

Document Contents

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: : Chapter 11 : EHT US1, Inc., et al.,1 : Case No. 21-10036 (CSS) : Debtors. : (Jointly Administered) : : Hearing Scheduled: June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (ET) : Objection Deadline: June 7, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. (ET) MOTION OF THE ASAP PARTIES TO QUASH DEBTORS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO FRANK YUAN PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30 ASAP International Hotel, LLC (“ASAP Hotel”) and ASAP Property Holdings Inc. (“ASAP Property” and together with ASAP Hotel, the “ASAP Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this motion (“Motion”) to quash the Debtors’ Notice of Deposition to Frank Yuan Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (“Deposition Notice”)2 served by the Debtors on May 26, 2021, in its entirety, and respectfully states as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. On May 26, 2021, the Debtors served the ASAP Parties with the Deposition Notice in connection with the Motion of Debtors for Entry of Orders (I) Approving (A) Bidding 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each debtor’s tax identification number, as applicable, are as follows: EHT US1, Inc.(6703); 5151 Wiley Post Way, Salt Lake City, LLC (1455); ASAP Cayman Atlanta Hotel LLC (2088); ASAP Cayman Denver Tech LLC (7531); ASAP Cayman Salt Lake City Hotel LLC (7546); ASAP Salt Lake City Hotel, LLC (7146); Atlanta Hotel Holdings, LLC (6450); CI Hospitality Investment, LLC (7641); Eagle Hospitality Real Estate Investment Trust (7734); Eagle Hospitality Trust S1 Pte Ltd. (7669); Eagle Hospitality Trust S2 Pte Ltd. (7657); EHT Cayman Corp. Ltd. (7656); Sky Harbor Atlanta Northeast, LLC (6450); Sky Harbor Denver Holdco, LLC (6650); Sky Harbor Denver Tech Center, LLC (8303); UCCONT1, LLC (0463); UCF 1, LLC (6406); UCRDH, LLC (2279); UCHIDH, LLC (6497); Urban Commons 4th Street A, LLC (1768); Urban Commons Anaheim HI, LLC (3292); Urban Commons Bayshore A, LLC (2422); Urban Commons Cordova A,LLC (4152); Urban Commons Danbury A, LLC (4388); Urban Commons Highway 111 A, LLC (4497); Urban Commons Queensway, LLC (6882); Urban Commons Riverside Blvd., A, LLC (4661); and USHIL Holdco Member, LLC (4796). The Debtors’ mailing address is 3 Times Square, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036 c/o Alan Tantleff (solely for purposes of notices and communications). 2 A copy of the Deposition Notice is attached as Exhibit A hereto.

1

Procedures, (B) Designation of Stalking Horse Bidder and Stalking Horse Bidder Protections, (C) Form and Manner of Notice of Sale, Auctions, and Sale Hearing, and (D) Assumption and Assignment Procedures, (II) Scheduling Auctions and Sale Hearing, (III) Approving (A) Sale of Substantially All of Debtors’ Assets Free and Clear of Liens, Claims, Interests, and Encumbrances, and (B) Assumption and Assignment of Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases, and (IV) Granting Related Relief (the “Sale Motion”) [D.I. 334], and the ASAP Parties’ Limited Objection to the Debtors’ Sale of Substantially all of Their Assets Owned by Debtor, Sky Harbor Atlanta Northeast LLC (the “Limited Objection”) [D.I. 689]. 2. The Debtors’ attempt to burden, harass and oppress the ASAP Parties by seeking to compel its representative, Frank Yuan, to appear and testify at a deposition on one (1) days’ notice should not be permitted, especially given the fact that the Debtors were aware he was a potential witness since May 14, 2021 based upon his submission of a Declaration in Support of the Limited Objection on said date [D.I. 690]. Good cause exists for this Court to quash the Deposition Notice. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND STATUTORY BASIS 3. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue of this proceeding and this Motion in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory bases for the relief requested herein are Rules 26(b) 26(c) and 30(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Federal Rules”), Rules 7026(b) 7026(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), and Rule 7030-1(c) of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Local Rules”).

2

4. Pursuant to Local Rule 7012-1, the ASAP Parties do not consent to the entry of final orders or judgments by the Court if it is determined that the Court, absent consent of the parties, cannot enter final orders or judgments consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution. By filing this Motion or any other pleading, the ASAP Parties in no way concede or consent to the jurisdiction of this Court. BACKGROUND A. The Chapter 11 Cases 5. On January 18, 2021, (“Petition Date”), Debtor Sky Harbor Atlanta Northeast, LLC and certain of its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for relief (the “Chapter 11 Case”) pursuant to chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in this United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”). The Debtors have remained in possession of their assets and continued to manage their business as debtors in possession pursuant to sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. 6. On March 9, 2021, the Debtors filed the Sale Motion, which seeks to sell substantially all of the Debtors’ assets, including the Hilton Atlanta Northeast hotel and an adjoining 3-acre parcel alleged to be owned by the Debtor Sky Harbor Atlanta Northeast LLC (“Sky Harbor Atlanta”), and the rights to a certain lawsuit pending since 2017 in the Northern District Court of Georgia captioned, Sky Harbor Atlanta Northeast LLC and Crestline Hotels & Resorts, LLC v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company, Case #17-CV-03910 (the “AFM Lawsuit”), which was assigned to ASAP Property on October 2, 2018. 7. On May 14, 2021, the ASAP Parties filed the Limited Objection. In support of the Limited Objection, the ASAP Parties concurrently filed the Declaration of Frank Yuan (the “Yuan Declaration”) [D.I. 690].

3

8. Concurrently with the filing of the Limited Objection, the ASAP Parties filed two adversary proceedings (the “ASAP Adversary Proceedings”) against Sky Harbor Atlanta, seeking, among other things: (i) a determination that certain real property known and described as a certain three (3) acre parcel of vacant land (the “Excluded Parcel”), is improperly being held in the name of the Sky Harbor Atlanta and located adjacent to the hotel currently operated as the Hilton Atlanta Northeast with an address of 5993 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Peachtree Corners, Georgia 30092 (the “Property”), which Property and Excluded Parcel, Sky Harbor Atlanta is improperly seeking to sell as part of its Sale Motion; and (ii) a determination that ASAP Property is the rightful owner of the AFM Lawsuit and the AFM Lawsuit does not constitute property of Sky Harbor Atlanta’s bankruptcy estate under Bankruptcy Code § 541. 9. On May 25, 2021, the ASAP Parties filed the Notice of the ASAP Parties’ Intention to Call Witnesses and List of Exhibits in Connection with the Limited Objection to the Motion of the Debtors for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Sale of Substantially all of its Assets (the “Witness List”) [D.I. 754]. B. The Deposition Notice 10. On May 26, 2021, two days prior to the Sale Hearing, Debtors emailed counsel to the ASAP Parties (but failed to file) the Deposition Notice requiring Mr. Yuan to appear at a deposition, on one (1) days’ notice. See Deposition Notice. The Deposition Notice fails to disclose the location and the method by which the deposition will be conducted. See id. The Deposition Notice was not filed in these cases, and it is unknown whether written notice was provided to all other parties in accordance with Federal Rule 30(b)(1). RELIEF REQUESTED 11. The ASAP Parties respectfully request that this Court enter an Order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, quashing the Deposition Notice. For the reasons set forth

4

more fully below, the Deposition Notice is fatally flawed and therefore a nullity as a matter of law. Anything that the Debtors seek to learn from Mr. Yuan, can be learned from the Yuan Declaration, or through cross-examination at the Sale Hearing. The Debtors should not be permitted to compel Mr. Yuan to testify at a deposition with no notice and without proper written notice to all other parties. ARGUMENT 12. The Deposition Notice is defective as a matter of law, is interposed in retaliation to the Limited Objection and serves no legitimate purpose apart from harassment. Compelling a party to appear at a deposition on one (1) days’ notice without disclosing the location or method by which the deposition will be conducted is procedurally improper and abusive. This is especially the case given the fact that the Debtors were aware that Frank Yuan was a potential witness since May 14 2021, based upon his filing of a Declaration in support of the Limited Objection on said date. [D.I. 690]. Good cause exists to quash the Deposition Notice. 13. First, the Debtors’ filing of the Deposition Notice was not preceded by any attempt at cooperation: no phone call, no email and no letter from the Debtors prior to sending the Deposition Notice. Nor does the Deposition Notice attempt to identify the topic(s) and scope of the Deposition. See Local Rule 7026-1(a).3 3 Cooperation and Proportionality. Parties are expected to confer and in good faith attempt to reach agreement cooperatively on how to conduct discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-36 and these Local Rules. Parties also are expected to use reasonable, good faith and proportional efforts including to preserve, identify and produce relevant information. This may include identifying appropriate limits to discovery, including limits on custodians, identification of relevant subject matter, time periods for discovery and other parameters to limit and guide preservation and discovery issues. Del. Bankr. L.R. 7026-1(a).

5

14. On May 24, 2021, counsel to the ASAP Parties emailed Debtors’ counsel to confer in good faith regarding the admissibility of exhibits and other evidentiary issues ahead of the May 28 hearing. 15. On May 25, 2021, Debtors’ counsel responded that they had not made a decision as to witness testimony or evidence in connection with the May 28 hearing. At no time did the Debtors inquire regarding what witnesses the ASAP Parties would present despite the fact that the Yuan Declaration was filed over a week earlier. 16. Second, neither the Deposition Notice nor any Notice of Service was filed as required by Local Rule 7026-2(b)(i). Further, Federal Rule 30(b) provides: (1) Notice in General. A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party. The notice must state the time and place of the deposition and, if known, the deponent’s name and address. If the name is unknown, the notice must provide a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1) (emphasis added). 17. Third, the Deposition Notice was required to be (but was not) served on at least seven (7) days’ notice. The Deposition Notice was emailed to the undersigned counsel on May 26, 2021 purporting to schedule depositions on March 27, 2021. At most, that is only one day and 11 hours’ notice. See Local Rule 7030-1(b). 4 18. Fourth, Federal Rule 26(c), made applicable herein by Bankruptcy Rule 7026, provides: (1) In General. A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action 4 Reasonable Notice of Deposition. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, “reasonable notice” for the taking of depositions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b) shall not be less than seven (7) days. Del. Bank. L.R. 7030-1(b).

6

is pending . . . . The Court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery: [and] (D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters . . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A) and (D) (emphasis added). 19. The Court has discretion to grant a request for a protective order. See Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1995). Courts routinely grant protective orders to protect a party from “disclosure or discovery” or to limit discovery to “specified terms and conditions, including designation of time and place” in order “to protect a party or person from annoyance . . . oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Pansy v. Stroudsburg, F.3d 772, 787 (3d Cir. 1994). 20. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows parties to move the Court for protective orders in order to seal, limit, or otherwise restrict discovery.” Hart v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 270 F.R.D. 166, 170 (D. Del. 2010). Specifically, “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “The party seeking a protective order “must show good cause by demonstrating a particular need for protection.” Hart, 270 F.R.D. at 170. In evaluating whether good cause exists, “[t]he probative value of the information requested should be balanced against the costs and burdens imposed upon the producing party.” Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 662 F. Supp. 2d 375, 381 (D. Del 2009). 21. Here, good cause exists for the Court to quash the Deposition Notice. The ASAP Parties do not consent to any adjournment of the hearing on Sale Motion.

7

CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, the ASAP Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, quashing the Debtors’ Deposition Notice in its entirety, and granting such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper. Dated: May 26, 2021 THE ROSNER LAW GROUP LLC Wilmington, Delaware By: /s/ Jason A. Gibson Frederick B. Rosner (DE 3995) Jason A. Gibson (DE 6091) 824 N. Market Street, Suite 810 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel.: (302) 777-1111 Email: gibson@teamrosner.com -and- PLATZER, SWERGOLD, GOLDBERG KATZ & JASLOW, LLP Clifford A. Katz 475 Park Avenue South - 18th Floor New York, New York 10016 Tel.: (212) 593-3000 Email: ckatz@platzerlaw.com Counsel for ASAP INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, LLC and ASAP PROPERTY HOLDINGS INC.

8