Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-02219
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin, Judge Failla sealed hearing transcripts and ordered redacted versions filed.
The Liu Defendants, including Emma “Duo” Liu and the company defendants, received restricted access to the specified transcript versions, while the court and parties retained access. The public could not view the sealed versions, and redacted versions were to be filed.
What happened
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin involved the Liu Defendants’ request to restrict public access to transcripts of April 26 and May 8, 2024 oral arguments.
The Liu Defendants asked the court to seal the transcripts and approve proposed redactions. They said the transcripts contained confidential private information and referred to an ongoing criminal investigation. They also said Emma “Duo” Liu was not the judgment debtor in the matter.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla approved the proposed redactions, ordered docket entries 122, 131, and 152 sealed and viewable only by the court and the parties, directed court reporters to file redacted transcript versions, and terminated the pending motion at docket entry 150.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin · No. 1:24-cv-02219
- Katherine Failla
- June 10, 2024
Background
The Liu Defendants requested permission to seal the April 26 and May 8, 2024 oral-argument transcripts and to use proposed redactions. The request concerned docket entries 122 and 131, along with a transcript already filed at docket entry 152. The Liu Defendants represented that the transcripts contained confidential information deserving protection. They also stated that Emma “Duo” Liu was not the judgment debtor and that there was an ongoing criminal investigation about which the court had been informed.
Legal standard
The request addressed the common-law presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. The materials cited in the request stated that sealing or redaction must be narrowly tailored and that the court must weigh public access against competing interests, including privacy interests.
Ruling
The court agreed with the Liu Defendants’ proposed redactions and ruled that the transcript versions then on the docket should be sealed. The Clerk of Court was directed to keep docket entries 122, 131, and 152 under seal, available only to the court and the parties. Court reporters were directed to prepare and docket transcript versions containing the approved redactions. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 150. Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide the underlying dispute in this order; the order concerned access to and redaction of court transcripts.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.