Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 7, 2025

Chenming Holdings Limited v. John Does 1-10

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:24-cv-00935
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Chenming Holdings v. John Does, Judge Failla granted a request to seal docket entry 113 and directed that motion 110 be terminated.

Who this affects

The order affects access by the public to docket entry 113, which will remain available only to the court and the parties, and terminates the pending motion at docket entry 110. The materials concern the plaintiff, the moving defendants, and nonparty lenders.

What happened

Chenming Holdings (Hong Kong) Limited v. John Does 1-10 involved a request by defendants to seal exhibits containing loan agreements and to redact excerpts from a memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss. The defendants said the agreements contained confidentiality provisions and financial and other terms whose disclosure could cause competitive harm to the plaintiff and nonparty lenders.

The court granted the application. It directed the Clerk of Court to keep docket entry 113 under seal, available only to the court and the parties, and to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 110.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order on January 7, 2025, in the Southern District of New York.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Chenming Holdings Limited v. John Does 1-10 · No. 1:24-cv-00935
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Jan. 7, 2025

Background

Counsel for Val Sklarov and Tetyana Sklarov stated that they represented those defendants and consented to a request by Jaitegh “JT” Singh and Jurist IQ Corp. to seal Exhibits 1 through 4 to Singh’s declaration supporting a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The letter said the exhibits contained loan agreements referenced in the complaint and relevant to the motion to dismiss.

The requesting defendants also asked to redact portions of their supporting memorandum that quoted the agreements. They stated that the agreements contained confidentiality provisions and financial and nonfinancial terms that could cause competitive harm to the plaintiff and nonparty lenders if disclosed.

Ruling

The court marked the application “GRANTED.” The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain docket entry 113 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 110. The order did not state that the underlying motion to dismiss was decided.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.