Chenming Holdings Limited v. John Does 1-10
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-00935
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chenming Holdings v. John Does 1-10, Judge Failla granted a sealing request and limited access to two docket entries.
Chenming Holdings (Hong Kong) Limited, defendants Jaitegh “JT” Singh and Jurist IQ Corp., the court, and members of the public seeking access to docket entries 102 and 103.
What happened
Chenming Holdings (Hong Kong) Limited is the plaintiff in a case involving defendants Jaitegh “JT” Singh and Jurist IQ Corp. The defendants asked the court to seal four stock-loan-agreement exhibits and redact related excerpts from their dismissal memorandum.
The defendants said the agreements contained confidentiality provisions and sensitive business information. They also stated that they were not parties to those agreements and took no position on whether the agreements should remain sealed, while requesting permission to seal them and redact excerpts.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the Clerk to keep docket entries 102 and 103 under seal, accessible only to the court and the parties, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 100.
The detailed version
- Chenming Holdings Limited v. John Does 1-10 · No. 1:24-cv-00935
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 7, 2025
Background
Counsel for defendants Jaitegh “JT” Singh and Jurist IQ Corp. requested permission to seal Exhibits 1 through 4 to Singh’s declaration supporting their motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. They also requested redactions to portions of their supporting memorandum that quoted those exhibits.
The exhibits were described as stock loan agreements between Chenming Holdings (Hong Kong) Limited and three non-party lenders. The request stated that the agreements contained confidentiality provisions and detailed business information whose disclosure could reveal sensitive information. The letter also stated that Singh and Jurist IQ Corp. were not parties to the agreements and that Singh received them after they had been finalized and executed for purposes of providing post-contractual services as attorney and escrow agent.
Ruling
The court endorsed the application as “GRANTED.” It directed the Clerk of Court to maintain docket entries 102 and 103 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. It also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 100.
The order addressed sealing and docket management. It did not state a ruling on the underlying motion to dismiss or the parties’ claims concerning the loan agreements.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.