Limited v. The Partnerships and Unicorporated Associations identified in…
Hexin Holding Limited v. The Partnerships and Unicorporated Associations identified in Schedule A
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-10840
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hexin Holding v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations, Judge Gardephe granted in part Hexin’s sealing request, sealed listed documents, and ordered a caption change.
Hexin Holding Limited, the defendants identified in Schedule A, and members of the public seeking access to the court records.
What happened
Hexin Holding Limited asked to file several documents under seal without notifying the defendants in its copyright-infringement case. It said secrecy was needed to prevent the defendants from destroying evidence or moving assets before a temporary restraining order could be carried out.
The court granted the request in part. It directed the Clerk to seal specified documents so that only the court and Hexin Holding Limited could view them, but found that Scott H. Kaliko’s declaration and exhibits did not contain information that could alert the defendants to the case and did not justify limiting public access to those materials.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe also ordered the Clerk to remove the individual defendants’ names from the caption, directed that the case appear under the shortened caption referring to the partnerships and unincorporated associations identified in Schedule A, and terminated the motion. The court did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
The detailed version
- Limited v. The Partnerships and Unicorporated Associations identified in… · No. 1:21-cv-10840
- Paul Gardephe
- Jan. 20, 2022
Background
Hexin Holding Limited filed an ex parte motion, meaning a motion made without advance notice to the opposing parties, for permission to file certain materials under seal. The requested materials included Schedule A to the complaint, which identified online stores operating under seller aliases and listed store URLs; Juan Yang’s declaration and exhibits, including screenshots of the stores; and Scott H. Kaliko’s declaration and exhibits.
Hexin argued that sealing was necessary because the case involved alleged copyright infringement. According to Hexin, if the defendants learned about the case before the court could issue and carry out a temporary restraining order, they might destroy relevant documents or hide or transfer assets to foreign jurisdictions.
Court’s Ruling
The court granted the sealing application in part. It directed the Clerk to seal Docket Nos. 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 9, 15, 15-1, and 15-2 so that those documents would be viewable only by the court and Hexin Holding Limited.
The court stated that Scott H. Kaliko’s declaration and exhibits contained no information that could alert the defendants to the proceedings. Because Hexin had not given reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access to those materials, the court did not permit them to be sealed.
The court also ordered the Clerk to remove the names of individual defendants from the caption. The caption was to refer instead to “Hexin Holding Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A.” The court terminated the motion. Judge Paul G. Gardephe did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement allegations in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.