Zuo v. Bluecrest Capital Management Limited
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-01194-RA-OTW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Zuo v. Bluecrest Capital Management Limited, Judge Abrams temporarily restricted access to a letter and referred pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Wang.
The parties, their counsel, and the court could view Defendant Kaiping Chen’s letter while access was temporarily restricted. Magistrate Judge Wang was assigned the general pretrial matters, including the question whether the letter and attached exhibits should be permanently sealed.
What happened
In Zuo v. Bluecrest Capital Management Limited, Defendant Kaiping Chen sent the court a letter dated March 3, 2022. The court said the letter contained sensitive material.
The court temporarily limited access to the letter so that only the parties, their lawyers, and the court could view it. In a separate order, the court referred general pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Wang.
Judge Abrams ordered Magistrate Judge Wang to decide whether the letter and attached exhibits should remain sealed and to rule on the other pending requests. This order did not address the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Zuo v. Bluecrest Capital Management Limited · No. 1:22-cv-01194-RA-OTW
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 4, 2022
What the Order Addressed
The court received Defendant Kaiping Chen’s March 3, 2022 letter. Because the letter contained sensitive material, the court temporarily restricted access to it. Only the parties, their counsel, and the court could view the document.
Referral and Sealing Question
The court stated that a separate order would refer the case to Magistrate Judge Wang for all general pretrial matters. Judge Wang was directed to decide whether Chen’s letter and the exhibits attached at Docket 10 should be permanently sealed under the standards described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2005). Judge Wang was also directed to rule on all other pending applications.
Disposition
The order temporarily restricted access to the letter and referred general pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Wang. It did not decide whether the materials should be permanently sealed or resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.