Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-09221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Huzhou Chuangtai v. Qin: Judge Failla granted an application to seal two exhibits, limiting access to the parties and Court.
The petitioners, Respondent Hui Qin, and anyone seeking access to Exhibits 2 and 3 to docket entry 51 are affected. The exhibits are available only to the parties and the Court.
What happened
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, the petitioners asked the court to seal two exhibits supporting their motion to dissolve an automatic stay involving collection of a judgment. Respondent Hui Qin’s counsel had requested redactions to those exhibits, and the petitioners filed partially redacted versions.
The petitioners then asked the court to formally seal the original, unredacted exhibits and remove them from public access on the docket. The request concerned Exhibits 2 and 3 to the declaration of Carol Lee, identified as docket entries 51-2 and 51-3.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the Clerk of Court to keep the two exhibits under seal, viewable only by the parties and the Court, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 57.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
The petitioners—Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, Huzhou Huihengying Equity Investment Partnership, and Huzhou Huirongsheng Equity Investment Partnership—filed a motion to dissolve an automatic stay of proceedings to collect a judgment. In support, they filed the declaration of Carol Lee with four exhibits.
Respondent Hui Qin’s counsel asked that Exhibits 2 and 3 to the declaration be redacted. The petitioners agreed and filed partially redacted versions as docket entries 56-1 and 56-2. They then requested that the original versions, docket entries 51-2 and 51-3, be formally sealed and removed from the public docket. The request cited the court’s individual rules and decisions concerning sealed filings.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It directed the Clerk of Court to maintain Exhibits 2 and 3 to docket entry 51 under seal, with access limited to the parties and the Court. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 57.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.