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 Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin: Judge Failla granted Qin’s application to redact documents and keep specified filings under seal.
Hui Qin and the other parties to the case were affected because docket entries 114–117 were made available only to the parties and the Court; public access to those entries was restricted.
What happened
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, Qin asked to redact certain legal papers and supplemental declarations and to seal specified exhibits. The request arose in connection with a response to a motion to compel, a sanctions request, and a request for civil contempt.
Qin said the materials contained sensitive personal information, including a Social Security number, passport information, immigration status, addresses, bank-account information, tax returns, and asset information. Qin argued that these privacy interests outweighed the public’s usual right to inspect court filings.
Judge Katherine Failla granted the application. She directed the Clerk to keep docket entries 114–117 under seal, available only to the parties and the Court, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 122.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
Respondent Hui Qin requested permission to file redacted versions of Qin’s memorandum of law, Seiden Law LLP’s memorandum of law, and Qin’s second supplemental declaration. Qin also requested that specified exhibits attached to declarations by Xintong Zhang and Qin be filed under seal.
Basis for the Request
Qin stated that the documents contained sensitive personal identifying and financial information, including a Social Security number, passport information, immigration status, addresses, bank-account information, tax returns, and information about assets. Qin also stated that most of the documents had been designated confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order. The request was made in connection with Qin’s response to petitioners’ motion to compel, request for sanctions, and request for an order of civil contempt.
The application cited the general presumption that the public may access judicial documents and argued that Qin’s privacy interests outweighed that presumption for these materials.
Ruling
The Court granted the application. The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain docket entries 114–117 under seal, viewable only by the parties and the Court. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 122. The opinion does not state that the Court decided the underlying motion to compel, sanctions request, or civil-contempt request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.