Baliga v. Link Motion Inc.

Background

The court’s August 22, 2022 order had granted in part and denied in part a request by Defendant Vincent Wenyong Shi to unseal documents. The order kept the “Category 3” documents under seal. Those documents concerned Mr. Guo’s court-approved note agreement, and the receiver had represented that Guo abruptly stopped years of regular communications after public disclosure that he had become Link Motion’s largest equity holder.

The court determined that the Category 3 documents were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access. It nevertheless found that the presumption was outweighed by the need to protect Guo from potential harm while his whereabouts and safety were uncertain.

Rule 60 motion

On September 28, 2022, defendants moved for relief from the sealing portion of the August 22 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. They relied on new information indicating that a person in China had said Guo was unreachable for reasons unrelated to Link Motion and would reappear. Later, the person reportedly indicated that Guo was expected to reappear by the end of October 2022.

At the court’s request, the receiver provided an update in April 2023. The receiver reported that Guo had reappeared, that the receiver’s office had spoken directly with him on April 13, 2023, and that Guo said he was in China. The receiver remained concerned about Guo’s safety but stated that it had no specific information indicating whether his safety was in jeopardy.

Court’s reasoning and ruling

Rule 60 allows a court to provide relief from an earlier order for specified reasons, including newly discovered evidence and other circumstances justifying relief. The court stated that such relief requires highly convincing evidence, good cause for not acting sooner, and no undue hardship to another party. It also described Rule 60 relief as extraordinary and available only in exceptional circumstances.

The court concluded that Guo’s reappearance, his direct communication with the receiver’s office, and the receiver’s lack of specific information showing a safety threat meant that the basis for continued sealing no longer existed. The court therefore held that the changed circumstances justified relief from the earlier order.

Defendants’ motion for relief was GRANTED. The receiver was directed to file the Category 3 documents on the public record. The receiver could submit proposed redactions of personal or privileged information for the court’s private review, together with unredacted copies and an explanation. The court set May 24, 2023, as the deadline for proposed redactions and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.