Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-09221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan v. Qin: Judge Failla granted Petitioners’ request to redact and seal documents containing confidential information.
The three Petitioners, Hui Qin, their counsel, Seiden Law LLP, and members of the public seeking access to the affected court filings. The sealed docket entries remain viewable to the parties and the Court.
What happened
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership and two other Petitioners asked to redact their legal memorandum and a declaration, and to seal six exhibits connected to their request for attorney’s fees and costs.
The Petitioners said the materials contained sensitive business information, including attorney rates and fees, personal bank-account information, and documents marked confidential under a protective order. They argued that these interests outweighed the usual presumption that court records should be publicly accessible.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the Clerk of Court to keep docket entries 150 and 152 under seal, available to the parties and the Court.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- May 10, 2023
Background
Petitioners Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, Huzhou Huihengying Equity Investment Partnership, and Huzhou Huirongsheng Equity Investment Partnership sought permission to redact their memorandum of law and the declaration of Carol Lee. They also sought permission to file six exhibits to that declaration under seal in connection with their motion for attorney’s fees and costs.
Request to Seal and Redact
The requested materials included correspondence between counsel, invoices, a lodestar calculation, a document identifying attorneys and their hourly rates, and two documents produced by Seiden Law LLP that were marked confidential. The Petitioners stated that the materials contained sensitive business information, including attorney rates and fees charged to the clients, and sensitive financial information, including information about Hui Qin’s bank account. Some materials had also been designated confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order.
The application cited the common-law presumption of public access to judicial documents and the requirement to balance that presumption against privacy interests. The Petitioners argued that the confidential business and personal financial information justified restricting access.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain docket entries 150 and 152 under seal, with access for the parties and the Court. The order did not otherwise state a ruling on the attorney’s-fees motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.