Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-09221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, Judge Failla granted requests to redact and seal confidential filings.
The petitioners, Hui Qin, their counsel, and the public’s access to the specified court filings were affected. Docket entries 168 and 169 remain viewable only to the parties and the court.
What happened
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin involved a request by the petitioners to redact a reply brief and declaration and to keep certain exhibits from public view.
The requested materials included attorney-fee information, personal financial information from a check, and other confidential business or personal information. The request relied on the parties’ protective order and the presumption that judicial documents are generally open to the public.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the clerk to keep docket entries 168 and 169 under seal, available only to the parties and the court, and to terminate the motion at docket entry 165.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- June 13, 2023
Background
The petitioners asked for permission to file a reply memorandum and a declaration with redactions and to file specified exhibits under seal. The materials related to the petitioners’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The requested exhibits included engagement letters, retainer agreements, invoices, financial-transfer records, a check, an email exchange, a brokerage-listing document, and excerpts from Qin’s deposition.
Arguments and Legal Standard
The petitioners stated that the materials contained sensitive business information, including attorney rates and fees, and sensitive personal or financial information, including bank-account information shown on a check submitted by Qin to counsel. Some documents had also been marked confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order.
The request addressed the common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents. The petitioners argued that the parties’ privacy interests in protecting confidential business, personal, and financial information outweighed that presumption.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The court directed the clerk to maintain docket entries 168 and 169 under seal, viewable only by the parties and the court. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 165.
The order is a procedural ruling about access to court filings. It does not decide the underlying attorney-fee motion or the parties’ other underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.