Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 14, 2023

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:21-cv-09221
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan v. Qin, Judge Failla granted Liu reconsideration and indefinitely postponed her deposition based on sensitive information.

Who this affects

Non-party Duo (Emma) Liu, whose court-ordered deposition was postponed indefinitely; the petitioners, who had sought her deposition, were also affected.

What happened

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin involved a court-ordered deposition of non-party Duo (Emma) Liu. The court had required Liu to appear by July 17, 2023, and had denied her request for a short extension.

After receiving permission to seek reconsideration, Liu submitted a motion and sensitive supporting information to the court. The court said the information provided a valid basis to reconsider its earlier decisions and trusted that Liu’s representations were truthful.

Judge Failla granted Liu’s motion for reconsideration and ordered that her deposition be postponed indefinitely. Liu was directed to file a status letter by July 31, 2023.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
July 14, 2023

Background

In earlier orders, the court directed non-party Duo (Emma) Liu to appear for an in-person deposition by July 17, 2023. The court also denied Liu’s request to extend that deadline to July 20 or 21, 2023.

The court later allowed Liu to file a motion asking it to reconsider those earlier decisions. Liu then submitted that motion and additional papers containing sensitive information that she offered as the basis for reconsideration.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard under Local Civil Rule 6.3, which is the same standard used for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably be expected to change its conclusion.

Ruling

The court granted Liu’s motion for reconsideration. It stated that it would have preferred Liu to disclose the sensitive information before the earlier decisions, but concluded that the information provided a valid basis for reconsideration. The court also said it trusted that Liu’s representations were truthful.

The court ordered that Liu’s deposition appearance be “ADJOURNED sine die,” meaning postponed indefinitely. It directed Liu to file a status letter by July 31, 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.