Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 22, 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
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, Judge Failla granted a request to redact and seal confidential filings.

Who this affects

The petitioners, Respondent Hui Qin, and the public’s access to docket entries 223, 225, and 227 were affected; those entries were restricted to the parties and the Court.

What happened

In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, the petitioners asked to redact their legal memorandum and file several supporting documents under seal. The request arose alongside their motion seeking an order requiring Hui Qin to show cause and a renewed request for contempt.

The petitioners said the materials contained sensitive personal, financial, and business information, including attorney invoices, payments to attorneys, passwords to Qin’s personal devices, and banking information. Some documents had also been marked confidential under the parties’ protective order.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the Clerk of Court to keep docket entries 223, 225, and 227 under seal, accessible only to the parties and the Court, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 221.

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
Aug. 22, 2023

Background

The petitioners—Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, Huzhou Huihengying Equity Investment Partnership, and Huzhou Huirongsheng Equity Investment Partnership—asked for permission to redact their memorandum of law and to file specified declarations and exhibits under seal. The request was made in connection with the petitioners’ third motion to compel and renewed motion for contempt against Respondent Hui Qin.

Request to Seal

The petitioners identified a declaration and exhibits containing documents produced by Qin and Seiden, including materials marked confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order. They stated that the materials contained sensitive personal, financial, and business information, including attorney invoices, amounts Qin paid to attorneys, passwords to Qin’s personal devices, banking information, and other sensitive identifying information.

The submission discussed the general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible and the need to weigh that presumption against privacy interests. The petitioners argued that the confidential information justified redaction and sealing.

Ruling

The Court granted the application. The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain docket entries 223, 225, and 227 under seal, viewable only by the parties and the Court. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 221. This order addressed access to filings; it did not decide the underlying motion to compel or contempt request.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.