Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-09221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, Judge Failla granted third-party Emma Duo Liu’s request to seal two docket entries.
Third-party Emma Duo Liu, the public’s access to docket entries 305 and 306, and the Clerk of Court.
What happened
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, third-party Emma Duo Liu asked the court to seal her memorandum supporting a request for reargument or reconsideration and a supporting declaration with exhibits. She said the documents contained confidential information and involved her private affairs and an ongoing criminal investigation.
The request concerned docket entries 305 and 306. Liu’s filing acknowledged that court documents generally are presumed open to the public, but argued that her privacy interests justified sealing these materials.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the Clerk of Court to keep docket entries 305 and 306 under seal and to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 300.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
Third-party “Emma” Duo Liu asked the court to seal her memorandum supporting a motion for reargument or reconsideration and the declaration of Stephen P. Younger, including its exhibits. The request arose in a case described in the filing as a private matter to collect a judgment from Qin. Liu stated that she was not a judgment-debtor in the action and that the documents concerned her private affairs and an ongoing criminal investigation.
Arguments About Sealing
Liu’s filing recognized the general presumption that judicial documents should be accessible to the public. It argued that sealing was justified because the documents contained confidential information and because Liu’s privacy interests outweighed public access. The filing also referred to a stipulated protective order and noted that other docket entries in the case had been sealed.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The court directed the Clerk of Court to maintain docket entries 305 and 306 under seal. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 300. The order addressed the sealing request and did not decide the underlying dispute or the merits of the request for reargument or reconsideration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.