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 v. Qin, Judge Failla granted Seiden Law’s request to seal documents and directed the Clerk to keep docket entry 332 sealed.
Seiden Law, Qin, the Petitioners, the Court, the parties, and members of the public seeking access to docket entry 332.
What happened
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin concerned Seiden Law’s request to file its memorandum supporting withdrawal as Qin’s counsel and a declaration under seal.
Seiden Law argued that the documents contained Qin’s personal, financial, asset, deposition, and attorney-client information, including information designated confidential under a protective order.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application, directed the Clerk to keep docket entry 332 sealed and viewable only by the Court and the parties, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 331.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 29, 2023
Background
Seiden Law asked for permission to file two documents under seal in connection with its motion to withdraw as Qin’s counsel: its supporting memorandum and the November 28, 2023, declaration of Xintong Zhang. The request relied on the parties’ stipulated protective order and the judge’s individual rules.
Seiden Law said the documents contained sensitive information about Qin, including personal identifying information, financial and asset information, deposition testimony, and information concerning the attorney-client relationship. It also said that most of the documents had been designated confidential under the protective order.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain docket entry 332 under seal, viewable only by the Court and the parties. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 331.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.