Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-09221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
Huzhou Chuangtai v. Qin: Judge Failla granted in part and denied in part Liu’s reconsideration motion, extending deadlines for subpoenaed document production.
Third-party Emma Duo Liu, the petitioners seeking documents to assist with collecting a judgment, and Respondent Hui Qin to the extent the discovery concerns his assets.
What happened
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, third-party Emma Duo Liu asked the court to reconsider an earlier order requiring her to produce certain documents under a subpoena. She argued that the subpoena was too broad, relied on new arguments, improperly covered immigration records, and set an impossible deadline.
The court rejected Liu’s first three arguments, finding that it had addressed the subpoena’s scope, that the petitioners had provided supporting evidence before their reply, and that Liu was repeating arguments already considered. The court agreed only that Liu needed more time to gather and produce the documents.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla therefore granted in part and denied in part Liu’s motion. She ordered Liu to produce responsive documents outside the Fifth Amendment privilege by March 25, 2024, and to identify documents she still claimed were protected by April 8, 2024. The court also denied the petitioners’ request for a further pre-motion conference as moot and denied Liu’s request for fee shifting.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 24, 2024
Background
The court previously granted in part the petitioners’ motion to compel documents from third-party Emma Duo Liu. That earlier order required Liu to produce documents responsive to the petitioners’ subpoena that were in her possession, custody, or control and that were not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege. It also required Liu to identify documents she continued to believe were protected and explain why.
Liu moved for reargument and reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), Local Civil Rule 6.3, and the court’s reconsideration standards. The court explained that reconsideration is available only in limited circumstances, such as a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It is not a way to add facts, raise arguments that could have been made earlier, or relitigate issues already decided.
Liu’s Arguments
Liu raised four grounds:
- The court allegedly failed to address her argument that particular subpoena requests were overly broad.
- The court allegedly relied on arguments the petitioners raised for the first time in their reply papers.
- The court allegedly erred in concluding that Liu could not invoke the Fifth Amendment act-of-production privilege for immigration records belonging to Qin.
- The five-business-day production deadline was allegedly impossible to meet, particularly for electronic communications.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected the overbreadth argument. It explained that discovery after a judgment generally may be broad when it is intended to help collect the judgment, including discovery from third parties about the existence, transfer, location, or source of the judgment debtor’s assets. The court found that the subpoena’s requests were at least reasonably related to tracing Qin’s assets and possible transfers between Qin and Liu. The court also cited evidence of their financial and personal connections, including property transfers, payments, shared or controlled entities, and access to records and communications.
The court also rejected Liu’s claim that it had relied only on arguments first raised in the petitioners’ reply. Although the earlier order cited the reply when discussing the relationship between Qin and Liu, the petitioners had also presented relevant evidence in their opening submission. The court therefore found no basis to conclude that Liu lacked an opportunity to address those assertions.
As to the immigration records, the court noted that Liu’s argument repeated points made during the original motion to compel. The court stated that this alone supported denying reconsideration. It further explained that Liu had not provided legal authority or facts showing that producing Qin’s immigration records could be used against her. The court invited Liu to submit a prompt, detailed supplemental submission with supporting facts or authority; absent such a submission, it denied reconsideration on that ground.
The court agreed with Liu only concerning the deadline. It found that the production difficulties identified in her motion justified allowing additional time.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted in part and denied in part Liu’s Motion for Reargument and Reconsideration. The court ordered Liu to produce, by March 25, 2024, all responsive documents in her possession or control that fell outside the Fifth Amendment privilege, consistent with the earlier order and the court’s analysis. The production was required to use the search terms identified in an appendix to a December 8, 2023 letter.
The court also ordered Liu to file a letter by April 8, 2024, identifying responsive documents she still believed were protected by the Fifth Amendment and explaining the reasons for that belief. The court denied the petitioners’ request for a further pre-motion conference as moot, refrained from issuing sanctions against either party at that time, and denied Liu’s fee-shifting request. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 301 and 356.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.