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 v. Qin, Judge Failla granted a third party’s sealing request and restricted public access to two docket entries.
Third party “Emma” Duo Liu, the parties, and members of the public seeking access to docket entries 361 and 362.
What happened
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, third party “Emma” Duo Liu asked the court to seal documents filed in connection with a dispute about a motion to compel. The request concerned her opposition and related declaration and exhibit.
The court granted the application. It directed the clerk to keep docket entries 361 and 362 under seal, available only to the court and the parties, and to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 360.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order on January 24, 2024. The order addressed document access and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 24, 2024
Background
The matter involved a request by third party “Emma” Duo Liu to restrict public access to documents filed in connection with a request for a conference concerning a motion to compel. The documents included Liu’s opposition and exhibits, along with a reply declaration and an exhibit.
Sealing request
Liu’s counsel argued that the documents contained confidential information and that Liu was not a judgment-debtor in the action. The request relied on the parties’ stipulated protective order and the court’s rules governing sealed filings. A sealing order restricts public access to court documents.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It directed the clerk to maintain docket entries 361 and 362 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 360. The order did not resolve the underlying dispute or the motion to compel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.