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 Liu’s sealing request while ordering redacted filings.
Third-party Emma Duo Liu, the petitioners, the parties, and the court; the sealed filings remain viewable only by the court and the parties pending redacted refiling.
What happened
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin involved third-party Emma Duo Liu’s request to seal her motion to modify a subpoena, supporting declaration and exhibits, and memorandum of law.
The court ordered the parties to discuss necessary redactions. It required Liu to file redacted copies of the submissions by February 23, 2024, while keeping the existing filings sealed and accessible only to the court and the parties.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla otherwise granted Liu’s request to seal, directed the Clerk of Court to maintain the filings under seal, and terminated the pending sealing motion.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
Third-party Emma Duo Liu asked the court to seal three submissions: her motion to modify a non-party subpoena, the declaration of Paul F. Downs and its exhibits, and her memorandum of law. The petitioners opposed the request. Their opposition argued that Liu had not identified specific confidential information or concrete harm that justified sealing the entire submissions, and that any sensitive material could be redacted.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about the necessary redactions. It then ordered Liu to file a redacted copy of each submission by February 23, 2024. The order does not state that the court ruled on the underlying motion to modify the subpoena.
Disposition
The court stated that Liu’s request to seal was “otherwise GRANTED.” It directed the Clerk of Court to keep docket entries 369, 370, and 371 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 368.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.