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 an application to seal documents and restricted access.
Third-party “Emma” Liu and the parties and court personnel seeking access to docket entry 389; the underlying judgment dispute was not decided.
What happened
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership et al. v. Qin involved a request by third-party “Emma” Liu to seal a letter and an exhibit containing confidential information. The request stated that Liu was not a judgment-debtor and that an ongoing criminal investigation was relevant to the request.
The request concerned docket entry 389 and relied on privacy interests and the parties’ confidentiality order. Liu asked the court to seal the documents and, if the request was denied, to hold a conference.
The court granted the application. Judge Failla directed the Clerk to keep docket entry 389 under seal, available only to the court and the parties, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 388.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 23, 2024
Background
Third-party “Emma” Liu requested permission to seal her letter to Judge Failla and Exhibit A. The request was made under the court’s individual practice rules and a stipulated protective order that also covered third-party discovery. The letter argued that the documents contained confidential information, that Liu was not a judgment-debtor in the action, and that her private affairs were being drawn into the dispute. It also referred to an ongoing criminal investigation about which the court had been informed.
Legal standard described in the request
The request cited the presumption that the public may access judicial documents. It stated that sealing or redaction must be narrowly tailored and that the court must balance public access against competing interests, including privacy interests.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It directed the Clerk of Court to maintain docket entry 389 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 388. The order did not address the underlying dispute over collecting a judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.