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 denied sealing and ordered documents unsealed.
Third-party “Emma” Duo Liu, the parties to the case, and members of the public seeking access to the court docket.
What happened
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin involved third-party “Emma” Duo Liu’s request to keep certain filings about her subpoena-related motion from public view. Liu was not a judgment debtor in the case.
Liu argued that the filings contained confidential private information and involved an ongoing criminal investigation. The court’s earlier order had required Liu to redact the disputed filings so they could be filed publicly.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the sealing request, ordered docket entries 394 and 395 unsealed, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 393.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
Third-party “Emma” Duo Liu asked the court to permit sealed, redacted versions of three filings: her motion to modify a subpoena, the declaration of Paul F. Downs and exhibits A through D, and a memorandum supporting her motion. The request relied on the parties’ stipulated protective order and the court’s individual rules.
Liu argued that the filings contained confidential information deserving protection. She also argued that she was not a judgment debtor but a third party whose private affairs had been brought into a dispute concerning collection of a judgment from Qin, and that an ongoing criminal investigation supported limiting public access.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the application. It explained that its earlier order had required Liu to make appropriate redactions so the disputed submissions could be filed on the public docket. The court directed the clerk to unseal docket entries 394 and 395 and to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 393.
The order does not identify the specific information in the filings that Liu sought to protect or provide a separate detailed analysis of each proposed redaction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.