Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 27, 2024

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:21-cv-09221
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan v. Qin, Judge Failla granted Emma Duo Liu’s request to keep her filing under seal.

Who this affects

Third-party “Emma” Duo Liu, the parties to the case, and the public’s access to docket entry 398.

What happened

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin involved a request by third-party “Emma” Duo Liu to seal a letter connected to proposed motions about pausing discovery and shifting costs. Liu said the filing contained confidential information and referred to documents already sealed in the case.

Liu also stated that she was not a person responsible for paying the judgment in the case, but a third party whose private affairs had become involved in the dispute. She referred to an ongoing criminal investigation but did not provide details in the request.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the Clerk to keep docket entry 398 sealed and accessible only to the Court and the parties, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 397.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin · No. 1:21-cv-09221
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Feb. 27, 2024

Background

Third-party “Emma” Duo Liu asked the Court to seal her pre-motion conference request letter concerning possible motions to stay, or pause, discovery while an appeal was pending and to shift costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The request relied on the parties’ stipulated protective order, which also covered third-party discovery.

Sealing request

Liu’s counsel acknowledged the general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. Counsel argued that sealing was justified because the filing contained confidential information, referred to documents already sealed in the case, and concerned Liu’s private affairs. Counsel also stated that Liu was not a judgment-debtor in the case and referred to an ongoing criminal investigation. The request stated that Liu was a third party involved in a dispute concerning collection of a judgment.

Ruling

Judge Failla granted the application. The Court directed the Clerk to maintain docket entry 398 under seal, viewable only by the Court and the parties. The Court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 397. The order did not provide further details about the confidential information or the criminal investigation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.