Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 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

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin: Judge Failla granted a third party’s request to seal a docket entry.

Who this affects

Third-party “Emma” Duo Liu, the petitioners, the respondent Qin, and the court and parties with access to docket entry 400.

What happened

In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, third-party “Emma” Duo Liu asked the court to seal a letter and exhibit filed by the petitioners.

Liu’s counsel said the materials contained confidential information about Liu, who was not a judgment-debtor in the case, and referred to an ongoing criminal investigation. The request relied on a protective order and the privacy interests of a third party.

The court granted the application, directed the clerk to seal docket entry 400 so that only the court and parties could view it, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 407. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.

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
Mar. 4, 2024

Request to Seal

Third-party “Emma” Duo Liu asked the court to seal the petitioners’ February 29, 2024 letter and Exhibit A, identified as docket entries 400 and 400-1. Liu’s counsel relied on the parties’ stipulated protective order, which also covered third-party discovery.

The request stated that the materials contained confidential information concerning Liu. It also stated that Liu was not a judgment-debtor in the case, but was a third party whose private affairs had been drawn into the dispute, and referred to an ongoing criminal investigation. The filing discussed the presumption that court records are available to the public and the need to narrowly tailor sealing or redactions, while arguing that Liu’s privacy interests justified restricting access.

Ruling

The court granted the application. It directed the clerk to seal docket entry 400, making it viewable only to the court and the parties. The court further directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 407. The order was signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla.

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.