Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 23, 2024

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:24-cv-02219
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin, Judge Failla granted plaintiffs’ request to seal two docket entries.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, Hui Qin, Emma Duo Liu, the court, and the public’s access to docket entries 74 and 75 were affected. The sealed entries are available only to the court and the parties.

What happened

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin involved the plaintiffs’ request to file a legal memorandum supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction with redactions.

The plaintiffs said the memorandum contained confidential business information and personal information protected by the parties’ protective order. They argued that protecting this information outweighed the public’s presumptive right to access court records.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application, ordered docket entries 74 and 75 maintained under seal for access only by the court and the parties, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 73.

The detailed version

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

Case
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin · No. 1:24-cv-02219
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Apr. 23, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs—Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, Huzhou Huihengying Equity Investment Partnership, and Huzhou Huirongsheng Equity Investment Partnership—asked for permission to file their reply memorandum supporting a motion for a preliminary injunction with redactions. The request relied on Rule 9(B) of Judge Failla’s Individual Rules of Practice and the parties’ stipulated protective order.

Request to Restrict Public Access

The plaintiffs stated that the memorandum included testimony marked confidential under the protective order. They identified sensitive business information concerning their clients and personal information concerning Hui Qin and Emma Duo Liu. The plaintiffs argued that these interests outweighed the common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents. They also noted that the court had previously allowed redactions in an earlier related proceeding involving sensitive personal and financial information.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The clerk was directed to maintain docket entries 74 and 75 under seal, making them viewable only by the court and the parties. The clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 73. The order did not decide the motion for a preliminary injunction.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.