Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-02219
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin: Judge Failla granted redactions and ordered three filings sealed.
The petitioners, Hui Qin, the other parties, and public access to the specified court filings were affected. Docket entries 105, 106, and 107 are viewable only by the court and the parties.
What happened
In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin, the petitioners asked to redact a memorandum and three exhibits supporting a motion to help enforce a judgment and detain Hui Qin and seize his passports.
The petitioners said the materials contained confidential deposition testimony, sensitive financial information, and personal information covered by a protective order. The court granted the application, ordered docket entries 105, 106, and 107 kept under seal for viewing only by the court and the parties, and terminated the pending motion at docket entry 104.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order on May 3, 2024. This order addressed access to and redaction of filings; it did not decide the underlying enforcement motion.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin · No. 1:24-cv-02219
- Katherine Failla
- May 3, 2024
Background
The petitioners requested permission to file a memorandum and Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 to a supporting declaration with redactions. The documents related to a motion for an order helping enforce a judgment and seeking to detain Defendant/Judgment Debtor Hui Qin and seize his passports.
Request for Redactions
The petitioners stated that the memorandum contained deposition testimony designated confidential under a protective order in a related case. They also stated that the memorandum and exhibits contained discovery materials marked confidential, including sensitive financial information and personal information concerning respondents. The request invoked the court’s individual rule concerning redacted filings and the protective order.
The request acknowledged the presumption that judicial records should be publicly accessible. It argued that the privacy interests in protecting business and personal information outweighed that presumption.
Ruling
The court granted the application. The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain docket entries 105, 106, and 107 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 104.
The order addressed sealing and redaction of filings. It did not state a ruling on the underlying motion to aid enforcement, detain Hui Qin, or seize his passports.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.