Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin

N 1X0 N Nixon PeabodyLLP Paul F. Downs Tower 46 Counsel PEABODY 55 West 46th Street New York, NY 10036-4120 nixonpesbodycom □ 2403028 gNnohPeabodyile. °F / 646.603.3480 [email protected] February 23, 2024 VIA ECF Hon. Katherine Polk Failla United States District Judge United States District Court MEMO ENDORSED Southern District of New York Foley Square, Room 2103 New York, NY 10007 RE: Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership et al v. Qin; No. 1:21-cv-09221-KPF Request of Third-Party Duo “Emma” Liu to Seal Documents Dear Judge Failla: Pursuant to Section 9(c)(ii) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases and the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order dated January 3, 2023, Dkt. No. 92 (the “Confidentiality Order”), which also covers discovery of third-parties, third-party “Emma” Duo Liu (Ms. Liu”) writes to respectfully request that the Court permit the sealing of redacted copies of Ms. Liu's Motion to Modify Subpoena (Dkt. #369); the Declaration of Paul F. Downs, Esq. and exhibits A-D thereto (Dkt. #370); and the Memorandum of Law in Support of her motion (Dkt. #371), submitted in accordance with the Court’s February 12, 2024 Order (Dkt. 373) (filed contemporaneously herewith).

A party seeking to file a document under seal needs to address the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. See, e.g., Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). And any redaction or sealing of a court filing needs to be narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies the redaction or sealing and must be otherwise consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. Id. The Court must balance this common law presumption of access against competing interests, including “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). Thus, the issue is whether “the privacy interests of the [moving party] outweigh the presumption of public access.”

GoSMiLE, 769 F. Supp. 2d at 649-50.

Given the nature of this matter (a private matter to collect a judgment from Respondent Qin) and the fact that Ms. Liu is not a judgment-debtor in this action, but merely a third-party whose private affairs are being dragged into this dispute and given the ongoing criminal investigation about which the Court has been informed, we submit that there is a more than Attorneys at Law Hon. Katherine Polk Failla nixonpeabody.com February 23, 2024 @NixonPeabodyLLP Page 2 sufficient basis to seal the Downs Letter in support thereof. These documents contain confidential information of the kind that is deserving of protection and restricting public access, and therefore third-party Ms. Liu respectfully requests that the Court grant this request. We note that for presumably similar reasons, various other docket entries in this case have been sealed.

Sincerely, Paul F. Downs Counsel PFD To: All parties of record via ECF Application DENIED. The Court's previous order required Ms. Liu to make appropriate redactions to the disputed submissions (Ms. Liu's Motion to Modify Subpoena (Dkt. #369); the Declaration of Paul F. Downs, Esq. and exhibits A-D thereto (Dkt. #370); and the Memorandum of Law in Support of her motion (Dkt. #371)) such that they could then be filed on the public docket.

The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal docket entries 394 and 395. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 393.

Dated: February 26, 2024 SO ORDERED.

New York, New York HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE