Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hui Qin

Pillsoury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Brickell Avenue | Miami, FL 33131 | tel 786.913.4900 | fax 786.913.4901 Geoffrey Sant tel: 212.858.1162 [email protected] April 22, 2024 VIA ECF The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York MEMO ENDORSED Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse Foley Square, Room 2103 New York, NY 10007 Re: Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, et al. v. Hui Qin et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-02219-KPF (Related to Case No. 1:21-cv-09221- KPF) — Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to File A Document with Redactions Dear Judge Failla: We write on behalf of Plaintiffs Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, Huzhou Huihengying Equity Investment Partnership, and Huzhou Huirongsheng Equity Investment Partnership (“Plaintiffs”) to request leave to file a document with redactions, pursuant to Rule 9(B) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases and the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order dated January 3, 2023, Dkt. No. 92 (“Protective Order”) in Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, et al. v. Hui Qin, 1:21:cv-09221-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2021) (the “Related Case’’).

In conjunction with Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of the Motion for A Preliminary Injunction, filed contemporaneously herewith, Plaintiffs respectfully request to file the Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (the “Memorandum of Law”) with redactions pursuant to Rule 9(B) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases and the Protective Order.

Pursuant to Rule 9 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, a party seeking to file a document with redactions must address the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. The Second Circuit set forth the relevant standard Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under Lugosch, “[t]here is a common law presumption in favor of permitting public access to judicial documents, which are those documents ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.’” GoSMILE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119). A court balances this common law presumption of access against competing comparisons, including “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at www.pillsourylaw.com Page 2 of 2 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). Thus, the issue is whether “the privacy interests of the defendants outweigh the presumption of public access.”

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

Here, the Memorandum of Law contains certain testimony marked Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order by Qin in the Related Case. The parties’ interest in protecting confidential information, specifically sensitive business information that pertains to their clients as well as Qin and Emma Duo Liu’s personal information, overcomes the presumption of access. Indeed, Your Honor has previously granted Plaintiffs’ request to file documents with redactions in the Related Case to protect certain sensitive personal and financial information, which was clearly visible. See ECF 112 in the Related Case.

Because the Memorandum of Law contains confidential information of the kind that is deserving of protection and restricting public access, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their request to redact the Memorandum of Law.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Geoffrey Sant Geoffrey Sant Andrew C. Smith Carol Lee Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 858-1000 Fax: (212) 858-1500 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, Huzhou Huihengying Equity Investment Partnership, and Huzhou Huirongsheng Equity Investment Partnership cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain docket entries 74 and 75 under seal, viewable to the Court and the parties only. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 73.

Dated: April 23, 2024 SO ORDERED.

New York, New York Kathir Palle (flo HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE