Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 2, 2023·No. 1:21-cv-09221·Unknown

Opinion

wiki LAAVY Pip _ _ Robert W. Seiden, Esq. Steve E. Seiden, Esq. Amuiad Kushner, Esq. 322 Eighth Avenue Michael Stolper, Esq. Suite 1704 Jake Nachmani, Esq. New York, NY 10001 USA Adam Rosen, Esq. +1.212.523.0686 MEMO ENDORSED Richard Frankel, Esq. www.seidenlawgroup.com Dov B. Gold, Esq. Andrew Sklar, Esq. February 28, 2022 Xintong Zhang, Esq. Priya Lehal, Esq. VIA ECF Kayla Conway, Investigator Nat Francis, Snr. Investigator . . Olivia Johann, Analyst The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla Lily Dempsey, Legal Assistant United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square, Room 2103 New York, NY 10007 Re: Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Inv. Mgm’t P’ship et al. v. Qin, No. 1:21-ev-9221-KPF Dear Judge Failla, We write on behalf of Respondent Hui Qin (“Qin”) to request leave to file certain documents with redaction and certain documents under seal, pursuant Rules 9(B) and 9(C) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases (“Individual Rules”) as well as the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order dated January 3, 2023. ECF 92. In connection with response to Petitioners’ Motion to Compel, for sanctions, and requesting an order of civil contempt, Qin respectfully requests to file the following documents with redactions: (1) Qin’s Memorandum of Law, (2) Seiden Law ’s Memorandum of Law, (3) Qin’s Second Supplemental Declaration (“Qin’s Second Decl.”’). Qin further respectfully requests to file certain exhibits attached to Xintong Zhang’s Declaration (“Zhang Decl.”) and Qin’s Second Decl. to be filed under seal.

Exhibit A Exhibit B Resolution Exhibit C Exhibit D

ela LAW GU Bip —

Qin’s Second Decl. | Copes of a New York State Real Estate Transfer Tax Return Exhibit E Pursuant to Rule 9 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules, Qin needs to demonstrate the purpose of redactions or filing under seal must be consistent with the presumption in favor of public access of judicial documents. The Second Circuit has long established that “[t]here is a common law presumption in favor of permitting public access of judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 453 F. 3d 110 (2d. Cir. 2006). A court may balance this common law presumption of access against competing comparisons, including the “privacy interests of these resisting disclosure.” /d., at 120. The court recognizes that defendant and third-party’s “privacy interests [] outweigh the presumption of the public access.” See PharmacyChecker.com LLC y. Nat'l Ass'n of Boards of Pharmacy, No. 19-civ- 07577-KMK, 2022 WL 4956050 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2022) Here, Qin’s Second Decl. (including Exhibits A-E), the Exhibits A, B, and D of Zhang Decl., Qin’s Memorandum of Law, and Seiden Law’s Memorandum of Law contain sensitive personal identifying information, such as Qin’s social security number, passport information, immigration status, addresses, bank account information, tax returns, and assets information. In addition, most of these documents have been marked as “confidential” in pursuing to the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Thus, Qin’s interest in protecting his confidential and privacy information, e.g., personal identification information and assets inforamtion, outweighs the common law presumption of access. Therefore, Qin respectfully request that the Court grant his application to redact his Memorandum of Law, his Second Supplemental Declaration, Seiden Law LLP’s Memorandum of Law, and to file Exhibits A, B, and D of Xintong Zhang’s Declaration as well as Exhibits A-E of Qin’s Second Supplemental Declaration under seal.

Respectfully Submitted,

cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) /s/ Xintone Zhan Xintong Zhang

Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain docket entries 114-117 under seal, viewable only to the parties and the Court. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 122. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2023 New York, New York ' -~ Kathe ball. Feutho- WON KATUPRINET DOT.K TPATTTA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin (Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related