govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_25-cv-00258-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
-------------------------------- x  
PINDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., : 
: 
 
  Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 
 
Civil No. 3:25-cv-258(AWT) 
GREENWICH METALS, INC., : 
: 
: 
 
  Defendant. :  
-------------------------------- x  
 
ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL 
 
Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Seal Certificate of Good 
Standing (ECF No. 26) is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Under 
District of Connecticut Local Rule 5(e)(3), “[a]ny . . . order 
sealing a judicial document shall include particularized 
findings demonstrating that sealing is supported by clear and 
compelling reasons and is narrowly tailored to serve those 
reasons.” Accord In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d 
Cir. 1987) (“[D]ocuments may be sealed if ‘specific, on the 
record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential 
to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that 
interest.’” (citation omitted)). Parties’ filings in support of 
motions constitute judicial documents. See United States v. 
Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (to be a “judicial 
document”, an “item filed must be relevant to the performance of 
the judicial function and useful in the judicial process”).  
Case 3:25-cv-00258-AWT     Document 27     Filed 05/07/25     Page 1 of 3
2 
 
The motion to seal states that the certificates of good 
standing represent “administrative requirements for counsel’s 
admission”, “are not related to the merits of the litigation”, 
and “contain personally identifiable information that is not 
ordinarily subject to public disclosure.” Pl.’s Mot. for Leave 
to File Certificates of Good Standing under Seal (ECF No. 26) 
(“Motion to Seal”) at 1. However, “[t]he district court bears 
the responsibility for the supervision of the members of its 
bar”. Hull v. Celanese Corp., 513 F.2d 568, 571 (2d Cir. 1975). 
It has a “continuing obligation to supervise the members of its 
Bar”. Dunton v. County of Suffolk, 729 F.2d 903, 909 (2d Cir. 
1984). In addition, the movants do not specify which aspects of 
their certificates of good standing constitute “personally 
identifiable information that is not ordinarily subject to 
disclosure.” Motion to Seal at 1. Nor do they explain what 
compelling interests would be disserved if the certificates are 
not filed under seal. Such specification and explanation would 
be minimally necessary to overcome the public’s “presumptive 
right of access” to such civil filings. E. Point Sys., Inc. v. 
Maxim, No. 3:13-CV-00215 (VLB), 2014 WL 2480456, at *1 (D. Conn. 
June 3, 2014). The court notes that attorneys’ certificates of 
good standing are routinely filed without being sealed in cases 
in the district, and the information in the certificates appears 
to be publicly available on the docket and/or the online 
Case 3:25-cv-00258-AWT     Document 27     Filed 05/07/25     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
directories of the jurisdictions in which the movants are 
barred. See, e.g., Attorney Online Services - Search, N.Y. State 
Unified Ct. Sys., 
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorneyservices/search?4 
(providing, in response to queries based on attorneys’ names, 
attorney registration numbers, the city in which they work, 
their oath date, and their registration statuses). See also, 
e.g., Virgil v. Finn, No. 22-CIV-3169 (CS)(JCM), 2025 WL 694450, 
at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2025) (“Courts ‘routinely deny sealing 
requests where, as here, the information to be sealed is already 
publicly available.’” (citation omitted)).  
It is so ordered. 
Signed this 7th day of May 2025, at Hartford, Connecticut.  
       
         /s/ AWT               
               Alvin W. Thompson 
      United States District Judge 
Case 3:25-cv-00258-AWT     Document 27     Filed 05/07/25     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight