GUANGDONG AOYUN TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE (2025)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Docket Under Seal. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff requests to file numerous documents under seal, including the Verified Complaint Cover Page, Verified Complaint and Exhibits, Motion for Service of the Complaint by Email, Motion for Expedited Discovery, the instant Motion, and a pro hac vice application. Mot. at 1.

Rule 5 of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Virginia addresses requests to file documents under seal. A motion to file under seal must include “a non-confidential supporting memorandum, a separate non-confidential notice that specifically identifies the motion as a sealing motion, and a non-confidential proposed order.” E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 5(C). “A confidential memorandum may also be submitted.” Id. Compliance with the Rule is not simply some procedural preference or formality imposed on practitioners. The Rule protects the constitutional right of access that the press and public have in our courts. See Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265–73 (4th Cir. 2014).

Plaintiff has failed to comply with these requirements. This failure is especially concerning given that the law firm representing Plaintiff was recently cautioned by another court in this division that it had failed to comply with the Court's local rule on sealing. Transcript of Record at 4, Li v. Uninc. Ass'ns, No. 3:25-cv-47 (E.D. Va. 2025), Dkt. No. 37. Counsel of record in this case, as well as Mr. Zito (who has a pending application to appear pro hac vice in this case), either appeared or were present at the hearing, and thereby were specifically made aware that compliance with Local Rule 5 was expected.

Here, it is not entirely clear to the Court what documents Plaintiff seeks to seal. Plaintiff's Motion purports to seek sealing of the “Docket” but then lists particular documents to which the motion applies. Mot. at 1. Rule 5 requires that the non-confidential memorandum in support address—as to each document—why sealing is necessary, why another procedure (such as redaction) will not suffice, a statement as to the period of time the party seeks to have each pleading sealed, how the matter is to be handled upon unsealing, and references to the governing case law. E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 5(C). Furthermore, Rule 5 cautions that “[m]otions to file documents under seal are disfavored and discouraged” and “[b]lanket sealing of entire briefs, documents, or other papers is rarely appropriate.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff argues that if Defendants know of the existence of this lawsuit, then they will be incentivized to move their assets outside of this Court's jurisdiction. Mem. Supp. at 2, Dkt. No. 5. That argument may support sealing of Defendants’ identity, such as that information found in Schedule A, but Plaintiff fails to address why or how disclosure of Plaintiff's name, or counsel's identity, would disclose the lawsuit to Defendants. Plaintiff also fails to consider whether redaction would suffice to guard against its stated concern.

Simply put, Rule 5 requires more than what Plaintiff has offered, and Plaintiff's counsel has previously been made aware of those requirements. The Court directs counsel to review the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Eastern District of Virginia, specifically Local Civil Rule 5, and if it is merited, Plaintiff should amend its Motion in compliance with the rule. Numerous examples of parties proceeding in compliance with the Local Rules exist. See, e.g., Abu-Eid v. Discover Products, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 3d 555 (E.D. Va. 2022); XYZ Corp. v. Ontel Products Corp., No. 1:21-cv-1452 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 31, 2021); Miles v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 799 F.Supp.2d 618 (E.D. Va. 2011). The Court will not act upon the Motion to Seal or any other pending motion in the case until Plaintiff complies with the sealing requirements outlined in Local Civil Rule 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Elizabeth W. Hanes, United States District Judge