Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish
- George Daniels
- 1:25-cv-06208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish, Judge Daniels signed Marsh’s redaction request, but the excerpt does not clearly state the disposition.
Marsh USA LLC; individual non-parties whose personal contact information and compensation information appeared in the exhibits; Hawden US Services, LLC; and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish concerns Marsh’s request to redact limited information from exhibits supporting its request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The exhibits involved people who were not parties to the case.
Marsh asked to hide the individuals’ personal email addresses, personal cellphone numbers, and compensation information. It argued that these details were private, that the redactions were narrow, and that they would not affect the court’s consideration of Marsh’s claims.
Judge George B. Daniels signed the letter with a “SO ORDERED” notation on July 30, 2025. The provided excerpt does not clearly state whether the request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish · No. 1:25-cv-06208
- George Daniels
- July 30, 2025
Background
Marsh USA LLC asked the Southern District of New York for permission to file certain exhibits in redacted form. The exhibits were attached to declarations supporting Marsh’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Requested Redactions
Marsh sought to redact personal email addresses and personal cellphone numbers belonging to individual non-parties. It also sought to redact information about compensation offered to those individuals by Hawden US Services, LLC, which Marsh described as a direct competitor. Marsh stated in a footnote that it had separately redacted proprietary compensation information under the judge’s individual rules.
Marsh argued that the affected individuals’ privacy interests outweighed the presumption that court records should be publicly accessible. It represented that the proposed redactions were limited, would not conceal the substance of the exhibits, would not misrepresent their contents, and would not anonymize the individuals. Marsh also argued that the information was not directly relevant to deciding its claims.
Court Action
Judge George B. Daniels signed the submission with a “SO ORDERED” notation dated July 30, 2025. The provided opinion text does not include a separate statement expressly saying that the letter-motion was granted, denied, or granted in part. Accordingly, the exact disposition of the redaction request is unclear from the excerpt.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.