Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2025

Edgewood Partners Insurance Center v. PPD Development, L.P.

Judge
Figueredo
Docket
1:22-cv-06957
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Edgewood Partners Insurance Center v. PPD Development, Judge Figueredo granted EPIC’s motion to seal confidential business information.

Who this affects

EPIC and PPD Development, L.P., as well as members of the public seeking access to the specified court filings.

What happened

In Edgewood Partners Insurance Center v. PPD Development, EPIC asked to redact or seal parts of its reconsideration motion and two exhibits. The materials included details from a consulting agreement with PPD and fee-calculation information.

EPIC said the information was confidential and proprietary, including its benefits plans, shared-savings practices, consulting fees, and broker fees. It argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm.

Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion to seal on August 5, 2025. She directed the Clerk of Court to maintain the viewing restrictions for the specified filing.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Edgewood Partners Insurance Center v. PPD Development, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-06957
Judge
Figueredo
Date
Aug. 5, 2025

Background

Plaintiff Edgewood Partners Insurance Center, Inc., doing business as Edgewood Partners Insurance Agency and identified as EPIC, asked the court to seal portions of its memorandum supporting a motion for reconsideration and the second and third exhibits to that motion. EPIC sought to protect quotations and details from its consulting agreement with PPD Development, L.P., as well as fee-calculation information.

EPIC described the information as confidential and proprietary business information. It stated that the materials included details about how it structures benefits plans, handles shared savings, and sets consulting and broker fees. EPIC argued that disclosure could give competitors an advantage and noted that its complaint sought, among other relief, an order preventing PPD from further disclosing or distributing the consulting agreement.

Court’s Ruling

The court’s endorsed order granted EPIC’s motion to seal at ECF No. 104. Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the Clerk of Court to maintain the viewing restrictions at ECF No. 107. The order did not state that the court resolved the parties’ underlying dispute or the motion for reconsideration.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.