Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish
- George Daniels
- 1:25-cv-06208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish, Judge Daniels approved narrow redactions protecting private contact, compensation, and employment-evaluation information.
Marsh USA LLC; individual non-parties whose personal contact and compensation information appeared in the exhibits; certain Marsh employees whose performance evaluations appeared in the exhibits; Defendant Julie Layton; and members of the public seeking access to the exhibits.
What happened
Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish involved Marsh’s request to redact parts of exhibits filed in support of its requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Marsh asked to conceal personal email addresses and phone numbers of individuals who were not parties, compensation information offered by Howden US Services, LLC, confidential performance evaluations of some Marsh employees, and Defendant Julie Layton’s personal phone number. Marsh argued these redactions protected private or sensitive information without hiding the exhibits’ substance.
The filing bears Judge George B. Daniels’s “SO ORDERED” approval of Marsh’s letter-motion. The approval allowed the requested narrow redactions, according to the filing, without deciding the underlying claims or the requests for emergency relief.
The detailed version
- Marsh USA LLC v. Parrish · No. 1:25-cv-06208
- George Daniels
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
Marsh USA LLC filed a letter-motion seeking permission to redact limited portions of exhibits supporting its motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The exhibits were attached to declarations filed in the case.
Requested Redactions
Marsh sought to redact:
- Personal email addresses and personal cell phone numbers of individual non-parties. - Information about compensation offered to those individuals by Howden US Services, LLC, which Marsh described as a direct competitor. - Confidential performance-evaluation records for certain Marsh employees. - Defendant Julie Layton’s personal phone number.
Marsh argued that the information was private, sensitive, proprietary, or otherwise subject to caution under the judge’s court rules. It also argued that the redactions were narrowly limited, did not misrepresent the exhibits, and did not anonymize the people identified in them. Marsh stated that Layton’s use of her personal phone number to contact Marsh employees was relevant to issues in the case, but that the number itself was not at issue.
Ruling
The letter bears Judge George B. Daniels’s “SO ORDERED” approval dated September 2, 2025. The approval allowed Marsh’s requested letter-motion for the described redactions. The filing does not state that the court decided Marsh’s underlying claims or ruled on the requested temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.