Edgewood Partners Insurance Center v. Development
Edgewood Partners Insurance Center, Inc. d/b/a Edgewood Partners Insurance Agency, as successor in interest to Integro USA, Inc. v. PPD Development, L.P.
- Figueredo
- 1:22-cv-06957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Edgewood Partners v. PPD Development, Judge Figueredo granted EPIC’s motion to seal its reply memorandum.
The ruling restricts public access to the reply memorandum and affects Edgewood Partners, PPD Development, and anyone seeking to view the restricted filing.
What happened
In Edgewood Partners Insurance Center, Inc. v. PPD Development, L.P., Edgewood Partners asked the court to restrict public access to parts of its reply supporting a motion for reconsideration.
Edgewood Partners said the reply quoted or described a consulting agreement and fee calculations containing confidential business information. It argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion to seal the reply memorandum. She directed the clerk to maintain the viewing restrictions at ECF No. 120 and to terminate the gavel at ECF No. 118.
The detailed version
- Edgewood Partners Insurance Center v. Development · No. 1:22-cv-06957
- Figueredo
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Edgewood Partners Insurance Center, Inc. d/b/a Edgewood Partners Insurance Agency (EPIC) submitted a letter asking to redact or seal portions of its reply memorandum supporting a motion for reconsideration. The requested restrictions covered quotations and details from a consulting agreement between EPIC and PPD Development, L.P., as well as fee-calculation information.
Parties’ Positions
EPIC argued that the information was confidential and proprietary business information. It said the information described its benefits plans, shared-savings practices, consulting fees, and fees charged to PPD, and that disclosure could create competitive harm. EPIC also stated that it sought to prevent further disclosure of the consulting agreement through a cause of action in its complaint.
The letter acknowledged the general public-access presumption for documents submitted in connection with a summary-judgment motion. It argued that the need to protect confidential business information outweighed that presumption here.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion to seal the reply memorandum. The clerk was directed to maintain the viewing restrictions at ECF No. 120. The clerk was also respectfully directed to terminate the gavel at ECF No. 118. The opinion does not provide additional detail about the specific portions sealed beyond the request concerning the reply memorandum.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.