Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-06598
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Edmar Financial v. Currenex, Plaintiffs asked Judge Kaplan to keep trading-strategy exhibits and related motion-to-compel references sealed; the text contains no ruling.
The filing concerns the plaintiffs, defendants, XTX Markets Limited, and public access to the motion-to-compel materials and exhibits.
What happened
In Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al, the plaintiffs responded to defendants’ request to seal a motion to compel and three exhibits.
The plaintiffs asked the court to keep the exhibits and related references in defendants’ opposition under seal. They said the materials contained commercially sensitive information about XTX Markets Limited’s trading strategies, platform-selection decisions, and trading activity, and that the information had been designated highly confidential under the court’s protective order.
The filing does not state that the court granted or denied the request. It is a letter submitted to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, so the text provides no court ruling on sealing.
The detailed version
- Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al · No. 1:21-cv-06598
- Lewis Kaplan
- Sept. 16, 2025
Nature of the Filing
This document is the plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ letter motion to seal a motion to compel and related exhibits. It is a party filing, not a judicial opinion or order. The text does not state that the court ruled on the sealing request.
Plaintiffs’ Position
The plaintiffs asked the court to keep under seal certain exhibits and relevant portions of defendants’ motion to compel. They identified the materials as ECF Nos. 229-1, 229-2, and 229-3, along with references to those materials in the motion and defendants’ opposition.
The plaintiffs said they had designated the exhibits “Highly Confidential” under the court’s protective order because they contained information about XTX Markets Limited’s trading and investment strategies. They described testimony from XTX’s Global Head of Distribution concerning the processes and factors XTX considers when choosing trading platforms and its subsequent trading activity. According to the filing, XTX’s business depends on keeping its trading decisions secret, making the testimony commercially sensitive.
Authorities and Requested Action
The plaintiffs cited decisions discussing the protection of confidential business and financial information, including specific trading details, and acknowledged the presumption of public access to judicial documents. They argued that the commercial sensitivity of the information outweighed that presumption in this instance.
The plaintiffs asked the court to order that the exhibits and references in defendants’ opposition remain sealed. The provided text does not include Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s decision or any disposition of the request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.