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 to seal exhibits; Judge Kaplan’s opinion text contains no court ruling.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, as well as members of the public seeking access to the identified filings; the provided text does not show any court-ordered effect.
What happened
Edmar Financial Company, LLC and other plaintiffs responded to defendants’ request concerning whether certain filings should be kept from public view. The text is a letter dated October 28, 2025, in the case against Currenex, Inc. and other defendants.
The plaintiffs asked that three exhibits and related portions of the defendants’ response remain sealed. They said the materials contained confidential, non-public communications about possible litigation and communications involving lawyers who are not parties to the case.
The provided text does not show a ruling by Judge Lewis Kaplan. It contains the plaintiffs’ request and legal arguments, but it does not say whether the court granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al · No. 1:21-cv-06598
- Lewis Kaplan
- Nov. 5, 2025
Document and procedural posture
The provided text is a letter from plaintiffs’ counsel responding to defendants’ letter motion to seal. Although the supplied case metadata lists November 5, 2025 as the filing date, the letter itself is dated October 28, 2025. The text does not include a court order or opinion deciding the sealing issue.
Plaintiffs’ request
Plaintiffs asked the court to keep three exhibits and relevant portions of defendants’ response under seal. They said the exhibits had been designated “Highly Confidential” under the court’s protective order because they contained confidential and non-public communications concerning potential litigation.
Plaintiffs’ arguments
Plaintiffs argued that sealing was appropriate to protect attorney-client communications and communications involving law firms that were not parties to the case. They cited the standard that sealing must be essential to protect a higher value and narrowly tailored to serve that interest. They asked that the exhibits and references to them remain sealed.
Disposition
No disposition appears in the provided text. It does not state whether Judge Kaplan granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the motion to seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.