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
- 3
In Edmar Financial Company v. Currenex, Judge Kaplan received Goldman Sachs’s request to keep seven exhibits and related references sealed.
Defendant Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, the plaintiffs seeking class certification, and the public’s access to the identified exhibits and references to them.
What happened
Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al concerns a request by defendant Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC involving exhibits attached to the plaintiffs’ class-certification papers.
Goldman asked the court to keep seven exhibits and portions of the plaintiffs’ motion under seal because they contained commercially sensitive pricing, trading-strategy, commission-rate, and other proprietary information. Goldman said disclosure could cause competitive harm and noted that some of the materials had previously been sealed.
The provided text is Goldman’s December 2, 2025 letter requesting that relief; it does not include a court ruling or state whether Judge Kaplan 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
- Dec. 3, 2025
Nature of the document
The provided text is a letter from attorneys for defendant Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. It asks the court to keep certain materials sealed in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The text does not contain a separate judicial opinion or order ruling on the request.
Goldman’s request
Goldman asked that seven exhibits attached to the Brockett Declaration, identified as Exhibits 17, 18, 19, 28, 45, 46, and 47, remain under seal. It also asked that portions of the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion that refer to those exhibits remain sealed.
According to Goldman’s letter, the exhibits contain commercially sensitive or proprietary information. The letter identifies pricing information in Exhibits 18 and 19; trading and other business strategies in Exhibits 28, 45, 46, and 47; and sensitive financial information, trading strategies, and commission rates in Exhibit 17, which contains excerpts from a deposition transcript. Goldman argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm and stated that the materials had been designated “Highly Confidential” under the court’s protective order.
Prior sealing references and disposition
Goldman stated that the court had previously granted sealing requests involving Exhibit 18, Exhibit 45, and portions of the transcript included in Exhibit 17. The letter asked the court to order that the identified exhibits and references to them remain sealed.
The provided text does not state that Judge Kaplan granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on Goldman’s request. Accordingly, no disposition of the sealing request can be identified from this text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.