Edgewood Partners Insurance Center v. PPD Development, L.P.
- Figueredo
- 1:22-cv-06957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Edgewood Partners v. PPD Development, Judge Figueredo granted both parties’ unopposed motions to seal commercially sensitive agreements, financial information, and related filings.
Edgewood Partners Insurance Center Inc. and PPD Development, L.P., whose specified filings and exhibits may remain sealed or redacted, as well as the public’s access to that material.
What happened
Edgewood Partners Insurance Center v. PPD Development, L.P. concerned two unopposed requests to seal or redact information filed in connection with PPD’s motion for summary judgment and Edgewood’s opposition.
PPD sought to seal or redact its consulting agreement with Integro USA, financial information about the fees Edgewood claimed, and filings that quoted or discussed that information. Edgewood sought similar protection for declarations, spreadsheets, and portions of its briefing and factual statement containing agreement details and fee calculations. Edgewood said the material was confidential business information and that disclosure could cause competitive harm.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted both motions to seal. The court concluded that protecting the parties’ confidential business and financial information outweighed the public’s interest in access to the sealed material, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the two motions.
The detailed version
- Edgewood Partners Insurance Center v. PPD Development, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-06957
- Figueredo
- Sept. 12, 2023
Background
The court considered two unopposed letter motions to seal: one filed by PPD Development, L.P. at ECF No. 35 and one filed by Edgewood Partners Insurance Center Inc. at ECF No. 42. The materials concerned the parties’ dispute and filings related to PPD’s motion for summary judgment.
PPD’s motion
PPD asked to seal or redact the Consulting Agreement between PPD and Integro USA, Inc., executed June 19, 2019; financial information concerning the consulting fees Edgewood claimed were owed under that agreement; and several exhibits discussing the agreement or fee information. PPD also sought redactions in its reply memorandum supporting summary judgment and in the declaration of Aimee Hollis where those filings quoted the agreement or referred to the fee information.
The court noted that it had previously granted PPD’s request to seal and redact the same information in a November 22, 2022 order. For the reasons stated in that earlier order, the court granted PPD’s motion.
Edgewood’s motion
Edgewood asked to seal the declarations of Tony Cannata and Ryan Dwyer and spreadsheets attached to Dwyer’s declaration that detailed Edgewood’s calculations concerning PPD’s summary-judgment motion. Edgewood also sought redactions in its opposition memorandum and its statement of facts under Local Rule 56.1 where they quoted or described the consulting agreement or referred to fee calculations.
Edgewood represented that the information was confidential proprietary business information and that disclosure created a significant risk of competitive harm. Applying the standard identified by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., the court concluded that Edgewood’s interest in keeping the commercially sensitive business information confidential outweighed the public’s interest in the sealed material. The court therefore granted Edgewood’s motion.
Disposition
The court granted both motions to seal, ECF Nos. 35 and 42. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate those motions. This order addressed sealing and redaction only; the opinion does not decide the parties’ summary-judgment motion or the underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.