The opinion
Williams Barber Morel Stephen A. Fraser
TRIAL LAWYERS Direct: (312) 443-3248
Fax: (312) 630-8500
saf@williamsbarbermorel.com
May 28, 2024
¥ it
Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan NICALLY FLLED
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York i Os a □
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse a role = □ |
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 21B Se
New York, New York 10007
Re: Edmar Fin. Co. v. Currenex, Inc., Civ. No. 21-6598
Dear Judge Kaplan:
Non-party Global Trading Systems (“GTS”) hereby submits this letter motion to seal the
highlighted portions of its opposition to Plaintiffs’ May 23, 2024 letter motion to compel.*
At bottom, the redacted material in GTS’s opposition consists of the same kind of information
that the Court ordered sealed with respect to Plaintiffs’ recent sealing motions. See Dkt. No. 124.
The material that GTS seeks to seal is derived from a non-public asset purchase agreement
between Defendant HC Technologies, LLC on the one hand and an affiliate of GTS on the other.
The proposed sealed material also includes the asset purchase agreement itself, which is Exhibit
3 to GTS’s opposition brief.
Good cause exists to maintain these commercially sensitive, transactional matters under seal—
particularly where these matters are entirely unrelated to Plaintiffs’ claims. Examples abound
where courts in this district have sealed documents effecting corporate transactions. E.g., Brown
v. Bldg. Engines, Inc., App. No. 22-2053, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17921 (2d Cir. July 14, 2023)
(referencing sealed appendix); Bakemark USA LLC v. Negron, Civ. No. 23-2360, 2024 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 8461, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2024) (approving request to seal unredacted asset purchase
agreement, and stating that “the parties’ need to protect sensitive commercial information from
disclosure to competitors seeking an advantage overcomes the presumption of public access”
(quotation marks omitted)).
This presumption is so strong that, even where a transaction fails, courts nonetheless maintain
underlying documents as confidential to effectuate the parties’ intent in such transactions and
to prevent a chilling effect on future transactional activity. See Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. IVAX
Corp., Civ. No. 97-2003, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3045, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 1998).
1 Prior to this filing, GTS conferred with Plaintiffs and Defendant HC Technologies, LLC and
understands that neither has any objection to this sealing request.
Willis Tower 233S Wacker Dr Ste 6800
Chicago IL 60606
P 312443 3200 F 3126308500
Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan
May 28, 2024
Page 2
Accordingly, GTS respectfully requests that the Court grant GTS’s sealing motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Williams Barber & Morel
/s/ Stephen A. Fraser
By: Stephen A. Fraser
ce: Christopher J. Barber, Esq.
Jonathan Miller, Esq.
Crash
SO “he
ee
———= 7 WAPLAN, YSDI
LEWIS A. KAPLAN,
V/V
iy □