Opinion

AUPE ROPES & GRAY LLP yf IC SDNY

121.1 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS ~

New york, ny 10036-8704. U VIENT

WWW.ROPESGRAY.COM CTRONICALLY FILED |

ICH:

DATE FILED: [0D 4-7

| een Alexander B. Simkin

October 8, 2025 ee T +1 212 596 9744

alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com

VIA ECF

The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 21B

New York, NY 10007

Re: Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al, Case No. 21-cv-06598

Dear Judge Kaplan:

Defendants Currenex, Inc. (“Currenex”), State Street Bank and Trust Company, and State

Street Global Markets International Limited (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully request that

certain portions of Plaintiffs’ October 5, 2025 Reply to the Letter Motion to Compel the re-opening

of four depositions (“the Reply” to Plaintiffs’ “Motion,” which was denied on October 7, 2025) and

one exhibit cited therein remain under seal or redacted. See ECF No. 325 (sealing motion); ECF No.

326 (Reply filed under provisional seal). Specifically, Defendants request (i) that the portions of the

Reply that quote or reference content from two email exhibits (both of which were previously filed

by Plaintiffs and ordered sealed by the Court, see ECF No. 334) remain under seal, and (ii) that

portions of one exhibit cited in the Reply remain under seal.!

As detailed in ECF No. 293, the two email exhibits (ECF Nos. 276-16 and 276-17) are internal

Currenex and State Street communications that reflect a discussion of State Street’s foreign exchange

trading strategies on the Currenex Platform. The other exhibit (ECF No. 326-1) is an excerpt of

deposition testimony from State Street’s eFX Trading Desk’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Jim Foster, that

similarly discusses State Street’s foreign exchange trading strategies on the Currenex Platform as well

as other commercially sensitive information. As explained below, Defendants respectfully submit

that sealing is justified under controlling legal precedent. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,

435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006).

\

These three exhibits (the “Exhibits’”) directly implicate Defendants’ commercially sensitive

information and privacy interests. It is clear from their face that they contain commercially sensitive

and proprietary information regarding State Street’s foreign exchange trading strategy and the

technical operation of the Currenex Platform. For example, the email Exhibit at ECF No. 276-16

' The two previously sealed emails are referenced in the Reply and on the docket as ECF Nos. 276-

16 and 276-17. The exhibit cited in the Reply is referenced on the docket as ECF No. 326-1.

]

Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan October 8, 2025

reflects a discussion of State Street’s FX trading results in the context of a specific State Street price

stream and discloses the manner in which State Street settled the trades being discussed on the email

chain. The email Exhibit at ECF No. 276-17 reflects a detailed description of State Street’s FX

trading strategy on the Currenex Platform and a discussion of the order types submitted and monitored

by State Street on the Platform. In addition, the portions of the deposition transcript Exhibit (ECF

No. 326-1) that Defendants seek to redact reflect the identity and State Street’s use of a specific price

stream on the Currenex Platform, confidential username information, and other aspects of State

Street’s foreign exchange trading strategy on the Platform.

In the highly competitive and dynamic FX trading market, revealing information reflecting

State Street’s FX trading strategies and confidential technical details regarding the operation of the

Platform could severely damage Currenex’s reputation and harm the Defendants’ competitive

standing by handing their competitors access to sensitive information and market intelligence. The

information contained in the Exhibits could also, if exposed, create vulnerabilities with respect to the

security of the Platform and, accordingly, pose a risk of harm to Currenex and its clients. Such

confidential and commercially sensitive information are among the types of information routinely

found to be appropriately sealed. See In re B&C KB Holding GmbH, 2023 WL 2021299, at *1

(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2023) (courts “routinely permit parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive

information in order to protect confidential business and financial information.”); Mark v. Gawker

Media LLC, 2015 WL 7288641, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015) (granting sealing request with respect

to exhibits reflecting company-internal URLs, passwords, and usernames).

For the reasons set forth above, the Court should order the following: (i) the portions of the

Reply that quote or reference content from ECF Nos. 276-16 and 276-17 remain under seal,” and (ii)

the content reflected at 151:2-6, 151:15—20, and 152:8-18 of ECF No. 326-1 be redacted, but

otherwise unsealed.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alexander B. Simkin

Alexander B. Simkin

cc: Counsel of record (via ECF)

Wide.

LEWyAe 3 □□□ i =

= / 2).

For the avoidance of doubt, Defendants respectfully request that the Court ndaitairl the redactions

to ECF No. 326 that Plaintiffs have proposed in footnote 4 and the last paragraph on page 2.

2,