# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. New York · November 5, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11232255

## Case

- **Full name:** Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** November 5, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11232255

## Opinion text

se ee ee ee ee ee ee ee a ee SSS ee

MAAUEL trial lawyers | new york
USDC SDN¥s sth Avenue, New York, New York 10016-7103 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED |
DOC #: | WRITER’S DIRECT DIAL|NO.
a (212) 849-7345
DATE FILED:
| WRITER’S EMAIL ADDRESS
| cues
October 28, 2025
By ECF
Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
Court Room 21B
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re: Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al, Case No. 21-cv-06598 |
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Letter Motion to Seal (ECF No. 354)
Dear Judge Kaplan:
On behalf of Plaintiffs, we respectfully submit this response to request three exhibits and the
relevant portions of Defendants’ response filed at ECF No. 355 (the “Response”) remain under
seal. See ECF Nos. 354 (letter motion to seal), 355 (Response referencing Exhibits), and 35 St,
355-2, and 355-3 (the “Exhibits” at issue).
We designated the Exhibits as “Highly Confidential” pursuant to the Court’s Protective nie,
ECF No. 113, because they include information concerning confidential and non-public
communications regarding potential litigation. Documents should remain sealed if “closure is
essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). There is
significant public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of communications between attorney
and client and “this is precisely the kind of countervailing concern that is capable of cole
the general preference for public access to judicial records.” Diversified Grp., Inc. v. Daugerdas,
217 F.R.D. 152, 160 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs also seek to avoid any iba
of the confidentiality of communications involving law firms not present in the case. For all the
reasons set forth above, the Court should order that the Exhibits and references in Defendants’
Response remain sealed.

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, lip
LOS ANGELES { NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC CTT |S LS Jd
LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG / PARIS | MUNICH |S¥ WIS: 4 J RP
LE | aL

ULAR ok Be oh a OP Pe Ue fw ee ew eee ee te eee SB RP ee ee □□ Ge SE oe Ow SS

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel L. Brockett
Daniel L. Brockett
cc: Counsel of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11232255. Public record. Not legal advice.