Nichols v. Noom Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs and the proposed class, together with defendants Noom, Inc. and Artem Petakov, jointly submitted a request concerning the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Class Action Complaint, identified as ECF No. 149. The complaint had been sealed on an emergency basis by the Southern District of New York’s electronic filing help desk. The parties asked the court to formally seal that filing and allow the plaintiffs to publicly file a version containing court-approved redactions.

The parties proposed that the unredacted complaint be available at the “Selected Parties” viewing level, meaning access would be limited to counsel of record. They stated that the proposed redactions were narrower than those initially used, except for two additional small redactions.

Requested Redactions

The plaintiffs sought to redact about a dozen instances of personally identifying information, specifically email addresses and financial-account information. They argued that this information had little relevance to the court’s work, that public access to it was not necessary to understand the court’s decision, and that the plaintiffs’ privacy interests outweighed the presumption of public access. Noom did not object to sealing the unredacted versions of those materials.

Noom sought to redact references to highly sensitive, nonpublic business information. The requested material included revenue and usage data and internal policy documents concerning Noom’s development of automatic-renewal features. Noom argued that the material had been produced in discovery, so the presumption of public access was low, while disclosure could cause competitive and reputational harm. Noom also argued that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored. The plaintiffs did not object to Noom’s request.

Court Action

Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the filing with “SO ORDERED.” The supplied text does not contain a separate explanation identifying each redaction approved or a separate disposition paragraph stating the ruling in more detail. It does, however, record the parties’ request that ECF No. 149 be formally sealed, that the unredacted complaint be filed under seal, and that a publicly accessible version containing only court-approved redactions later be filed.