Nichols v. Noom Inc.

Background

The provided document is a letter from counsel for defendants Noom, Inc. and Artem Petakov, referred to in the letter as “Noom.” The letter supported the plaintiffs’ January 19, 2021 letter motion to seal portions of their letter motion concerning the bellwether process. The materials at issue included confidential user, revenue, and refund data that Noom had produced to the plaintiffs during discovery. The letter identified the information as appearing on page two of the relevant filings, ECF Nos. 153 and 155.

Arguments about sealing

The letter stated that the filing was a judicial document, meaning a court filing to which public-access principles may apply, but argued that the presumption of public access was low because the information came from discovery. Noom characterized the data as closely guarded, competitively sensitive business information. It argued that public disclosure could prejudice Noom, give competitors an unfair advantage, and cause significant harm. Noom also argued that the plaintiffs had drawn conclusions about users’ engagement with the company’s application that were unsupported by the data and potentially harmful to Noom.

The requested relief was limited to sealing the specific confidential data identified in the plaintiffs’ renewed bellwether application. The letter cited the Second Circuit’s framework requiring a court to consider whether materials are judicial documents, assess the strength of public-access interests, and weigh those interests against competing privacy and confidentiality interests.

Ruling

Judge Katharine H. Parker’s notation states “APPLICATION GRANTED.” Thus, the court granted the application to seal the identified portions of the materials. The provided text does not contain a separate judicial opinion explaining the court’s reasoning or specifying additional terms of the sealing ruling.