Nichols v. Noom Inc.

Background

Defendants Noom, Inc. and Artem Petakov asked the court to seal portions of Noom’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ second request to establish a bellwether proceeding. The requested redactions concerned the plaintiffs’ description of confidential user data that Noom had produced in discovery. The information appeared on page two, footnote 3, of the opposition.

Arguments for sealing

Noom argued that the information was highly sensitive, closely guarded, and competitively significant business information. It asserted that public disclosure could prejudice Noom, give competitors an unfair advantage, and cause reputational and competitive harm. Noom also argued that the plaintiffs had drawn conclusions about users who had never opened or engaged with Noom’s application without data supporting those representations. Noom requested sealing only the specific confidential information designated under the applicable protective order.

The application discussed the framework from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP: whether the material is a judicial document, the strength of the public-access presumption, and the competing interests supporting restricted access. Noom acknowledged that its opposition was a judicial document but argued that the presumption of public access was low because the information concerned material exchanged during discovery.

Ruling

The court’s order states, “APPLICATION GRANTED.” It requested that the Clerk place the documents filed at ECF No. 182 permanently under seal, limiting access to the court and the parties, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 181. The provided text does not include a separate written explanation by Judge Parker beyond the granted application and the directions concerning sealing and termination.