Nichols v. Noom Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-03677
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nichols v. Noom Inc., Judge Parker approved limited redactions of a hearing transcript containing confidential user data and kept one filing sealed.
Noom, Inc. and Artem Petakov received the requested limited transcript redactions; the plaintiffs, the parties, the court, and the public’s access to the identified filings were affected by the sealing order.
What happened
In Nichols, et al. v. Noom, Inc., et al., Noom asked the court to redact and seal three small portions of an April 15, 2021 hearing transcript. The company said the portions contained confidential user data produced during discovery.
The court agreed that the transcript should be redacted, but only to the limited extent Noom proposed. The court also requested that a separate filing remain sealed, with access limited to the parties and the court.
Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered the defendants to submit the Southern District of New York’s redaction request form to the court reporter by May 11, 2021.
The detailed version
- Nichols v. Noom Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03677
- Katharine Parker
- Apr. 28, 2021
Background
Defendants Noom, Inc. and Artem Petakov asked the court to redact and seal limited portions of the April 15, 2021 hearing transcript at ECF No. 311. They identified confidential user data in three transcript locations: pages 12:3-4, 42:2-5, and 51:14-15. Noom said the information had been produced to plaintiffs during discovery and was designated confidential under the applicable protective order.
Noom argued that the transcript was a judicial document but that the presumption of public access to the specific information was low because it concerned material exchanged during discovery. It also argued that the data reflected competitively sensitive usage information and that public disclosure could harm Noom and benefit competitors. The motion sought only narrow redactions.
Court’s Action
The court agreed that the transcript at ECF No. 311 should be redacted, but only to the limited extent proposed by the defendants. The defendants were required to submit the Southern District of New York’s Redaction Request Form to the court reporter by May 11, 2021.
The court also requested that the Clerk of Court keep ECF No. 317 under seal, with access limited to the parties and the court. The order did not state that the entire hearing transcript should be sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.