Nichols v. Noom Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-03677
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nichols v. Noom Inc., Judge Schofield granted redactions to protect confidential business information and kept an exhibit sealed.
The defendants’ request was granted; access to the unredacted exhibit was limited to the parties and individuals identified in Appendix A, while the exhibit remained sealed.
What happened
In Nichols v. Noom Inc., the defendants asked the court to approve redactions to confidential information in an exhibit filed by the plaintiffs.
The court explained that public access to court documents is important but not absolute, and that protecting confidential business information can justify limiting access.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the defendants’ application, ordered the unredacted exhibit to remain sealed, limited access to the parties and individuals listed in an appendix, and directed the clerk to close the related motions.
The detailed version
- Nichols v. Noom Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03677
- Katharine Parker
- Apr. 29, 2021
Background
The defendants asked the court to approve redactions of confidential information in Exhibit A to the plaintiffs’ filing. The filing and related requests were identified by docket numbers 303, 304, 305, and 315.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized a common-law right of public access to judicial documents but explained that the right is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing interests, including the protection of confidential business information.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the defendants’ application to approve the redactions. The unredacted version of Exhibit A will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in Appendix A to the defendants’ letter will have access. The court stated that filing the documents in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information. It also advised the parties that the court retains discretion over whether to provide confidential treatment to confidential documents or information submitted in connection with future proceedings, and directed the clerk to close the motions at Docket Nos. 304 and 315.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.