Nichols v. Noom Inc.

Background

The court considered several requests to redact or seal documents filed in connection with discovery disputes. The party seeking to restrict access had the burden of justifying the request, and the opinion states that the non-moving parties did not oppose the motions addressed in the order.

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a presumption of public access. It also described a stronger public-access right under the First Amendment for some judicial documents. But documents exchanged during discovery generally do not receive the same presumption, including when they are submitted to the court in connection with a discovery motion. The court also relied on the principle that changing confidentiality protections can be unfair when parties reasonably relied on a protective order.

Rulings on the Requests

For ECF Nos. 258 and 287, Noom sought to redact or seal portions of exhibits connected to its motion for reconsideration. The materials included Noom’s discovery responses about its subscription programs and sales timing, pricing information for its automatic-renewal program, Noom’s internal policies and procedures concerning consumer engagement, and related confidential information. The court found that the information was sensitive, nonpublic information covered by the protective order and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm to Noom. The court granted the requests. Noom was required to publicly file versions containing the significantly narrowed redactions by May 13, 2021.

For ECF Nos. 276 and 296, the plaintiffs sought to redact and seal portions of a motion concerning alleged violations of prior discovery orders and the motion’s exhibits. The information included Noom’s internal communications, product strategy and development, revenue and user data, and confidential mediation communications. The court found that most of the proposed restrictions were narrowly tailored to protect Noom’s privacy and business interests. It held that the narrower proposals at ECF Nos. 309 and 310 superseded the broader proposals at ECF Nos. 277 and 281, granted the request, and required Noom to publicly file versions using the narrower redactions by May 13, 2021.

The court also granted Noom’s request to redact limited portions of Exhibit 1 to its opposition. Those portions primarily concerned Noom’s earlier document productions and its response to a Better Business Bureau warning. Although the court found Noom’s privacy interest in that information relatively limited, it declined to require publication at that time because Noom had produced the information with the understanding that it would remain confidential under the protective order.

For ECF No. 294, Noom sought to redact about 15 words in a seven-page joint agenda letter. The words referred to confidential internal customer data exchanged during discovery. The court approved that limited redaction.

Disposition

The court granted ECF Nos. 258, 276, 287, 294, and 296. It directed the clerk to keep specified documents under seal, with access limited to the parties and the court. It also directed Noom to file the narrower proposed redactions adopted in the order by May 13, 2021. The plaintiffs’ ability to contest the sealing or redaction if the documents were later filed in connection with a motion that could decide the case, including a summary-judgment motion, was preserved. Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.