Nichols v. Noom Inc.

Opinion

- - ------------------------------------------------------------ X: GERALDINE MAHOOD, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 20 Civ. 3677 (LGS) -against- : : ORDER NOOM INC., et al., : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------ X

WHEREAS, on April 1, 2021, Defendants filed a letter requesting that the Court approve redactions of confidential information contained in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in support of their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 245, 256. WHEREAS, on April 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a letter requesting that the Court approve redactions of confidential information contained in Plaintiffs’ objections to Judge Parker’s discovery order at Dkt. No. 239. Dkt. No. 263. WHEREAS, although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). One competing consideration is an interest in protecting confidential business information. See Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Financial Indus. Regul. Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 517 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order); accord Royal Park Invs. SA/NV v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14 Civ. 9764, 2018 WL 739580, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2018). It is hereby ORDERED that, parties’ respective applications to approve redactions are GRANTED. The unredacted versions of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law and Plaintiffs’ objections filed at Dkt. Nos. 246 and 264 will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached Appendix A of the letters at Dkt. Nos. 245 and 263 will have access. Filing the above-referenced documents in redacted form is necessary to prevent the S discovery order not to exceed 25 double spaced pages. INO reply shall be tiled unless requested by the

The parties are advised that the Court retains unfettered discretion whether or not to afford confidential to any Confidential Document or information contained in any Confidential Document submitted to the in connection with any motion, application, or proceeding that may result in an order and/or decision by the

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 245, 256, 263.

April 6, 2021 New York, New York

LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE