Attia v. Oura Ring, Inc. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PETER ATTIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
OURARING INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-03433-HSG (LJC)
ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES
Re: Dkt. Nos. 126, 128, 130, 132, 138
Having considered the parties’ joint discovery letters (ECF Nos. 126, 128, 130, 132, and
138), the record, and the relevant authorities, the Court issues this order resolving the disputes
presented. The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the procedural and factual background
of this case.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties to a lawsuit:
[M]ay obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim[s] or defense[s] and proportional to the
needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in
the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense
of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
“The party seeking discovery has the initial burden of establishing that its request satisfies Rule
26(b)(1)’s relevancy requirement.” Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med.
Progress, No. 16-cv-00236, 2019 WL 311622, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2019). In turn, the party
opposing discovery “has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has
the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with competent evidence.” La.
Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Inst. Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 145 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 6

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
II. ANALYSIS
A. ECF No. 126
The parties disagree over whether Defendants must answer Plaintiff’s Request for
Production No. 42 (Oura Ring) / No. 54 (Oura Health). The Request for Production at issue
demands that Defendants produce:
All presentations, packets, pitch books, slide decks, or other materials
or information about DEFENDANTS or the Oura Ring provided to
any Potential Investor, from 20[17] to present. A “Potential Investor”
is any person or entity with whom DEFENDANTS were
communicating for the purpose of, in whole or in part, securing an
investment in one or both of DEFENDANTS.
ECF No. 126 at 1. Defendants objected. They explain that they have “already produced every
reasonably-available document in their possession that refers specifically to Plaintiff” and that
“documents provided to potential investors” that do not refer to Plaintiff are not relevant, such that
further production is not warranted. Id. at 2.
The Court agrees with Defendants and Plaintiff’s request for relief at ECF No. 126 is
DENIED. Although documents provided to potential investors that reference Plaintiff may be
relevant to show that Defendants allegedly used their “affiliation with Dr. Attia as a selling point
with potential and actual investors,” Plaintiff has not shown that documents that do not refer to
Plaintiff would be more than marginally relevant. Id. at 2. The relevance of such documents is
attenuated and the burden on Defendants of further searching for and reviewing such records is not
sufficiently justified.
B. ECF No. 128
The parties next dispute whether Defendants must be compelled to provide further 30(b)(6)
testimony. ECF No. 128. Plaintiff noticed a single 30(b)(6) deposition for both Defendants, and
the parties negotiated twelve deposition topics. Defendants designated COO Michael Chapp to
testify, and the 30(b)(6) deposition occurred on October 20, 2025. Plaintiff claims that Mr.
Chapp’s testimony was insufficient and have requested that the Court compel four additional
hours of 30(b)(6) testimony.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) provides that when an organization that is a party
to a case is deposed, it “must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 145 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 6

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf.” The designated 30(b)(6) witness
“must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(b)(6). “The designee’s role is to provide the entity’s interpretation of events and
documents.” La. Pac. Corp., 285 F.R.D. at 486. “The testimony of a Rule 30(b)(6) designee
represents the knowledge of the corporation, not of the individual deponents.” Great Am. Ins. Co.
of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534, 538 (D. Nev. 2008) (quotation marks omitted).
“It is not expected that the designee have personal knowledge as to all relevant facts; however, the
designee must become educated and gain the requested knowledge to the extent reasonably
available.” Kelly v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., No. 04CV807, 2011 WL 2448276, at *2 (S.D.
Cal. June 20, 2011). Corporations have a “duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to
designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to prepare them to fully and
unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter.” Great American, 251 F.R.D.
at 539. At the same time, the practical reality is that even a well-prepared witness may not know
“every fact that could possibly come within the scope of a particular topic.” Greer v. Elec. Arts,
Inc., No. C10-3601 RS JSC, 2012 WL 6131031, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012).
The record reflects that Mr. Chapp was prepared to testify about many of the noticed
topics, but the Court finds that further testimony is warranted given his occasionally incomplete
answers, the belated production of the unredacted version of OURA0003816, and the alleged
inaccuracy of Exhibit 125. Plaintiff’s request is accordingly GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff may reopen the 30(b)(6) deposition of Mr. Chapp for the limited
purpose of asking him about (1) Defendants’ views regarding whether Defendants, as an
organization, agreed with Mr. Rai’s various statements, (2) the unredacted OURA0003816
document, (3) the services provided by Plaintiff to Defendants, including introductions to
investors, feedback on products, and promotion on social media, and (4) the accuracy of Exhibit
125, the additional $160 million that Plaintiff claims was omitted from the chart, and, as
necessary, any further testimony regarding Topic 11, to fully explore that topic.
This reopened deposition shall not exceed four hours in length on the record. Plaintiffs’
request to re-depose Mr. Chapp on all other topics, such as his conversations with Mr. Rai and
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 145 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 6

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Oura’s interpretation of Plaintiff’s alleged Stock Option Agreement, is denied.
C. ECF No. 130
At ECF No. 130, the parties dispute whether Defendants’ responses to Interrogatory Nos.
13 (Oura Ring) / 21 (Oura Health), 20 (Oura Health) / 12 (Oura Ring), and 15 (Oura Ring) / 23
(Oura Health) are sufficient. Plaintiff’s request for relief is GRANTED and Defendants are
ordered to supplement their responses, as follows.
As to Interrogatories Nos. 13/21, Defendants shall make a reasonable effort to investigate
who had access to the data room identified in OURA0003816 between September 4, 2019 and
December 31, 2022, and identify all additional individuals who had access to that data room, to
the extent feasible given a reasonable investigation. See Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 632
(E.D. Cal. 2013) (explaining that although a responding party is not required “to conduct extensive
research in order to answer an interrogatory,” they must make “a reasonable effort to respond”
fully).
As to Interrogatories Nos. 20/12, Defendants’ objections are overruled, and they shall
respond identifying the “services” that Plaintiff provided, according to the definition of services
that Plaintiff put forward. The Court disagrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s definition of
“services” is such that Defendants cannot respond to this interrogatory without making a
functional admission of a core issue in the case. ECF No. 130 at 4. Furthermore, Defendants’
objection that Plaintiff has the requested information is unavailing, as “[a] requested party may not
refuse to respond to a requesting party’s discovery request on the ground that the requested
information is in the possession of the requesting party.” Bretana v. Int’l Collection Corp., No.
C07-05934, 2008 WL 4334710, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2008); see Vivek Shah v. JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A., No. cv 24-8601, 2025 WL 2684033, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2025) (“It is not
proper to object to a request for information or documents on the ground that the requested
information or documents assertedly are equally available to the requesting party.”).
Defendants contend that the Court should permit them to respond to the interrogatories
pursuant to Rule 33(d), but the Court declines to do so given the late stage of discovery. In their
response to the interrogatories and the subsequent meet and confer process, Defendants had
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 145 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 6

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
opportunities to “specify the records that must be reviewed” to ascertain the answer the Plaintiff’s
interrogatories, but did not do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). If the Court were to order a Rule
33(d) response at this point, it would be endorsing an apparent delay tactic on the part of
Defendants.
As to Interrogatories Nos. 15/23, Defendants are ordered to supplement their responses,
identifying the recipient and number of shares granted for each “Promised Advisor Grant,” as
defined in the interrogatories. Defendants’ objection is difficult to comprehend because on one
hand, they assert that they have produced the “relevant agreements” and thus responded to the
interrogatory, and in the other, they claim that they cannot respond because no grants were
awarded. ECF No. 130-1 at 21; ECF No. 130 at 5. That they have already produced the
agreements is not a ground for refusing to answer. Bretana, 2008 WL 4334710 at *4. And, given
that there appear to only be seven advisor grants, it strains credulity that it would be unduly
burdensome for Defendants to identify the recipient and number of shares for each grant.
D. ECF No. 132
The parties disagree about whether Plaintiff may depose Defendants’ board member Timo
Ahopelto. ECF No. 132. Plaintiff noticed Mr. Ahopelto’s deposition on October 21, 2025 (one
day after Mr. Chapp’s 30(b)(6) deposition) and scheduled the deposition for the close of
discovery, October 24, 2025. Plaintiff argues that such a last-minute deposition is justified due to
information revealed during the 30(b)(6) deposition and from recently produced documents. Rule
30(b) provides that “[a] party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give
reasonable written notice to every other party.” Although three days’ notice pushes the envelope
of what is “reasonable written notice,” given this case’s somewhat compressed discovery timeline,
the discovery cut-off, and Plaintiff’s arguments that he only recently learned of the need for Mr.
Ahopelto’s testimony, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN PART. ECF No. 132. To the extent
Plaintiff could have noticed the deposition earlier, the Court limits the deposition to 3.5 hours on
the record, to mitigate any unnecessary burden on Defendants regarding this deposition conducted
after the close of discovery.
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 145 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 6

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
E. ECF No. 138
The parties dispute whether Defendants must produce additional materials relating to their
Board’s meetings. ECF No. 138. Plaintiff’s request for further production is GRANTED IN
PART. As Plaintiff identifies, one of Defendants’ main defenses in this case is its Board’s lack of
“knowledge and awareness” regarding Plaintiff’s alleged option agreement. Id. at 2. Plaintiff
ought to be able to test Defendants’ theory by reviewing relevant materials, rather than merely
relying on Defendants’ representation that nothing else in the materials “mentions or relates to
Plaintiff.” Id. at 4 (discussing the committee materials). To the extent they have not already done
so, Defendants are accordingly ordered to produce “presentations for meetings of the full Board”
and “minutes and presentations for meetings of committees of the Board” from December 1, 2016
to December 31, 2023. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff’s request for relief is otherwise denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 10, 2025
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 145 Filed 11/10/25 Page 6 of 6