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 REGARDING ECF NOS. 173,
175, 174, 177
Pending before the Court are four discovery letters that raise two discrete discovery
disputes. One dispute involves Plaintiff Peter Attia’s contention that Defendants Ouraring Inc.
and Oura Health Ltd.’s (collectively, Defendants or Oura) failed to comply with a discovery order
requiring the production of certain information. ECF No. 173, 174. The other dispute concerns
whether Plaintiff’s counsel violated the Protective Order in this case by disclosing Attorneys’ Eyes
Only (AEO) information to Plaintiff, Lacey Stenson, and Paul Attia and by including confidential
information in a discovery brief filed at ECF No. 173. ECF No. 174, 177, 176-4.
Before the undersigned turns to the substance of the disputes, she reminds the parties of
the requirement that they “make a good faith effort” to resolve discovery disputes before seeking
intervention. Civil Standing Order § F-5. After—and only after—the parties address a dispute via
letter, phone call, or email, and then conduct a formal meet and confer regarding the dispute in
person or by videoconference, may they seek court intervention by filing a joint letter describing
the unresolved discovery dispute. Parties are required to cooperate in good faith throughout this
process. Here, the parties’ inability to resolve two straightforward discovery disputes on their own
or even submit a joint letter regarding their disputes suggests a failure to cooperate in good faith.
The parties are admonished to comply with the undersigned’s Standing Order.
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 179 Filed 02/17/26 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
The undersigned presumes the parties’ familiarity with the factual and overall procedural
background of this case, and in prior orders she has explained the lawsuit in greater detail. See,
e.g., ECF Nos. 125, 155. The core of the action involves Plaintiff’s allegations that Oura
contracted his advisory services in return for stock options, while Oura contends that the options
are invalid and asserts various defenses, including the doctrine of unclean hands.
I. OURA’S PURPORTED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S DECEMBER 1,
2025 DISCOVERY ORDER
Relevant to the parties’ dispute concerning whether Oura has failed to comply with this
Court’s prior discovery order, ECF No. 173, Oura’s Amended Answer asserts that Plaintiff’s
claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. See ECF No. 89 at 14. Among other things,
Oura claims that Plaintiff attempted to undermine Oura’s board by spreading “baseless rumors
about one of the Board’s members having a conflict of interest although this was not true.” Id. at
15. Plaintiff has sought discovery related to this defense. Specifically, Plaintiff served Oura with
requests for “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS supporting your … Unclean Hands
… affirmative defense.” ECF No. 143-1 at 12 (Request No. 36 to Oura Health Ltd.), 38 (Request
No. 29 to Oura Ring, Inc.) (collectively, Requests 36/29). The parties then filed a discovery brief
disputing whether Oura had to produce certain documents regarding their claim that Plaintiff had
spread rumors about a board’s member alleged conflict of interest and their claim that these
“rumors” were false. See ECF No. 143. The undersigned granted Plaintiff’s request in part,
finding that documents regarding Plaintiff’s alleged statements and documents showing the truth
or falsity of his statements were relevant to Oura’s unclean hands defense. ECF No. 155 (the Prior
Order) at 3-4; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Oura was ordered to supplement its document production
or update its discovery responses to state that it had no responsive documents, as appropriate, by
December 8, 2025. Prior Order at 4-5. This deadline was later extended to December 15, 2025.
ECF No. 161.
Oura did not produce additional documents regarding its unclean hands defense by
December 15, 2025. Instead, it served a supplemental response stating that because it was not
asserting an unclean hands defense, it has no documents supporting this defense. See ECF No.
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 179 Filed 02/17/26 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
173-1 at 9-10. Oura has since moved for leave to file a second amended answer to remove its
unclean hands defense. ECF No. 164. That motion, which Plaintiff opposes, is pending in front
of Judge Gilliam. Id.; ECF No. 168.
Plaintiff argues that Oura has violated the Prior Order by moving to withdraw its unclean
hands defense rather than producing additional documents in response to Requests 36/29. ECF
No. 173 at 2. Oura disagrees, arguing that it “has already complied with” the Prior Order by
serving amended discovery responses stating that it had no responsive documents as it was no
longer asserting an unclean hands defense. ECF No. 174 at 3.
The undersigned generally agrees with Oura’s argument. Requests 36/29 asked Oura to
produce “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS supporting” their unclean hands defense,
and the undersigned ordered Oura to produce documents (or amend their responses) based on her
determination that the categories of documents at issue were relevant to the unclean hands
defense. Prior Order; ECF No. 143-1 at 12, 28. Oura has moved to withdraw their unclean hands
defense and provided amended responses to Requests 36/29 stating that they have no responsive
documents supporting their unclean hands defense because they are no longer asserting that
defense. If Defendants succeed in withdrawing their unclean hands defense, no further responses
or production in response to Requests 36/29 will be necessary.
The Court accordingly orders as follows: No further responses or production to Requests
36/29 are warranted at this time. If Judge Gilliam denies Oura’s Motion to File a Second
Amended Answer and Oura’s unclean hands defense stays in play, then within five days of Judge
Gilliam’s denial, Oura’s shall further amend their responses to Requests 36/29 and produce
documents (if any are in their possession, custody, or control) compliant with this Court’s Prior
Order. If, however, Judge Gilliam grants Oura’s Motion to File a Second Amended Answer, and
Oura further amends their Answer to withdraw their unclean hands defense, no further responses
to Requests 36/29 are required.
II. PLAINTIFF’S PURPORTED VIOLATION OF THE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
Turning to the second pending discovery dispute, Oura argues that Plaintiff violated the
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 179 Filed 02/17/26 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
parties’ stipulated Protective Order by improperly disclosing information designated as Attorneys’
Eyes Only (AEO) to Plaintiff, Lacey Stenson, and Paul Attia.1 ECF No. 174. Oura requests an
order compelling Plaintiff to:
(a) file a declaration from Plaintiff identifying what Oura AEO
information he received, when, how, identifying all disclosures of
AEO or Confidential information he made and to whom, and
confirming all known unauthorized copies have been destroyed;
(b) file declarations from Paul Attia and Lacey Stenson, and any other
non-parties who received Oura designated information, identifying
what designated information they received, when, how, identifying
all copies and/or disclosures of AEO or Confidential information they
made and to whom, and confirming all known unauthorized copies
have been destroyed … .
Plaintiff acknowledges that there was “an inadvertent unauthorized disclosure of protected
information,” but argues that he has complied with the Protective Order’s remediation procedures
and no further action is warranted. ECF No. 177 at 1-2.
The stipulated Protective Order allows parties to designate “extremely sensitive”
confidential material, “disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a
substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means,” as AEO. ECF
No. 68 § 2.7. Materials designated as AEO may only be disclosed to a receiving party’s outside
counsel, experts (subject to certain conditions), court and court personnel, and the author and
recipient of the material. Id. § 7.3. AEO material may not be disclosed to Plaintiff. Id. The
Protective Order provides that if Protected Material is disclosed to anyone or in any circumstances
not permitted:
[T]he Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the
Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best
efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material,
(c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures
were made of all the terms of this Order, and (d) request such person
or persons to execute the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be
Bound” [(Acknowledgment)] that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Id. § 10.
1 Oura also argues that Plaintiff violated the Protective Order by filing confidential information
publicly on the docket. ECF No. 174. Plaintiff responded, and Oura has now filed an
administrative motion seeking to seal the allegedly offending public filings. ECF Nos. 177, 178.
The Court will address this matter once Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the administrative
motion has passed. To avoid prejudice to Oura should the Court rule in its favor, the filings at
ECF No. 143, 173, and 173-1 are provisionally sealed.
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 179 Filed 02/17/26 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
Plaintiff’s counsel, Charmaine Yu, attests that on February 3, 2026, she provided notice to
Oura’s counsel that “Dr. Attia, Paul Attia, and Lacey Stenson had seen portions of a draft report
that contained information about five documents that Oura had designated AEO.” ECF No. 177-1
¶ 10. She further attests that she communicated with Plaintiff, Ms. Stenson, and Paul “to execute
the steps required by the Protective Order” and that each of them signed the Acknowledgement.
Id. ¶ 11. A copy of the notice she provided to Oura on February 3, 2026, is attached to her
declaration at Exhibit 3. Id. at 16. Based on Ms. Yu’s declaration and exhibits thereto, the Court
is satisfied that Ms. Yu notified Oura of the unauthorized disclosures; informed Plaintiff, Ms.
Stenson, and Pault of the terms of the Protective Order; and ensured they executed the
Acknowledgement. Ms. Yu’s explanation in the notice that Plaintiff, Ms. Stenson, and Paul no
longer had access to the portions of the draft report at issue and that she had complied with the
Protective Order suggest that Plaintiff and his counsel have satisfied their obligation to use their
“best efforts to retrieve” the material that was inadvertently disclosed. ECF No. 68 § 10.
However, the Court agrees with Oura that further investigation and explanation regarding the
retrieval of the unauthorized copies is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the Protective Order.
See ECF No. 174 at 2.
Accordingly, by February 27, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a supplemental
declaration identifying how Plaintiff, Ms. Stenson, and Paul accessed the portions of the draft
report; describing the format in which the draft report was made available to them; addressing if
they retained copies of the draft report or disseminated copies to other individuals; and describing
all steps taken to retrieve copies of the draft report that Plaintiff, Ms. Stenson, and Paul accessed.
Oura’s requested relief is otherwise denied.
The Court recognizes that certain AEO designations have been challenged in this case, but
where materials have been designated AEO and the designation has not been removed by the
designating party or by court order, the AEO designation remains in effect and the parties are
required to comply with the according terms of the Protective Order. This includes ensuring that
confidential and AEO material is only disclosed as permitted by the Protective Order and taking
necessary steps to protect against inadvertent disclosure. Moreover, the Court reminds Plaintiff
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 179 Filed 02/17/26 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
that if he or his counsel become aware of any other unauthorized disclosures of protected material,
they are obligated to “immediately” notify Oura and comply with the remedial steps provided in
§ 10 of the Protective Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2026
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 179 Filed 02/17/26 Page 6 of 6