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
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER
Re: Dkt. No. 164
Pending before the Court is Defendant Oura Ring’s motion to file a second amended
answer. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the
matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court GRANTS the motion.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), “[a] party may amend its pleading once as
a matter of course . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . . ” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1)(B). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “[i]n all other cases, a party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[L]eave to amend shall be freely granted ‘when justice so requires.’” Townsend
v. Univ. of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). “This
policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d
1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). When considering whether to grant leave to
amend, the court considers several factors, including (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice
to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) previous amendments. See Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Court weighs prejudice to the opposing party most
heavily. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 184 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 2

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 remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting
leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in original).
II. DISCUSSION
The Court finds that Defendant may amend the answer to remove its unclean hands
defense, and also questions why this dispute reached the point of consuming everyone’s time and
resources with motions practice in the first place. In his opposition, Plaintiff does not identify any
prejudice he would face by virtue of Defendant dropping a defense, which alone is enough to
warrant granting the motion. See DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir.
1987) (“The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.”). Plaintiff seems
to suggest that in removing this affirmative defense, Defendant seeks not to produce documents it
had previously been ordered to produce by Judge Cisneros. Dkt. No. 155. Even if that sort of
discovery dispute could ever be a legitimate basis for resisting an opponent’s effort to drop a
substantive affirmative defense (which the Court doubts), this purported concern has fallen away
with Judge Cisneros’s recent ruling that as long as Defendant removes the unclean hands defense,
it need not produce those documents. Dkt. No. 179 at 3.
Plaintiff does not make any arguments regarding the remaining Foman factors, so nothing
cuts against the presumption in favor of amendment. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.
The Court thus GRANTS the motion. Defendant shall file a second amended answer within 7
days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
2/23/2026
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 184 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 2