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 GRANTING MOTION TO
RETAIN CONFIDENTIALITY
DESIGNATIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 236
Before the Court is Plaintiff Peter Attia’s motion to retain the confidentiality designations
of portions of Plaintiff’s expert report from Charles R. Taylor (the Taylor Report). ECF No. 236.
The matter is fully briefed and suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-
1(b). Having considered the parties’ arguments, the record in this case, and the relevant legal
authorities, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the case’s procedural and factual
background, and refers the parties to its prior order at ECF No. 294 for the applicable legal
standard. Plaintiff initially requested to keep approximately twenty words in the Taylor Report
confidential: a portion of a sentence identifying one of Plaintiff’s patients, and Plaintiff’s
subscriber counts for his newsletter from two different months. See ECF No. 237-2. Plaintiff has
since withdrawn his request to keep the identification of the patient confidential as the patient
“already self-identified in social media as one of Plaintiff’s patients,” and now only requests that
the subscriber counts remain confidential. ECF No. 289 at 2. The Court has already found that
Plaintiff adequately demonstrated that this subscriber information may remain confidential. See
ECF No. 294 at 4-5. While the subscriber information in the Taylor Report is more limited than
the data set showing subscriber counts at issue in the prior motion to retain confidentiality, it
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 295 Filed 04/22/26 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
makes little sense to keep the overall data set confidential but force Plaintiff to reveal this
information piece by piece. To paraphrase Plaintiff, “[t]he fact that releasing more confidential
data is more harmful does not mean” that releasing a limited amount of confidential data is not
harmful. ECF No. 289 at 3. As explained in the previous order, the public’s interest in disclosure
does not outweigh Plaintiff’s interest in keeping this information confidential. See ECF No. 294 at
4; In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff may keep the subscriber data in Taylor Report designated as confidential.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 22, 2026
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 295 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 2