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 DENYING DEFENDANT'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
VACATE THE HEARING DATE
Re: Dkt. No. 268
Pending before the Court is Defendant Oura Ring’s administrative motion to vacate
Plaintiff Peter Attia’s hearing date for motions filed on April 2. Dkt. No. 268. Plaintiff filed an
opposition. Dkt. No. 275. The Court DENIES the motion.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s filing of his motion for summary judgment and several
Daubert motions on April 2, 2026 violated the Local Rules, the Court’s Standing Order, the case
scheduling order, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(B)(4). Defendant is wrong. The case
schedule ordered on December 3, 2025 unequivocally reserved the dispositive motion hearing date
on May 7, 2026. Dkt. No. 158. Defendant appears to be aware of that order. See Dkt. No. 268 at
4 n.2.1 Defendant had been on notice for nearly four months that the motion hearing deadline was
approaching when Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment and Daubert motions on April
2, 2026. There was therefore no prejudice whatsoever to Defendant based on Plaintiff’s filing of
these motions, which fell 35 days before the hearing date set by the Court, and which complied
with the Local Rules. Dkt. No. 158; L.R. 7-2. The fact that hearings on other matters had been
1 Defendant argues that the docket entry is a “ministerial docket entry” and not a signed order and
was therefore not binding. Dkt. No. 268 at 4 n.2. Again, Defendant is simply wrong: the docket
entry was clear, and there was no conflict between it and any other order. This argument is
frivolous.
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 276 Filed 04/14/26 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
scheduled for May 7, 2026 is irrelevant given the clear deadline in the scheduling order. The issue
here is simple: the Court set a deadline, and Plaintiff complied with it.
The Court further denies Defendant’s request for an additional 28 days to oppose
Plaintiffs’ motions. This requested relief amounts to a request to amend the scheduling order and
should have been made in a noticed Rule 16 motion, and Defendant has shown no good cause in
any event to extend a court-ordered deadline it has known about for months. If Defendant was
uncertain about the import of the scheduling order and docket entry, the diligent time to bring that
up was months ago.
The Court DENIES the motion in its entirety. The Court is of the view that this entire
dispute was an exceptionally poor use of its time and resources.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
4/14/2026
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 276 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 2