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 OUTSTANDING
DISPUTES REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S
PURPORTED VIOLATION OF THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER AT ECF NO.
173
Re: Dkt. Nos. 174, 175, 176, 177
On February 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a unilateral discovery letter (Plaintiff’s February 6
Letter) arguing that Defendants Ouraring Inc. and Oura Health Ltd. (collectively, Oura) had not
complied with the undersigned’s order at ECF No. 155 (the Prior Order) directing Oura to produce
certain documents relevant to their unclean hands defense. ECF Nos. 173 at 2, 173-1 (Yu Decl.
Regarding ECF No. 173) ¶¶ 3-7. In Plaintiff’s February 6 Letter and the supporting declaration,
he described portions of the Prior Order and the underlying joint discovery letter at ECF No. 143,
where Plaintiff and Oura had set forth their respective positions regarding whether production of
certain documents regarding Oura’s unclean hands defense was warranted. See id. In relevant
part, Plaintiff’s February 6 Letter and the declaration summarized portions of Oura’s Board
Chairman David Shuman’s deposition testimony regarding a transaction with the investment firm
Bedford Ridge. Id.
Chaos ensued. Oura’s counsel filed a discovery brief responding to Plaintiff’s February 6
Letter, arguing, among other things, that Plaintiff’s February 6 Letter and supporting declaration
improperly included information designated as “Confidential.” ECF No. 174 at 1. Plaintiff filed a
brief statement promising that they would substantively respond to Oura’s new allegations, and
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 183 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 3

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
then, true to their word, filed a substantive response explaining that Plaintiff’s February 6 Letter
did not contain confidential information. ECF Nos. 175, 176-4, 177. Plaintiff explained that
Oura’s prior counsel had included a description of Mr. Shuman’s testimony in the letter brief at
ECF No. 143, and, as “Oura put this information in the public record,” the summary of his
testimony was no longer confidential. ECF No. 176-4 at 1. Oura then moved to seal the letter
brief at ECF No. 143, Plaintiff’s February 6 Letter, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support
of the February 6 Letter, which, Oura contends, all contained descriptions of Mr. Shuman’s
testimony about the Bedford Ridge transaction. ECF No. 178. Plaintiff opposed Oura’s motion to
seal, explaining that Oura’s counsel had authorized the filing of the letter brief at ECF No. 143 and
“Oura’s portion of [that letter] included a lengthy, public description of certain testimony that Mr.
Shuman gave at his deposition.” ECF No. 181 at 3. Plaintiff argued, among other things, that
because Oura authorized putting the description of Mr. Shuman’s testimony in the public record,
and because the joint letter at ECF No. 143 (as well as the Court’s Prior Order, which summarized
the testimony at issue) had remained on the public docket for months, Oura’s belated claim that
descriptions of the testimony were confidential was both disingenuous and immaterial. Id. at 3-6.
Oura subsequently withdrew its motion to seal. ECF No. 182.
Now that the dust has settled, the Court addresses the outstanding disputes at ECF Nos.
174, 175, and 177. The stipulated Protective Order in this case provides that certain materials may
be designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (collectively,
Protected Information) and limits who can review Protected Information. ECF No. 68.
Information “that … becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as
a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the
public record through trial or otherwise” is not covered by the Protective Order. ECF No. 68 § 3.
Plaintiff and Oura submitted a joint discovery letter at ECF No. 143. Although Plaintiff
filed the letter, Oura contributed to the document and consented to its filing. See ECF No. 143 at
7. In relevant part, Oura’s portion of the letter provided a detailed summary of Mr. Shuman’s
testimony regarding his role in the Bedford Ridge transaction. ECF No. 143 at 4. Citing to Mr.
Shuman’s deposition transcript, Oura explained that “Mr. Shuman told the Oura Health CEO
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 183 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 3

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
about his agreement with Bedford Ridge” and “later informed other members of the board.” Id.
As Oura included the summary of the deposition testimony in a filing on the public docket, this
information has become “part of the public record.” ECF No. 68 § 3.
Plaintiff accordingly did not violate the Protective Order by summarizing this same
information at ECF No. 173 or in the declaration at ECF No. 173-1, and Oura’s request that
Plaintiff’s counsel “file a declaration … explaining why she summarized the substance of Oura’s
confidential information in her declaration and her letter that she filed with the Court” is DENIED.
ECF No. 174 at 3. The filings at ECF Nos. 143, 173, and 173-1, which had been provisionally
sealed pending resolution of Oura’s now-withdrawn motion to seal, shall not be kept under seal.
Plaintiff’s administrative motion at ECF No. 176 to seal portions of the letter brief at ECF
No. 177 and the supporting declaration at ECF No. 177-1 is denied. Plaintiff shall file unredacted
versions of its filings at ECF Nos. 177 and 177-1 on the docket no later than February 27, 2026.
This resolves the disputes at ECF Nos. 174, 175, and 177, as well as the administrative
motion at ECF No. 176.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2026
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:23-cv-03433-HSG Document 183 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 3