Meta Platforms, Inc. v. BrandTotal Ltd. et al

Filing 153

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why #152 Order should not be filed in the public record. Responses due 6/8/2021. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on June 3, 2021. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FACEBOOK, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 20-cv-07182-JCS

v.
BRANDTOTAL LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ORDER SHOULD NOT BE FILED IN
THE PUBLIC RECORD
Re: Dkt. No. 152

Because it contains information from documents the parties moved to file under seal, the

13

Court has provisionally sealed its order (dkt. 152) granting in part and denying in part Facebook’s

14

motion to dismiss BrandTotal’s first amended counterclaims. The parties are ORDERED TO

15

SHOW CAUSE why the order should not be filed in the public record. Any party that opposes

16

unsealing the order in its entirety may file a response no later than June 8, 2021 proposing

17

narrowly-tailored redactions and setting forth compelling reasons to maintain those redacted

18

portions under seal.

19
20

In the interest of providing public record pending a decision on whether any portion of the
order should remain under seal, the outcome of that order is as follows:

21

Facebook’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to: (1) BrandTotal’s declaratory judgment

22

counterclaims, which are dismissed without leave to amend but without prejudice to seeking such

23

leave if changed circumstances warrant; (2) BrandTotal’s interference with contract counterclaim

24

to the extent it is based on contracts with investors, which is dismissed with leave to amend;

25

(3) BrandTotal’s interference with prospective economic advantage counterclaim as to potential

26

(but not existing) customers and investors, which is dismissed with leave to amend;

27

(4) BrandTotal’s counterclaim under the “unfair” prong of the UCL, which is dismissed with leave

28

to amend; and (5) BrandTotal’s counterclaim under the “fraudulent” prong of the UCL, which is

1

dismissed with prejudice.

2

Facebook’s motion is DENIED as to: (1) BrandTotal’s interference with contract

3

counterclaim to the extent it is based on contracts with existing customers, existing panelists, and

4

Google; (2) BrandTotal’s interference with advantage counterclaim as an alternative theory with

5

respect to those same entities; and (3) BrandTotal’s counterclaim under the “unlawful” prong of

6

the UCL. Those counterclaims may proceed.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

If BrandTotal believes it can cure the defects identified as to the claims dismissed with
leave to further amend, it may file a second amended counterclaim no later than June 25, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2021
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2