Facebook, 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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?