Peter Attia v. Ouraring Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiff Peter Attia’s request to depose Oura Health’s Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary and to obtain his communications with Oura board members and employees. The Court held that the attorney-client privilege had not been waived and that the requested discovery was not proportional because relevant information could be obtained from other witnesses. The denial was without prejudice to renewal if later discovery identified nonduplicative information or a specific communication that waived privilege.

Holdings

1. The Shelton test for depositions of opposing trial counsel did not apply because Campinha-Bacote was Oura Health's in-house legal officer and was not shown to be litigation counsel in the pending case.
2. Campinha-Bacote's general statements that he was aware of Defendants' defenses and believed Plaintiff had attempted to undermine the board did not waive attorney-client privilege over his communications with Defendants' board members and employees.
3. The requested deposition and production of Campinha-Bacote's communications were not permissible because Plaintiff had not shown that the discovery was proportional, nonduplicative, nonprivileged, or necessary when the information could be obtained from other witnesses.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff could depose Oura Health's chief legal officer and corporate secretary concerning the alleged stock option agreement and Plaintiff's accusations against Oura's board.
2. Whether Oura had waived attorney-client privilege over Campinha-Bacote's communications with Oura board members and employees by submitting his declarations.
3. Whether the requested deposition and document production were relevant, proportional, nonduplicative, and necessary under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

Disposition

other