Attia v. Ouraring Inc.

Background

The court resolved five joint discovery letters concerning discovery requests directed to Defendants. The opinion states that the court assumed the parties’ familiarity with the case’s procedural and factual background.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), discovery may concern nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery initially must show relevance. The party opposing discovery must show why discovery should not be allowed and must support its objections with competent evidence.

Rulings

ECF No. 126: Investor materials

Attia sought presentations, pitch books, slide decks, and other materials provided to potential investors from 2017 to the present. Defendants argued that they had already produced reasonably available documents referring specifically to Attia and that materials not referring to him were not relevant.

The court agreed with Defendants and denied Attia’s request for relief. The court found that investor documents referencing Attia could be relevant to his allegation that Defendants used their affiliation with him as a selling point, but Attia had not shown that documents not referring to him would be more than marginally relevant. The court also found that the burden of searching for and reviewing those records was not sufficiently justified.

ECF No. 128: Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

Attia sought four additional hours of testimony from Defendants’ corporate representative, Michael Chapp. The court found that Chapp was prepared to testify about many of the noticed topics, but that further testimony was warranted because some answers were incomplete, an unredacted document was produced late, and Attia alleged that Exhibit 125 was inaccurate.

The court granted in part and denied in part Attia’s request. It allowed Attia to reopen Chapp’s deposition for no more than four hours on the record. The additional testimony was limited to Defendants’ organizational views about statements by Mr. Rai; the unredacted OURA0003816 document; services Attia provided, including introductions to investors, product feedback, and social-media promotion; the accuracy of Exhibit 125, including the additional $160 million Attia claimed was omitted from a chart; and, as necessary, further testimony about Topic 11. The request concerning Oura’s interpretation of Attia’s alleged Stock Option Agreement was denied.

ECF No. 130: Interrogatory responses

Attia challenged Defendants’ responses to several interrogatories. The court granted his request for relief and ordered Defendants to supplement their responses.

For Interrogatories Nos. 13/21, Defendants must make a reasonable effort to investigate who accessed the data room identified in OURA0003816 between September 4, 2019, and December 31, 2022, and identify additional individuals who accessed it to the extent feasible after a reasonable investigation.

For Interrogatories Nos. 20/12, Defendants’ objections were overruled. Defendants must identify the “services” Attia provided, using the definition of services that Attia supplied. The court rejected Defendants’ argument that responding would amount to an admission of a core issue and rejected the argument that Defendants could refuse to respond because Attia possessed the information. The court also declined to allow a response based on Rule 33(d), which can permit a party to identify business records instead of answering an interrogatory, because discovery was at a late stage and Defendants had not previously specified the records that would need to be reviewed.

For Interrogatories Nos. 15/23, Defendants must identify the recipient and number of shares granted for each “Promised Advisor Grant,” as defined in the interrogatories. The court found that producing agreements was not a reason to refuse to answer and stated that, because there appeared to be only seven advisor grants, identifying the recipients and share amounts would not be unduly burdensome.

ECF No. 132: Deposition of Timo Ahopelto

Attia sought to depose Defendants’ board member Timo Ahopelto. He noticed the deposition on October 21, 2025, and scheduled it for October 24, 2025, the close of discovery. Attia argued that information from the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and recently produced documents showed the need for Ahopelto’s testimony.

The court granted in part Attia’s request. Although three days’ notice was close to the limit of reasonable written notice, the court considered the compressed discovery schedule, the discovery deadline, and Attia’s explanation that he had only recently learned of the need for the testimony. Because Attia could have noticed the deposition earlier, the court limited it to 3.5 hours on the record.

ECF No. 138: Board-meeting materials

Attia sought additional materials concerning Defendants’ board meetings. The court granted in part the request for further production. The court stated that one of Defendants’ main defenses was that its board lacked knowledge and awareness of Attia’s alleged option agreement. The court held that Attia should be able to test that defense by reviewing relevant materials rather than relying only on Defendants’ statement that no other materials mentioned or related to him.

To the extent they had not already done so, Defendants were ordered to produce presentations for full-board meetings and minutes and presentations for board-committee meetings from December 1, 2016, through December 31, 2023. The remainder of Attia’s request for relief was denied.

Disposition and classification

This was an order resolving discovery disputes, not a decision on the underlying claims. The court denied the request in ECF No. 126; granted in part and denied in part the request in ECF No. 128; granted the request in ECF No. 130; granted in part the request in ECF No. 132; and granted in part and otherwise denied the request in ECF No. 138.