Facebook Inc. v. Profile Technology, LTD
- Paul Grewal
- 5:13-cv-00459
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Facebook Inc. v. Profile Technology, Judge Grewal denied defendants’ motions, granted Facebook’s enforcement motion, found Claydon breached, and ordered permanent data deletion.
The parties to the 2014 settlement agreement, including Facebook, Profile Technology, LTD, and Defendant Claydon.
What happened
In Facebook Inc. v. Profile Technology, the parties asked the court to enforce or interpret their 2014 settlement agreement. Defendants argued that Facebook had breached the agreement, while Facebook argued that Defendant Claydon had breached it by transferring or donating data.
The court denied defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement and denied their request for sanctions, finding that Facebook had not breached the agreement and that defendants had not shown sanctionable conduct. The court granted Facebook’s motion to enforce, finding that Claydon breached the settlement and that Facebook’s failure to audit the data purge did not excuse the breach. The court ordered defendants to immediately and permanently delete the data covered by the settlement, but it did not require another audit of Claydon’s devices. The court denied Facebook’s request for fees.
Judge Grewal stated that the case was closed again, while the court retained authority to enforce the settlement agreement and related enforcement orders.
The detailed version
- Facebook Inc. v. Profile Technology, LTD · No. 5:13-cv-00459
- Paul Grewal
- Mar. 31, 2021
Background
The court had previously ruled that the parties’ 2014 settlement agreement was an enforceable contract and had directed the parties to comply with it. The parties later filed competing motions concerning alleged noncompliance. The settlement agreement provided that the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California and a magistrate judge to resolve disputes arising from the settlement. The court therefore concluded that it had authority to interpret and enforce the agreement.
Motions and rulings
The court addressed three motions:
- ECF 160: Defendants’ motion to interpret and enforce the settlement agreement. The court denied the motion, finding that Facebook had not breached the settlement provisions identified by defendants. - ECF 170: Defendants’ request for an order to show cause concerning contempt and their motion for sanctions. The court denied the motion because Facebook had not breached the settlement and defendants had not established evidence of sanctionable conduct. - ECF 168: Facebook’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court granted the motion. It found that Defendant Claydon breached the agreement by transferring or donating data in April 2018. The court also found that Facebook’s failure to audit the data purge did not excuse Claydon’s breach.
Remedy
The court reaffirmed that all parties must comply with the settlement agreement. It ordered defendants to immediately and permanently delete all data that the agreement required them to delete. The court noted that Claydon had already frozen and deleted Internet Archive data and had cooperated by providing declarations. Because of those steps, the court found that another audit of Claydon’s electronic devices was not warranted. The court denied Facebook’s request for fees.
Disposition
The court stated that the case was closed again, but that it retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and the orders enforcing it. The opinion does not state that any motion was granted or denied with or without prejudice.
Judge-identification note
The supplied case metadata identifies Paul Grewal as the judge. The reproduced signature is unclear, and the body of the order refers to consent to jurisdiction before Magistrate Judge Cousins; this creates some uncertainty about the judge identification.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.