throbber
Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 153 Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BRANDTOTAL LTD., et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 20-cv-07182-JCS
`
`
`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
`Court has provisionally sealed its order (dkt. 152) granting in part and denying in part Facebook’s
`motion to dismiss BrandTotal’s first amended counterclaims. The parties are ORDERED TO
`SHOW CAUSE why the order should not be filed in the public record. Any party that opposes
`unsealing the order in its entirety may file a response no later than June 8, 2021 proposing
`narrowly-tailored redactions and setting forth compelling reasons to maintain those redacted
`portions under seal.
`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:
`
`Facebook’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to: (1) BrandTotal’s declaratory judgment
`counterclaims, which are dismissed without leave to amend but without prejudice to seeking such
`leave if changed circumstances warrant; (2) BrandTotal’s interference with contract counterclaim
`to the extent it is based on contracts with investors, which is dismissed with leave to amend;
`(3) BrandTotal’s interference with prospective economic advantage counterclaim as to potential
`(but not existing) customers and investors, which is dismissed with leave to amend;
`(4) BrandTotal’s counterclaim under the “unfair” prong of the UCL, which is dismissed with leave
`to amend; and (5) BrandTotal’s counterclaim under the “fraudulent” prong of the UCL, which is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07182-JCS Document 153 Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`dismissed with prejudice.
`Facebook’s motion is DENIED as to: (1) BrandTotal’s interference with contract
`counterclaim to the extent it is based on contracts with existing customers, existing panelists, and
`Google; (2) BrandTotal’s interference with advantage counterclaim as an alternative theory with
`respect to those same entities; and (3) BrandTotal’s counterclaim under the “unlawful” prong of
`the UCL. Those counterclaims may proceed.
`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
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket