`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`