1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FACEBOOK INC., and others, Case No. 13-cv-00459 PSG (NC)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ENFORCING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 13 v. Re: ECF 160, 168, 170 14 PROFILE TECHNOLOGY, LTD, and others, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This order confirms rulings on competing motions to enforce the 2014 settlement 19 agreement between the parties. Previous orders found that the settlement agreement was an 20 enforceable contract (ECF 105) and directed the parties to abide by their agreement (ECF 21 120). Despite encouragement from the Court to settle their dispute for good, the parties 22 returned in 2018 with a further round of cross-charges that the other party did not comply 23 with the bargain reached in their settlement. 24 The Court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement. Kokonnen v. 25 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). Here, the parties “consent to 26 jurisdiction of U.S. District Court NDCA, Magistrate Judge Cousins, to resolve any 27 disputes arising from this Settlement.” Dkt. 94-1, Ex. A (redacted). The Court accordingly 28 has jurisdictional power to interpret and enforce the settlement. 1 The motions presented are: 2 ECF 160: Defendants’ motion for settlement interpretation and enforcement. 3 ECF 168: Facebook’s motion to enforce settlement. 4 ECF 170: Defendants’ request for order to show cause re contempt and motion for 5 sanctions. 6 The Court held a hearing on these motions on September 26, 2018, and issued a 7 ruling from the bench on all three motions, while indicating a further written order would 8 follow. A transcript of the hearing is at ECF 195 and will be referenced in this order. 9 As to ECF 160, Defendants’ motion for enforcement is denied. I find that Facebook 10 did not breach the settlement provisions cited by Defendants. See ECF 195 at p. 32. 11 As to ECF 170, Defendants’ motion for sanctions against Facebook is denied because 12 (1) Facebook did not breach the settlement; and (2) there is a lack of evidence of 13 sanctionable conduct established by Defendants. See ECF 195 at p. 68. 14 Finally, on ECF 168, Facebook’s motion to enforce is granted, but the remedy is less 15 strenuous than requested because Defendant Claydon substantially mitigated harm caused 16 by his breach. I find that Claydon breached the settlement agreement by his April 2018 17 transfer or donation of data. And I find that this breach was not excused by Facebook’s 18 failure to audit the data purge. 19 As to a remedy, first, the Court reaffirms that all parties must comply with the 20 settlement agreement. Second, Defendants must immediately and permanently delete all 21 data that they were required to delete under the settlement agreement. A significant step 22 was already taken by Claydon in the freezing and then deletion of Internet Archive data and 23 in his cooperation in providing declarations to the Court. On the record before the Court, an 24 additional audit of Claydon’s electronic devices is not warranted. 25 Facebook’s request for fees is denied. 26 The Court will separately rule on ECF 191, Defendants’ motion to seal. 27 This case is again closed, although the Court continues to retain jurisdiction to 28 enforce the settlement agreement and the orders enforcing it. | IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Date: March 31, 2021 3 Ueited Sates Monistvate Judge 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28