Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

X ONE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK (SVK)

ORDER AND REQUEST FOR 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

REGARDING THE PARTIES’

JUNE 7, 2019 JOINT DISCOVERY

LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 184

In this action, Plaintiff X One, Inc. (“X One”) asserts that Defendant Uber Technologies, 

Inc. (“Uber”) infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,798,593 (“the ’593 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 

8,798,647 (“the ’647 Patent”). In particular, X One alleges that Uber’s app and Uber’s ridesharing, car-pooling and delivery services infringe the ’593 and ’647 Patents. See ECF 1.

Before the Court is one of two joint discovery letters filed by the Parties dated June 7, 

2019. ECF 182; ECF 184. This order addresses the second of those letters in which X One moves 

to compel in camera review of certain emails identified in Uber’s privilege logs as well as compel 

further responses to X One’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”). ECF 184. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition 

without oral argument at this time. As set forth below, the Court ORDERS Uber to submit the

documents identified below for in camera review. The Court also GRANTS IN PART and 

DENIES IN PART X One’s motion to compel further responses to its RFAs. 

I. UBER’S PRIVILEGE LOGS

X One identifies several perceived irregularities in the privilege logs that Uber has 

produced in this case; however, the crux of the Parties’ dispute centers on Uber’s decision to 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 194 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

withdraw work production protection from certain emails on May 30, 2019. ECF 184 at 1–2. 

X One argues that Uber withdrew its work product production claim from these emails after 

receiving X One’s May 29, 2019 supplemental response to an Uber interrogatory regarding 

X One’s damages contentions. Id. at 1. In its interrogatory response, X One argues that “Uber’s 

work product claims and descriptions . . . support[] that Uber had notice of and anticipated 

litigation as to the asserted patents as far back as September 2014.” Id. According to X One,

Uber’s decision to withdraw its work product protection claim warrants in camera review to 

determine (1) if Uber’s withdrawal of its work product protection claims was warranted; (2) if 

Uber’s denials of pre-suit notice were justified; and (3) if the emails at issue are business 

communications, not subject to attorney-client privilege. Id. at 2–3. 

Uber maintains that the emails that X One challenges are protected under attorney-client 

privilege because they were exchanged among members of Uber’s in-house counsel and contain 

legal advice. Id. at 3. Uber further argues that X One fails to establish any basis for in camera

review of those emails. Id. at 4–5. 

The Court finds that X One has provided sufficient grounds to justify in camera review of

limited documents, for a limited purpose. In particular, Uber’s late-change to its privilege log, 

coinciding with X One’s supplemental interrogatory response regarding its damages contentions,

provides sufficient grounds for in camera review of the emails from which Uber has removed 

work product protection to determine whether attorney-client privilege applies to them. 

Accordingly, by June 19, 2019 at 3:00 p.m., Uber is to deliver the following documents to 

chambers, either in hard-copy or electronic form to the Court’s Courtroom Deputy, Denisa 

Castillo (Denisa_Castillo@cand.uscourts.gov): 

• Entry #10 from Uber’s June 2019 privilege log at Ex. 6 (ECF 181-8).

• Entries #30–43 from Uber’s June 2019 privilege log at Ex. 6 (ECF 181-8).

////

////

////

////

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 194 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. X ONE’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

Each Party organized the RFAs in dispute in into slightly different groups. The Court 

groups the RFAs at issue into three categories.

The first category, RFAs Nos. 12–15, 22, 23, 27, 34, 35 and 42,

1

relate to whether 

individuals sent or received certain communications. The Court requires additional information 

prior to addressing these RFAs. Accordingly, by June 19, 2019 at 3:00 p.m., the Parties are to 

indicate whether Uber or X One, or both, produced the documents identified in RFAs Nos. 12–15, 

22, 23, 27, 34, 35 and 42. 

The second category, RFAs Nos. 18, 19, 39, 40 and 56–61, seeks admissions regarding

whether Uber took actions with respect to the asserted patents after certain specified 

communications. The Court finds that Uber’s objections and responses are appropriate. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES X One’s motion to compel a further response to RFAs Nos. 18, 

19, 39, 40 and 56–61.

The third category, RFAs Nos. 20, 21, 24 and 25, relate to whether Uber’s previous CEO 

informed Uber’s in-house counsel of certain emails from Jose Picazo sent in December 2014. The 

Court finds that Uber’s responses are appropriate. Accordingly, the Court DENIES X One’s 

motion to compel a further response to RFAs Nos. 20, 21, 24 and 25. 

III. CONCLUSION 

In sum, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

• By June 19, 2019 at 3:00 p.m., Uber is to deliver the following documents to 

chambers, either in hard copy or electronic form to the Court’s Courtroom Deputy, 

Denisa Castillo (Denisa_Castillo@cand.uscourts.gov): 

o Entry #10 from Uber’s June 2019 privilege log at Ex. 6.

o Entries #30–43 from Uber’s June 2019 privilege log at Ex. 6.

 

1 The Court notes that X One discusses RFA No. 42 under the third category. Because RFA 

No. 42 also refers to a document that may have been produced by Uber, the Court addresses it 

under the first category. The Court will address Uber’s objections after the Parties respond to the 

Court’s question regarding production of the documents. 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 194 Filed 06/18/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

• By June 19, 2019 at 3:00 p.m., the Parties are to indicate whether Uber or X One, 

or both, produced each of the each of the documents identified in RFAs Nos. 12–

15, 22, 23, 27, 34, 35 and 42. 

• The Court DENIES X One’s motion to compel a further response to RFAs 

Nos. 18, 19, 39, 40 and 56–61.

• The Court DENIES X One’s motion to compel a further response to RFAs 

Nos. 20, 21, 24 and 25. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 194 Filed 06/18/19 Page 4 of 4