Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050-13/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)

FURTHER ORDER REGARDING THE 

PARTIES’ JUNE 7, 2019 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 184, 194

This is the Court’s second order addressing ECF 184 in which Plaintiff X One, Inc. 

(“X One”) moves to compel in camera review of certain emails identified in Defendant Uber 

Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”) privilege logs and moves to compel further responses to X One’s 

Requests for Admission (“RFAs”). ECF 184. On June 18, 2019, the Court issued its first order 

regarding this dispute. ECF 194. The Court ordered Uber to submit the documents for which 

Uber withdrew its work product production claim for in camera review and requested that the 

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

12–15, 22, 23, 27, 34, 35 and 42. Id. at 2–4. The Court also denied X One’s motion to compel a 

further response to RFAs Nos. 18–21, 24, 25, 39, 40 and 56–61. Id. at 4. 

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

without oral argument. The Court has received and reviewed the documents Uber produced for in 

camera review as well as the Parties’ responses regarding who produced the documents identified 

in RFAs Nos. 12–15, 22, 23, 27, 34, 35 and 42. As set forth below, the Court FINDS that 

attorney-client privilege applies to the documents produced by Uber for in camera review. The 

Court further ORDERS that RFAs. Nos. 12–15, 22, 23, 27, 34 and 35 are deemed ADMITTED

according to the limitations set forth below. Lastly, the Court DENIES X One’s motion to 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 201 Filed 06/21/19 Page 1 of 3
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

compel a further response to RFA No. 42. 

I. UBER’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CLAIM 

Through its June 7, 2019 motion to compel, X One sought clarification regarding the 

privilege status of documents identified in Uber’s privilege log based primarily on Uber’s decision 

to withdraw work product protection from those documents after receiving X One’s May 29, 2019 

supplemental response to an interrogatory regarding X One’s damages contentions. ECF 184 at 

1–3. 

Although Uber withdrew its work product protection claim over the documents that X One 

now challenges, it maintains that attorney-client privilege still applies to these documents. Id. at 3. 

Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between attorneys and clients 

made for the purpose of giving legal advice. See United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th 

Cir. 2011). This privilege protects communications with outside as well as in-house counsel. See 

United States v. Rowe, 96 F.3d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996). Likewise, the privilege can also apply 

to communications between members of in-house counsel. See United States v. ChevronTexaco 

Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

The Court has reviewed the documents described in entries nos. 10 and 30–43 of Uber’s 

June 2019 privilege log at Ex. 6 (ECF 181-8). The Court FINDS that all the documents are 

properly categorized as privileged attorney-client communications and that Uber has properly 

withdrawn its work product protection designation over these documents. To the extent that 

X One moves to compel production of these documents, the Court DENIES X One’s request. 

II. X ONE’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

X One’s RFAs Nos. 12–15, 22, 23, 27, 34, 35 and 42, relate to whether individuals sent or 

received certain communications. Uber’s refusal to admit or deny receiving documents that it 

produced is not well taken, particularly where Uber denies receiving emails sent from X One to 

Uber and produced by Uber. Without a citing a single supporting fact, such as a demonstrable 

failure of an email server on a given date, it is untenable that such denials were made in good 

faith. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

////

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 201 Filed 06/21/19 Page 2 of 3
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

• X One’s RFAs Nos. 12–15, 22, 23, 34 and 35 are deemed ADMITTED. 

• X One’s RFA No. 27 is deemed ADMITTED as to Travis Kalanick’s receipt of 

Jose Picazo’s December 10, 2014 email. 

• X One’s motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 42 is DENIED. Uber 

argues that Mr. O’Shea could not recall sending the chart identified in RFA No. 42 

to Mr. Michael. ECF 184 at 5–6. This explanation provides sufficient support for 

Uber’s response that it lacks enough information to admit or deny RFA No. 42. 

III. CONCLUSION 

In sum, the Court ORDERS as follows:

• Attorney-client privilege applies to the documents described in entries nos. 10 and 

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

• X One’s RFAs Nos. 12–15, 22, 23, 34 and 35 are deemed ADMITTED. 

• X One’s RFA No. 27 is deemed ADMITTED as to Travis Kalanick’s receipt of 

Jose Picazo’s December 10, 2014 email. 

• X One’s motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 42 is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2019 

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 201 Filed 06/21/19 Page 3 of 3