1 

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017 (Dkt. #61) 

Case No. C 17-00939 WHA 

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

MILES EHRLICH (Bar No. 237954) 

miles@ramsey-ehrlich.com 

ISMAIL RAMSEY (Bar No. 189820) 

izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com 

AMY CRAIG (Bar No. 269339) 

amy@ramsey-ehrlich.com 

RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP 

803 Hearst Avenue 

Berkeley, CA 94710 

(510) 548-3600 (Tel) 

(510) 291-3060 (Fax) 

Attorneys for Non-Party Anthony Levandowski 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

NON-PARTY ANTHONY 

LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF 

MOTION AND MOTION FOR 

MODIFICATION OF COURT’S 

ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017 

(DKT. #61) 

Hearing Date: To be determined by court

Time: To be determined by court

Courtroom: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William H. Alsup

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 1 of 20
2 

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017 (Dkt. #61) 

Case No. C 17-00939 WHA 

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

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at a date and time selected by this Court, in the courtroom 

of the Honorable William H. Alsup at the United States District Court for the Northern District 

of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, non-party Anthony 

Levandowski will and hereby does move for an order modifying the Court’s March 16, 2017 

Order (Dkt. #61) and prohibiting Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) from disclosing 

any information provided by Mr. Levandowski in the course of the Joint Defense and Common 

Interest Agreement entered into by Mr. Levandowski and Uber, and specifically prohibiting the 

disclosure of information concerning the due diligence review conducted by a third party under 

that agreement, including but not limited to the identity of the third party who conducted any 

such due diligence review, whether Mr. Levandowski possessed any documents that were 

reviewed by the third party, and the identity of any of Mr. Levandowski’s possessions that may 

have been reviewed. 

This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the accompanying 

memorandum of points and authorities, the supporting declaration of John Gardner, and 

accompanying exhibit, the pleadings, files and records in this case, as well as other written or 

oral argument which may be presented at the hearing. 

DATED: April 4, 2017 RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP 

By /s/ Amy Craig 

 Miles Ehrlich 

 Ismail Ramsey 

 Amy Craig 

 

Counsel for Non-Party Anthony 

Levandowski 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 2 of 20
i

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND...................................................................................... 3

A. Court order to Uber to produce documents from Mr. Levandowski................................ 3

B. This Court’s requirements of a detailed privilege log...................................................... 4

III. ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................... 5

A. Under The Fifth Amendment A Person May Not Be Compelled To Testify Against 

Himself......................................................................................................................................... 5

1. This Fifth Amendment protections are broadly construed and apply to any testimony 

that could provide a link in the chain of evidence. ................................................................... 6

2. Fisher and Hubbell make clear that the Fifth Amendment protects implicit testimony 

inherent in the act of producing documents in response to a court order or a subpoena .......... 7

B. The Attorney-Client Privilege And The Duty Of Confidentiality Preclude An Attorney 

From Revealing Incriminating Communications That His Client Has Revealed In Confidence.8

C. A Common-Interest Privilege Extends The Attorney-Client Privilege And Duty Of 

Confidentiality To Counsel Representing Third Parties.............................................................. 9

D. Requiring A Detailed Privilege Log Here Would Violate Mr. Levandowski’s Fifth 

Amendment Privilege ................................................................................................................ 11

E. This Court Should Modify Its Order To Suspend The Requirements Of A Privilege Log 

For Any Documents Protected By The Fifth Amendment. ....................................................... 13

IV. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 15

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 3 of 20
ii

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623, 629-30 (9th Cir. 1960)................................................................ 1

Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2000)............................................ 6

Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)........................................................................ passim

Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957).......................................................................... 1

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 115 F.R.D. 308 (N.D. Cal. 1987)....................... 11

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951).............................................................................. 6

Holmes v. Collection Bureau of America Ltd., No. C 09-02540 WHA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

4253, 2010 WL 143484 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2010)...................................................................... 10

In re Fustolo, No. 13-12692-JNF, 2015 WL 9595421 (Bankr. D. Mass. Dec. 31, 2015)............ 12

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 902 F.2d 244 (4th Cir. 1990)......................................................... 10

In re Master Key Litig., 507 F.2d 292 (9th Cir. 1974).................................................................... 1

In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 229 F.R.D. 636 (C.D. Cal. 2005)................................................... 3, 12

J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co. v. Houghton, Civ. A. No. 86-2637, 1986 WL 14732

(E.D.Pa. Dec. 24, 1986).................................................................................................................. 7

Maffie v. United States, 209 F.2d 225 (1st Cir. 1954) .................................................................... 6

Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)............................................................................................... 6

Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co., 249 F.R.D. 575 (N.D. Cal. 2007)....................................................... 10

Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001) ................................................................................................ 1

OXY Res. Cal. LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 874 (2004)......................................... 11

Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455 (N.D. Cal. 1978) ........................................ 8

Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955).................................................................................. 5

United States SEC v. Chin, Civil Action No. 12-cv-01336-PAB-BNB, 

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182252 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2012) ...................................................... 3, 12

United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487 (N.D. Cal. 2003)......................................................... 9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 4 of 20
iii

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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 v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2010).................................................................. 13

United States v. Drollinger, 80 F.3d 389 (9th Cir. 1996)............................................................. 14

United States v. Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................... passim

United States v. Henke, 222 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 2000).................................................................... 9

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)........................................................................ passim

United States v. Judson, 322 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1963)................................................................... 8

United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1980)...................................................................... 6

United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944) .................................................................................. 8

STATUTES

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e)(1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

18 U.S.C. § 6002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

OTHER AUTHORITIES

8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2292 (McNaughton rev. 1961) ---------------------------------------------- 8

CAL. PRACTICE GUIDE: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, at §§ 7:86, 7:103-106 --------------------- 9

Cal. State Bar Formal Opn. No. 2003-161----------------------------------------------------------------- 9

CAL. PRACTICE GUIDE: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (The Rutter Group 2016) §7:26---------- 9

RULES

Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-100(A) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 9

FED. R. CIV. PROC. 26(b)(5)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)------------------------------------------------------------------ 4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(ii) -------------------------------------------------------------11

NDCA Civil Local Rule 11-4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 5 of 20
1

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Anthony Levandowski is not a party to this action, and we have no basis to believe that 

he is presently under criminal investigation. But given the explosive nature of the accusations 

raised against him in this case, and the possibility that an investigation could be initiated at some

later date, any prudent person in Mr. Levandowski’s circumstances would be wise to ensure that 

his constitutional rights remain fully protected. As the Supreme Court has emphasized for 

decades, the core purpose of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee is not to shield the guilty, but “to 

protect innocent men . . . ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’” 

Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001) (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 421 

(1957)). Further, because the Fifth Amendment’s protections turn not “upon the likelihood, but 

upon the possibility, of prosecution,” In re Master Key Litig., 507 F.2d 292, 293 (9th Cir. 1974),

the Fifth Amendment can be implicated even in a civil lawsuit when no criminal investigation 

has been—or ever will be—initiated. 

Mr. Levandowski is requesting a modification of the Court’s standing privilege log 

requirement. If applied in its usual fashion, the Court’s requirement would improperly compel 

Uber to disclose information protected by a common interest privilege and thereby undermine 

Mr. Levandowski’s Fifth Amendment right against compelled production as recognized by the 

Supreme Court in United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), and Fisher v. United States, 425 

U.S. 391 (1976). In making this request, Mr. Levandowski relies upon the following well-settled 

principles of law:

• A client’s confidential communications with his attorney are protected by the attorneyclient privilege. Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623, 629-30 (9th Cir. 1960).

• A client’s potentially incriminatory communications to his attorney, whether explicit or 

implicit, are further protected against compelled disclosure by the Fifth Amendment. 

Fisher, 425 U.S. at 405.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 6 of 20
2

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

• The Fifth Amendment prohibits a court from compelling a person to produce records or 

information if that act of production would tacitly communicate a “link in a chain” to 

evidence a prosecutor might use to build a case. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 

486 (1951); Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 208 n. 6 (1988); Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 38.

• When an attorney shares his client’s potentially incriminatory communications in the 

context of a joint defense agreement creating a common interest privilege, all counsel 

who are parties to that agreement must maintain the confidentiality of those 

communications. United States v. Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974, 978 (9th Cir. 2012).

The immediate issue before the Court is precisely how detailed Uber’s counsel must be in 

listing on its privilege log the “due diligence report prepared by a third party that may (or may 

not) have referenced the collection of allegedly downloaded documents.” Dkt. #132 at 1:16-18

(emphasis added). In reliance on his rights under Hubbell and Fisher, Mr. Levandowski asks 

that Uber’s counsel—because of its common interest confidentiality obligations to Mr. 

Levandowski—be relieved of any obligation to provide detail concerning (1) the identity of the 

third-party who conducted any such due diligence review, (2) whether Mr. Levandowski 

possessed any documents that were reviewed by the third party, or (3) the identity of any of Mr. 

Levandowski’s possessions that may have been reviewed. 

This is necessary for two reasons. First, ordering public disclosure of these facts on the 

privilege log would impair Mr. Levandowski’s attorney-client privilege because it would compel

disclosure of confidences shared by Mr. Levandowski with his own counsel that were later 

communicated with other counsel as part of an enforceable joint defense and common interest 

privilege agreement. Second, requiring disclosure of these facts would separately violate Mr. 

Levandowski’s Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to reveal the existence, location, 

possession, or identity of any documents that might furnish a link in a chain of possible 

incrimination.

In similar circumstances, courts have recognized that it is improper to compel a degree of 

detail in a privilege log where, as here, such detail would tacitly disclose testimony protected by 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 7 of 20
3

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

the privilege against self-incrimination. See United States SEC v. Chin, Civil Action No. 12-cv01336-PAB-BNB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182252, at *16-17 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2012) (finding 

that the Fifth Amendment and Hubbell prohibit requiring a respondent to submit a privilege log 

that lays out the tacit testimony inherent in production); In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 229 F.R.D. 

636, 649 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (rejecting a motion to compel a privilege log because “requiring 

defendant [] to produce a privilege log listing responsive documents may incriminate defendant 

[] by forcing him to ‘admit that the documents exist, are in his possession or control, and are 

authentic.’”).

On behalf of Mr. Levandowski, we respectfully ask for the same accommodation here. 

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Court order to Uber to produce documents from Mr. Levandowski

In April 2016, Anthony Levandowski, Ottomotto LLC, Otto Trucking LLC, Lior Ron, 

Uber Technologies, Inc., and their respective attorneys entered into a “Joint Defense, Common 

Interest and Confidentiality Agreement” in connection with Uber’s proposed acquisition (at that 

time) of Ottomotto and Otto Trucking. Declaration of John Gardner at ¶ 3 & Ex. A. Under the 

agreement––which establishes a common interest privilege that Mr. Levandowski now asserts––

a due diligence report was produced by a third party. Id. at ¶ 4; see also Gonzalez, 669 F.3d at

978 (9th Cir. 2012).

In March 2017, Waymo sued Uber, Ottomotto, and Otto Trucking, alleging among other 

things that Mr. Levandowski stole trade secrets when he stopped working for Waymo and went 

to work for Uber in its autonomous-driving car program. Dkt. #23 at ¶10. Waymo sought 

expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction. Dkt. #24. The Court ordered expedited 

discovery, and specifically ordered Uber to produce, among other things, “all files and 

documents downloaded by Anthony Levandowski . . . before leaving plaintiff’s payroll and 

thereafter taken by them.” Dkt. #61 at 3, ¶ 4. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 8 of 20
4

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

B. This Court’s requirements of a detailed privilege log

To the extent that Uber intends to assert any privilege over documents, Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) and this Court’s standing orders requires prompt production of a 

privilege log containing the following information:

Privilege logs shall be promptly provided and must be sufficiently detailed and 

informative to justify the privilege. See FRCP 26(b)(5). No generalized claims of 

privilege or work-product protection shall be permitted. With respect to each 

communication for which a claim of privilege or work product is made, the asserting 

party must at the time of assertion identify:

(a) all persons making or receiving the privileged or protected 

communication;

(b) the steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of the communication, 

including affirmation that no unauthorized persons have received the 

communication;

(c) the date of the communication; and

(d) the subject matter of the communication.

Failure to furnish this information at the time of the assertion will be deemed a waiver of 

the privilege or protection. The log should also indicate, as stated above, the location 

where the document was found. 

Supp. Order to Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases Before Judge 

William Alsup at ¶ 16; see also FED. R. CIV. PROC. 26(b)(5). 

On March 29, 2017, the undersigned advised the Court that a privilege log in this form 

would violate Mr. Levandowski’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as 

interpreted by the Hubbell and Fisher line of cases. 3/29/17 Trans. at 5-6, 9-10. Specifically, the 

undersigned noted that a privilege log in this form would reveal the existence, location, or 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 9 of 20
5

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

possession of evidence that Mr. Levandowski may possess and control that is of relevance to this 

action. Id. 

The undersigned further noted that, to the extent Uber received information protected 

from disclosure by the Fifth Amendment, the company cannot disclose it because “counsel who 

acquires knowledge as part of a common interest agreement stands in the same shoes as counsel 

for an individual.” Id. at 25:6-12. Arturo Gonzalez, counsel for Uber, echoed this concern, 

stating he wanted to discuss how to provide a privilege log “without infringing upon a Fifth 

Amendment right.” Id. at 12-13. Mr. Gonzalez noted that Uber intended to identify a due 

diligence report on the privilege log, but was unsure whether to name the third party who 

prepared it. Id.

The undersigned asked to brief the question. Id. at 25:19-21. He also asserted Mr. 

Levandowski’s “Fifth Amendment [act of] production rights under United States v. Hubbell,”

and made clear that Mr. Levandowski objected “to the disclosure of any confidential information 

that was acquired as part of a common interest privilege.” Id. at 26:18-23.

This Court’s March 31, 2017 order followed; it allows Mr. Levandowski to move under 

the Fifth Amendment to “suspend the production or the privilege log requirement.1

” Dkt. #132.

III. ARGUMENT: 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS MR. LEVANDOWSKI FROM HAVING 

HIS LAWYERS—WHETHER DIRECT OR JOINT DEFENSE—REVEAL 

CONFIDENCES THAT MIGHT INCRIMINATE HIM.

A. Under The Fifth Amendment A Person May Not Be Compelled To Testify 

Against Himself. 

The Fifth Amendment privilege not to be a witness against oneself is a central tenet of 

our democracy. Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955). “[A]ny compulsory 

 

1 In response to this Court’s Order of March 31, 2017, counsel for Mr. Levandowski has briefed the 

application of the Fifth Amendment (which, here, arises from a common interest privilege) to the 

production of the third party report and any required privilege log notations for this report. This motion 

does not brief any other privileges that may apply to the production of all or any portion of the third party 

report, all of which are expressly reserved.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 10 of 20
6

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

discovery by extorting the party’s oath . . . to convict him of crime . . . is contrary to the 

principles of a free government . . . . It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot 

abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.” Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 

1, 9 n.7 (1964). 

1. This Fifth Amendment protections are broadly construed and apply 

to any testimony that could provide a link in the chain of evidence.

Given its importance to our criminal justice system, “[t]his provision of the [Fifth] 

Amendment must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to 

secure.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). A person can invoke the Fifth 

Amendment’s protections in any proceeding—be it “civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, 

investigative or adjudicatory.” Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th 

Cir. 2000). In the civil context, “the invocation of the privilege is limited to those circumstances 

in which the person invoking the privilege reasonably believes that his disclosures could be used 

in a criminal prosecution, or could lead to other evidence that could be used in that manner.” Id. 

The “privilege against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the 

possibility, of prosecution and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not 

be directly incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence.” Id. 

(emphasis in original). 

Courts have found that the privilege applies when an answer could:

• “[P]rovide an indirect link to incriminating evidence[.]” Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer, 232 

F.3d at 1263.

• “[P]rovide a lead or clue to evidence having a tendency to incriminate.” United States v. 

Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 1980).

• Disclose “a fact that could serve as a link in a chain of circumstantial evidence from 

which guilt might be inferred” or a “fact” that “might furnish a lead to a bit of evidence 

useful to the prosecution.” Maffie v. United States, 209 F.2d 225, 228 (1st Cir. 1954).

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 11 of 20
7

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

• “[G]ive a prosecutor a starting point from which he might proceed step by step to link the 

witness with criminal offenses.” J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co. v. Houghton, Civ. A. No. 86-

2637, 1986 WL 14732, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 24, 1986).

In short, the link-in-the-chain test is “broadly protective,” United States v. Chandler, 380 

F.2d 993, 1000 (2d Cir. 1967), and must be “liberally construed” by the courts. Id. at 997.

2. Fisher and Hubbell make clear that the Fifth Amendment protects

implicit testimony inherent in the act of producing documents in response to 

a court order or a subpoena

In Fisher v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual can invoke the 

Fifth Amendment privilege in responding to a request for the production of documents. The 

Court held that, even when the content of a document itself is not privileged, the act of producing 

the document may be, because the act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena “has 

communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the contents of the papers produced.” 425 

U.S. 391, 410 (1976). In other words, when producing documents, a person tacitly testifies 

about (1) the actual existence of the papers demanded, (2) their possession or control by the 

witness, as well as the location of the documents, and (3) the witness’s belief that the papers are 

those described in the subpoena. Id. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this holding and the act-ofproduction privilege in United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 32-36 (2000) (holding that, in 

response to a subpoena for documents, the subpoenaed party may refuse to produce because “the 

act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements of fact,” such as an admission 

that “the papers existed, were in the [witness’s] possession or control, and were authentic”).

The Fifth Amendment’s protection regarding an act of production applies with equal 

force even if the witness himself no longer possesses the documents sought, but rather has turned 

the documents over to his attorneys and their agents in order to get legal advice. Fisher, 425 U.S. 

at 405 (holding that “the papers, if unobtainable by summons from the client, are unobtainable 

by summons directed to the attorney by reason of the attorney-client privilege.”). “The thrust of 

the Fifth Amendment is that ‘prosecutors are forced to search for independent evidence instead 

of relying upon proof extracted from individuals by force of law.’” United States v. Judson, 322 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 12 of 20
8

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

F.2d 460, 466 (9th Cir. 1963) (quoting United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698 (1944)). “‘It 

follows, then, that when the client himself would be privileged from production of the document, 

either as a party at common law . . . or as exempt from self-incrimination, the attorney having 

possession of the document is not bound to produce.’” Fisher, 425 U.S. at 404. The fact that an 

individual furnished documents to his lawyer to obtain effective representation does not create an 

independent source from which to obtain those documents; rather, the lawyer stands in the shoes 

of his client when it comes to invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege. Absent a grant of 

immunity, a court cannot compel an individual, or his attorney, to make a production that could 

be used to build a case against him. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 45 (“Given our conclusion that 

respondent’s act of production had a testimonial aspect, at least with respect to the existence and 

location of the documents sought by the Government’s subpoena, respondent could not be 

compelled to produce those documents without first receiving a grant of immunity under § 

6003.”)

B. The Attorney-Client Privilege And The Duty Of Confidentiality Preclude An 

Attorney From Revealing Incriminating Communications That His Client Has 

Revealed In Confidence. 

Confidential communications between an attorney and his client are privileged. Fisher, 

425 U.S. at 403 (citing 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2292 (McNaughton rev. 1961)). An attorney 

must keep these communications secret unless a client waives the privilege. Perrignon v. Bergen 

Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 459-60 (N.D. Cal. 1978).

This Court also requires that all lawyers practicing before it adhere to the California 

Rules of Professional Conduct, see NDCA Civil Local Rule 11-4 (requiring that any attorney 

practicing in the court be “familiar and comply with the standards of professional conduct 

required of members of the State Bar of California”), which even more broadly obligate 

attorneys to resist disclosing any “confidences” or “secrets” of their clients. Both California 

statutory law and the California Rules of Professional Conduct mandate that lawyers “maintain 

inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself . . . preserve the secrets, of his 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 13 of 20
9

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

or her client.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e)(1) (emphasis added); accord Cal. Rules of 

Prof’l Conduct R. 3-100(A) (“A member shall not reveal information protected from disclosure 

by Business & Professions Code § 6068(e)(1) without the informed consent of the client.”). 

The duty not to disclose client “confidences” and “secrets” is virtually absolute and much 

broader in scope than privilege. See Vapnek et. al., CAL. PRACTICE GUIDE: PROFESSIONAL 

RESPONSIBILITY (The Rutter Group 2016) §7:26; see also Cal. State Bar Formal Opn. No. 2003-

161 (a California attorney’s ethical duty of confidentiality under §6068(e) protects “all 

information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be kept secret or 

the disclosure of which would likely be harmful or embarrassing to the client.”) In short, if a 

client does not permit disclosure, then disclosure must be avoided unless an appropriate court 

order is obtained by the requesting party. CAL. PRACTICE GUIDE: PROFESSIONAL 

RESPONSIBILITY, at §§ 7:86, 7:103-106. To avoid violating the duty of confidentiality, a lawyer 

must not disclose any client confidences unless and until the court has determined that an 

exception to §6068(e)(1) applies. Id. at § 7:88. 

C. A Common-Interest Privilege Extends The Attorney-Client Privilege And 

Duty Of Confidentiality To Counsel Representing Third Parties

In general, the disclosure to a third party of attorney-client communications destroys any 

privilege that might otherwise attach to such communications. But that rule does not hold when 

the privilege holder and the third party share a common legal interest with respect to the subject 

matter of the communication and enter into their own agreement of confidentiality. See, e.g,

Gonzalez, 669 F.3d at 978. This extension of the attorney-client privilege, known as a “common 

interest privilege,” “applies where (1) the communication is made by separate parties in the 

course of a matter of common interest; (2) the communication is designed to further that effort; 

and (3) the privilege has not been waived.” United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 495 

(N.D. Cal. 2003); see also United States v. Henke, 222 F.3d 633, 637 (9th Cir. 2000) (existence 

of a joint defense agreement extends the attorney-client privilege to create an implied attorneyclient relationship between the codefendants and their counsel). 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 14 of 20
10

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

One party to a joint defense agreement “cannot unilaterally waive the privilege for other 

holders.” Gonzalez, 669 F.3d at 982; In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 902 F.2d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 

1990) (holding that all documents related to common claim “are subject to a joint defense 

privilege that [one party] may not waive unilaterally”). Courts recognize that allowing unilateral 

waiver of confidential communications by one party without the consent of the others “would 

likely severely undermine the rationale for the joint defense privilege in the first place.” 

Gonzalez, 669 F.3d at 983.

A common interest or joint defense agreement is permissible in many circumstances. It 

does not need to be in writing; it “may be implied from conduct and situation, such as attorneys 

exchanging confidential communications from clients who are or potentially may be 

codefendants or have common interests in litigation.” Gonzalez, 669 F.3d at 979 (internal 

citations omitted). Nor does it matter whether the litigation in question is civil or criminal, or 

even whether the parties would align on the same side of the pleadings. Id. (citing In re Grand 

Jury Subpoenas, 902 F.2d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 1990)). Indeed, the joint defense privilege applies 

even if litigation is not in the offing at the time of the agreement between the parties. Nidec 

Corp. v. Victor Co., 249 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“The protection of the privilege 

under the community of interest rationale [] is not limited to joint litigation preparation efforts. 

It is applicable whenever parties with common interests join forces for the purpose of obtaining 

more effective legal assistance.”). In all of these circumstances, it is sufficient that the legal 

interests of the parties invoking the privilege are aligned. See Holmes v. Collection Bureau of 

America Ltd., No. C 09-02540 WHA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4253, 2010 WL 143484 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 8, 2010) (finding joint defense privilege where “counsel for both defendants submitted 

sworn declarations that they agreed to pursue a joint defense strategy . . . and to communicate 

with each other regarding their shared legal interests”).

Courts have expressly held that information shared between individuals and companies in 

the context of a potential acquisition can fall within the ambit of a common interest privilege’s 

protections. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 115 F.R.D. 308, 310, 312 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 15 of 20
11

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

(N.D. Cal. 1987) (no waiver of attorney-client privilege when defendant, Bausch & Lomb, 

disclosed a patent opinion letter to a nonparty during negotiations for the purchase of a division 

of Bausch & Lomb); OXY Res. Cal. LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 874, 898-899 

(2004) (the common interest “nonwaiver principle” applies to information disclosed in preacquisition communications). The determinative factor is whether the communication was 

“designed to further a joint legal effort” or “in the course of formulating a common legal 

strategy.” See Nidec Corp., 249 F.R.D. at 579 (discussing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & 

Lomb, Inc.); see also OXY Res. Cal. LLC, 115 Cal. App. 4th at 898-99.

Here, there is no question that a valid joint defense agreement exists between Mr. 

Levandowski and Uber. It was memorialized in writing and is attached as Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Mr. Levandowski’s attorney, John Gardner. That agreement was entered into for

the express purpose of protecting communications made in the course of an ongoing joint effort 

to defend against “potential investigations, litigation, and/or other proceedings relating to the 

proposed transaction between Ottomotto, Otto Trucking and Uber and/or any affiliates of Uber.” 

Ex. A to Gardner Declaration at 1. In keeping with that purpose, the agreement contains an 

unconditional promise that the signatories would keep any documents shared under the 

agreement secret. Id. ¶¶ 2-5.

D. Requiring A Detailed Privilege Log Here Would Violate Mr. Levandowski’s 

Fifth Amendment Privilege

The basic purpose of a privilege log is to provide information sufficient for other parties 

and the court to assess whether an asserted privilege applies, but without actually disclosing the 

information protected by the privilege itself. Thus, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(ii)

provides that privilege logs must “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or 

tangible things not produced or disclosed . . . without revealing information itself privileged or 

protected . . . .” (emphasis added).

In the ordinary case, where no Fifth Amendment act-of-production right has been 

invoked, the detailed information required by this Court’s standing order can be provided 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 16 of 20
12

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

without revealing the privileged or protected content of the information for which protection is 

sought. But the situation presented here is different—because public disclosure of even such 

commonplace details as whether a document exists, who may have possessed it, or where it is

located would divulge information that the Fifth Amendment protects. See Fisher, 425 U.S. at 

410.

Accordingly, courts hold that the requirement of a detailed privileged log must yield to 

the constitutional right to be free from forced self-incrimination. See Chin, 2012 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 182252, at *26; In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 229 F.R.D. at 649; see also In re Fustolo, No. 

13-12692-JNF, 2015 WL 9595421, at *1, 5 (Bankr. D. Mass. Dec. 31, 2015) (implicitly 

accepting argument that a privilege log would undermine right against self-incrimination by 

modifying the privilege log requirement). 

As the Court noted in its March 31, 2017 order, Uber’s counsel has already indicated in 

open court that, “prior to the acquisition of Otto Trucking LLC and Ottomoto LLC, Uber 

Technologies, Inc. obtained a due diligence report prepared by a third party that may (or may 

not) have referenced the collection of allegedly downloaded documents.” Dkt. #132 at 1:16-18

(emphasis added). Adding further detail to this disclosure is precisely what threatens Mr. 

Levandowski’s Hubbell and Fisher rights. To the extent that Mr. Levandowski may have

produced any documents for review by a third party hired by counsel for the common purpose of 

obtaining legal advice, his doing so would have conveyed the same implicit testimony that 

accompanies every act of production—namely, a tacit assertion that documents exist, that they 

were within his possession, and that they were responsive to a request or question posed as part 

of the privileged due diligence effort. 

What the Hubbell and Fisher line of cases teach, at bottom, is that there is no meaningful 

constitutional difference between “saying something” with words and “saying something” with 

the act of production. Hence, any testimonial communications that Mr. Levandowski made 

through his act of production to his own counsel, and then to any other counsel bound by a 

common interest privilege, are twice-protected against court-ordered disclosure. These 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 17 of 20
13

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege, as extended through the common 

interest privilege here, and they are protected further under the Fifth Amendment. The Court 

cannot, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, order Mr. Levandowski—or any counsel owing 

obligations of attorney-client confidentiality to him—to disclose information that could furnish a 

“link in the chain” to the existence, possession, location, or identity of evidence that may be used 

in any possible criminal prosecution of Mr. Levandowski.

Plaintiffs are certainly free to use any legitimate tools of civil discovery to locate 

evidence they deem relevant to their civil lawsuit. But they are not free to use the power and 

authority of this Court to order disclosures that are protected under Mr. Levandowski’s Fifth 

Amendment rights. Thus, absent an order granting Mr. Levandowski immunity coextensive with 

18 U.S.C. § 6002 or a showing by the government that it already knew of the existence, location, 

possession, and identity of such documents with a degree of particularity rendering each question 

a “foregone conclusion,” any order compelling Uber’s counsel to disclose these confidential 

testimonial communications on a privilege log would run afoul of the Fifth Amendment. See 

United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 692 (9th Cir. 2010) (It is only “[w]here the existence and 

location of the documents are a foregone conclusion and the individual adds little or nothing to 

the sum total of the Government’s information by conceding that he in fact has the documents . . 

. that enforcement of the summons’ does not touch upon constitutional rights.”).

E. This Court Should Modify Its Order To Suspend The Requirements Of A 

Privilege Log For Any Documents Protected By The Fifth Amendment.

The Court’s order to Uber—which by its terms would require the company to produce 

any documents (to the extent it received any) that Mr. Levandowski produced under a commoninterest privilege—would violate Mr. Levandowski’s Fifth Amendment rights. With respect to 

any such documents, this Court should modify its order to require only disclosure of information 

sufficient to establish (a) the existence of a common-interest agreement between Mr. 

Levandowski and Uber, and (b) that Mr. Levandowski provided information to the third-party 

conducting due diligence under the agreement. Uber should not be required to disclose 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 18 of 20
14

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

information regarding the location of any protected document, including the name of the thirdparty vendor, or the subject matter beyond noting “due diligence report.” Requiring Uber to 

provide this information would violate the Fifth Amendment as those details could serve as a 

link in the chain for the government to obtain the report and use it in any criminal investigation 

of Mr. Levandowski. Hubbell, 530 at 45 (information regarding “the existence and location of 

the documents sought” is protected by the Fifth Amendment).

To the extent the Court requires additional information from Mr. Levandowski relating to 

Fifth Amendment privilege issues, Mr. Levandowski is prepared to submit the information in 

camera and ex parte, a procedure that is approved by the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. 

Drollinger, 80 F.3d 389, 393 (9th Cir. 1996).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 19 of 20
15

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF 

COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 2017

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 WHA

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

IV. CONCLUSION

To properly protect Mr. Levandowski’s Fifth Amendment rights, this Court must modify 

the normal requirements of a privilege log with respect to the third-party due diligence report. 

Without this requested accommodation, this Court will be compelling Mr. Levandowski to 

disclose information that he shared in confidence with his lawyers under an attorney-client and 

common-interest privilege, in violation of Hubbell and Gonzalez. If Mr. Levandowski is forced 

to do so, his implicit testimony will surely be used against him later, should a criminal 

investigation develop.

Date: April 4, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/

Miles Ehrlich

Ismail Ramsey

Amy Craig

Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP

803 Hearst Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94710

Tel: (510) 548-3600

Fax: (510) 291-3060

miles@ramsey-ehrlich.com

izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com

amy@ramsey-ehrlich.com

Counsel for Non-Party Anthony 

Levandowski

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 147 Filed 04/04/17 Page 20 of 20