01980-00104/9217727.2

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | san francisco

50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL (415) 875-6600 FAX (415) 875-6700

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp

LOS ANGELES | NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC | HOUSTON | SEATTLE

LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG | PARIS | MUNICH | SYDNEY | HONG KONG | BRUSSELS | ZURICH

April 24, 2017

VIA ECF

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom F - 15th Floor

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

Dear Magistrate Judge Corley:

Please find below Plaintiff Waymo LLC’s (“Waymo”) one-page statement regarding discovery 

issues ripe of resolution in connection with tomorrow’s 2:00 pm Discovery Hearing.

Sincerely,

/s/ Charles K. Verhoeven

Charles K. Verhoeven

cc: All counsel of record.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 279 Filed 04/26/17 Page 1 of 2
01980-00104/9217727.2 2

Waymo files this discovery letter brief regarding Uber’s pending discovery violations that are ripe 

for resolution by the Court. 

First, Uber continues to violate this Court’s expedited discovery orders. Despite a one week 

reprieve (4/12/17 Hearing Tr., 104:24-25.), Uber has still not complied with this Court’s order to 

search for and produce all documents that comprise or reflect use of Waymo’s proprietary 

information (Dkt. 163). That order itself was crafted to enforce this Court’s original expedited 

discovery order. (Dkt. 61.) As clarified by the Court, Uber is required to search “defendants’ 

servers and any officers, directors, or employees that have anything to do with defendants’ LiDAR 

technology.” (Dkt. 163.) Uber has not done so in the time allotted or provided any indication 

when it will do so. While Uber claims it cannot find this information without Waymo telling it 

how to search its own files (turning discovery on its head), only recently has Uber’s counsel even 

begun to substantively review the 14,000 files at the center of Waymo’s allegations—files that 

have been available for inspection since March 22, 2017. These are the same 14,000 files the head 

of Uber’s self-driving car program, Anthony Levandowski, took from Waymo and maintains while 

currently working on Uber’s LIDAR technology (all facts never denied by Uber). In addition, 

Uber has willfully refused to produce documents as required by the Court’s expedited discovery 

order (Dkt. 61, ¶ 6). For example, Uber has not even searched Anthony Levandowski’s Uber 

emails or documents in response to a single document request served by Waymo in expedited 

discovery, despite his being called out by name in several of them. (See e.g. Group Ex. 1) Waymo 

was to have the benefit of this discovery before its April 21 Reply, and every day that goes by 

without the benefit of his discovery up to the May 3 preliminary injunction hearing prejudices 

Waymo all the more. 

Second, there are several ripe issues regarding Uber’s privilege logs. (Dkt. Nos. 246, 246-1, 246-

2.) In follow up to previous communications, on April 17, Waymo sent a detailed email listing 

the logs’ deficiencies and the parties met and conferred the next day. Waymo most recently raised

the concerns with Special Master John Cooper on April 20 and an April 23 email. (Group Ex. 2) 

The issues raised are relatively straightforward including whether Uber will: (1) identify the

purported common interest and corresponding anticipated litigation as required to claim a common 

interest privilege (2) identify all individuals who authored, sent, or made allegedly privileged 

communications as Judge Alsup’s Standing Order, provides (Paragraph 16(a) and describe (4) 

identify the actual custodians of allegedly privileged documents (as opposed to identifying 

custodian as “Uber” generally), (4) confirm that Uber has determined in good faith that almost 

every (if not every) document on its log is protected by each of the basis attorney-client, attorney 

work product, and common interest privileges, (5) revise its logs to identify documents 

individually, not simply as email “families” as Uber improperly did. Yet, Uber has stonewalled 

Waymo, pretending these issues are new or feigning ignorance as to them. (Group Ex. 2). Uber’s 

continued delay prejudices Waymo’s ability to obtain discoverable evidence and test Uber’s claims 

of privilege. 

Finally, Waymo has served a notice for the deposition of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick for April 28.

Uber’s counsel points to Larry Page’s knowledge of private conversations supposedly between 

Messrs. Page and Levandowski in attempts to justify Mr. Page’s deposition. This deposition 

represents an improper attempt to turn the shield represented Mr. Levandowski’s 5th Amendment 

privilege into a “sword.” As a matter of fairness, should Uber be permitted to take Mr. Page’s 

deposition, Waymo should be able to take Mr. Kalanick’s deposition on the same subject matter.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 279 Filed 04/26/17 Page 2 of 2