01980-00104/9266618 

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

May 9, 2017 

VIA ECF 

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley 

USDC, Northern District of California 

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: 

Waymo hereby responds to Uber’s letter brief filed this afternoon. Uber’s stated “intent[ion]” to 

delay production of the Acquisition Agreement until Thursday is unjustified and improper. 

Instead, Waymo requests that Defendants be ordered to produce, on an Attorneys’ Eyes Only basis, 

the Acquisition Agreement and all exhibits, appendices, schedules, and documents incorporated 

into the agreement by 9 p.m. tonight. 

The Acquisition Agreement is highly relevant to Waymo’s pending Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction. Just this afternoon, we received notice from Judge Alsup that his order on that motion 

“will very likely be filed this week.”1

 (Dkt. 403.) If Defendants wait until slightly before midnight 

on Thursday to produce a redacted version of some subset of the Acquisition Agreement, then 

Waymo and the Court will be not be able to consider this “key document” that “should never have 

been withheld” before the Court rules on Waymo’s motion. (Dkt. 354 at 32:19-22.) 

Defendants suggest further delay is permissible because “we need to consult with other counsel to 

determine whether any part may be privileged, and which portions will be designated confidential 

or AEO pursuant to the Protective Order in this case.” (Dkt. 402.) But to the extent Defendants 

have to date ignored the Court’s directive from last Wednesday, at the hearing on Waymo’s Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction, that “You better hurry up, because the judge wants to see it” (Dkt. 354 

at 32:15-16), Defendants can make any privilege redactions this afternoon (to the extent any would 

be meritorious, which seems doubtful). And Waymo does not object to Defendants’ producing 

 

1

 The agreement is also material to the discovery teleconference with Magistrate Judge Corley 

on “how to approach the privilege question” (scheduled for Thursday, May 11 at 2 p.m.) and 

Waymo’s Motion to Compel Production of Withheld Documents (the Reply in support of which 

is due this Friday, May 12). 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 407 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 2
01980-00104/9266618 1 

the Acquisition Agreement with an Attorneys’ Eyes Only designation now, and then re-designating 

as appropriate on Thursday. Accordingly, there is no reason the agreement cannot be produced 

today. 

Respectfully, 

/s/ Charles K. Verhoeven

Charles K. Verhoeven 

cc: All counsel of record. 

01980-00104/9266618 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 407 Filed 05/09/17 Page 2 of 2