United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER CONTINUING

DEADLINE AND SETTING

HEARING ON MOTION TO

INTERVENE AND MODIFY

PROVISIONAL RELIEF

Non-party Anthony Levandowski has filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose

of requesting modification of the provisional relief order dated May 11, 2017. Levandowski

seeks to modify the relief granted therein to the extent it “seek[s] to compel Mr. Levandowski to

waive his Fifth Amendment, attorney-client privilege, work product protection, and common

interest privilege” (Dkt. No. 466).

The second item of provisional relief in that order states (Dkt. No. 433 at 23):

2. Defendants must immediately and in writing exercise the

full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other

authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other

officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from

consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials;

and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all

copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court)

by MAY 31 AT NOON. 

To permit full briefing and hearing on Levandowski’s motion, this order continues the

deadline for defendants to comply with the foregoing item from May 31 to JUNE 23 AT NOON.

The parties shall respond to Levandowski’s motion by MAY 26 AT NOON. Levandowski

may reply by MAY 30 AT NOON. A hearing on the motion is set for JUNE 7 AT 10:00 A.M.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 471 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

In addition to anything else they want to argue, counsel for both sides shall please

address the following questions on the Fifth Amendment issues raised by Levandowski:

1. When an employee steals and retains a competitor’s trade

secrets, may the employer, upon learning of the theft, direct

the employee to make it right with the competitor and to

return all copies of the trade secrets to the competitor on

pain of adverse employment action, up to and including

termination? Does the Fifth Amendment prevent such

private action?

2. In such circumstances, may a court order the employer to

exercise the full scope of its private authority over the

employee to cause the employee to return all copies of the

stolen trade secrets? Does the Fifth Amendment bar such

an order?

3. Where an employer learns that its employee has stolen

trade secrets from a competitor and fails to, on its own

initiative, use the full scope of its private authority over the

employee to return all copies of the trade secrets to their

rightful owner, may the Court instruct the jury that it may

consider such failure as a ratification by the employer of

the theft?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 471 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 2