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.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGE

CORLEY’S NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDERS RE

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

INTRODUCTION

The magistrate judge overseeing discovery in this action granted in part and denied in

part two motions by plaintiff to compel defendants to produce documents and respond to

interrogatories. All parties move for relief from those orders pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72. 

Defendants’ motions are DENIED. The Court DEFERS ruling on plaintiff’s motion.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Waymo LLC filed two motions to compel defendants Uber Technologies, Inc.,

Ottomotto LLC (collectively, “Uber”), and Otto Trucking LLC to produce certain documents

and respond to certain interrogatories (Dkt. Nos. 682, 879). In two orders dated July 12 and

July 19, per the discovery referral in this action, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley granted in

part and denied in part each of Waymo’s motions (Dkt. Nos. 881, 951). Pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 72, all parties move for relief from the July 12 order (Dkt. Nos. 928, 930, 932). Uber also

moves for relief from the July 19 order (Dkt. No. 1007). This order follows full briefing.
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

ANALYSIS

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

Under FRCP 72, a district judge considering timely objections to a magistrate judge’s

nondispositive order must defer to the order unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). “The reviewing

court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Ibid. (citing United

States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

2. UBER’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF.

A. July 12 Order.

Waymo seeks information about intellectual property that Ottomotto and Otto Trucking

(collectively, “Otto”) disclosed to Uber as part of their acquisition deal (Dkt. No. 682 at 4–5). 

Judge Corley overruled Uber’s relevancy objection, finding the information “relevant to

Waymo’s claims and Uber’s defenses” (Dkt. No. 881 at 2). Uber objects that this ruling

expands discovery beyond Waymo’s list of asserted trade secrets and exceeds the scope of

expedited discovery authorized for Waymo’s trade secret misappropriation claims (Dkt. Nos.

930, 1000). The objection is meritless. Assets on the table during the Otto acquisition are

relevant to Waymo’s theory that Otto’s price tag could not have been justified without

misappropriated trade secrets in the bargain (see Dkt. Nos. 682 at 5, 971 at 2). This issue falls

well within the scope of Waymo’s misappropriation claim even if it does not directly concern

Waymo’s own asserted trade secrets. Uber claims it will not argue that the intellectual property

in question justified Otto’s price tag (Dkt. Nos. 930 at 3, 1000 at 5). But Waymo remains

entitled to present its own version of the story and affirmatively show that no Otto assets —

except misappropriated trade secrets — could have explained the terms of acquisition. This

alone shows that Judge Corley’s ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

B. July 19 Order.

In a similar vein, Uber objects to Judge Corley’s ruling that Waymo may “seek

information related to what Mr. Levandowski worked on for Uber” (Dkt. No. 951 at 1) on the

basis that “non-LiDAR technology [is] outside the scope of this case” and expands discovery
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

3

beyond Waymo’s list of asserted trade secrets (Dkt. Nos. 1007, 1042). Again, discovery

relevant to Waymo’s misappropriation claims may extend beyond evidence directly concerning

Waymo’s own asserted trade secrets. And, while LiDAR may be a central topic in this case,

that in no way restricts either side to seeking only LiDAR-related discovery. Indeed,

defendants themselves have gone far afield of LiDAR technology in search of evidence to

support their litigation theories (see, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 1069–70 (motion to compel additional

deposition of Larry Page)). Judge Corley remains well situated to determine where and how to

place reasonable limits on the sprawling discovery sought by both sides in this action. Uber has

not shown that her decision here was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

3. OTTO TRUCKING’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

Otto Trucking contends, as it did before Judge Corley, that it has only four officers, “no

employees or consultants or operations, and [no] networks, servers, or email systems,” so

Waymo must resort to non-party discovery to obtain responsive company documents in the

personal emails of Otto Trucking officers (Dkt. Nos. 928 at 1, 5; 998 at 4). Judge Corley

rejected Otto Trucking’s cited authorities as inapposite because “none involve a corporation

refusing to produce documents involving corporation business in the possession, custody or

control of the corporation’s officers” and ordered Otto Trucking to “produce responsive

documents in the custody, control or possession of its officers, namely, Mr. Ron, Ms. Morgan or

Mr. Bentley” (Dkt. No. 881 at 3). Otto Trucking has not shown that this ruling was clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. As Judge Corley noted, Otto Trucking cannot escape its duty to

produce responsive company documents simply by choosing to conduct company business

through the personal emails of its officers (see ibid.). 

4. WAYMO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

The Court DEFERS ruling on Waymo’s motion for relief (Dkt. No. 932) pending the

upcoming August 16 hearing on, among other things, Waymo’s motions for order to show cause

(Dkt. Nos. 677, 847).
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

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions for relief from Judge Corley’s July 12

and July 19 orders are DENIED. Defendants’ stated objections thereto are OVERRULED. 

Defendants shall fully comply with both orders by AUGUST 17 AT NOON. The Court DEFERS

ruling on Waymo’s motion for relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE