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 District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER DENYING OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC’S MOTION TO FURTHER 

DEPOSE LARRY PAGE

Re: Dkt. No. 1069

Defendants took Larry Page’s deposition. Otto Trucking (but not Uber) now seeks an order 

compelling Larry Page to be deposed for an additional two hours. Otto Trucking has not shown 

any cause for a further deposition.

First, the district court’s standing order requires a deponent’s counsel to “segregate and 

retain all material used to refresh [the deponent’s] memories and shall provide them to examining 

counsel at the outset of the deposition.” Supplemental Order to Order Setting Initial Case 

Management Conference in Civil Cases Before Judge William Alsup (“Standing Order”) ¶ 22. 

Otto Trucking has not established that the three documents which it did not question Mr. Page 

about were actually used to refresh Mr. Page’s recollection and thus have not shown that Waymo

was required to identify the documents at the deposition. Mr. Page’s testimony that the documents 

he reviewed in preparation for his deposition may have helped refresh his recollection somewhat 

(Dkt. No. 168-6 at 91-92), is insufficient to show a violation of the Standing Order. Further, and 

more importantly, even if Otto Trucking had made such a showing, it has not even attempted to 

show how knowing at the outset of the deposition that these three documents had been used to 

refresh Mr. Page’s recollection matters. 

Second, while Mr. Page’s counsel should have limited deposition objections to privilege 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1123 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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 District Court

Northern District of California

and “objection as to form,” Standing Order ¶ 21, Otto Trucking has again not identified any 

prejudice, that is, any information that it was entitled to and unable to obtain. Further, it does not 

identify anywhere in the record where it alerted Mr. Page’s counsel that it believed that his 

objections ran afoul of the Standing Order. 

Third, Otto Trucking has not shown that Mr. Page was not prepared to discuss the limited 

issues on which the Court allowed his deposition to go forward. And, again, as is the theme with 

Otto Trucking’s motion, Otto Trucking has not even attempted to show any harm. 

Finally, Waymo represents that it searched Mr. Page’s cell phones and that no responsive 

information was discovered.

Otto Trucking’s motion is DENIED. The Court will not compel discovery for the sake of 

compelling discovery and the Court expects that the parties will not bring a discovery motion just 

for the sake of bringing a discovery motion. 

Any objections to this Order must be filed with the district court by noon on Wednesday, 

August 9, 2017. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 1069.

IT SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1123 Filed 08/08/17 Page 2 of 2