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 RE: UBER’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL WAYMO

Re: Dkt. Nos. 867 & 868

Now pending before the Court is Uber’s motion to compel documents from Waymo. (Dkt. 

No. 868.)

A. Waymo Trade Secret Safeguards

1. RFP 119: Uber’s request for any confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements is 

GRANTED. Waymo’s assertion that it would never disclose trade secrets to its vendors without 

such an agreement is not evidence that it in fact did so. If it did so it must produce the agreements. 

It can redact any third party confidential information in the agreements as such information is not 

relevant. The request is proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

2. RFP 46: Uber’s request for Waymo’s “collection, analysis, review, or findings 

related to computers” of departed employees is GRANTED IN PART. Waymo shall respond with 

respect to any self-driving vehicle employees who departed Waymo or its predecessor from 

October 2015 through December 2016, and the request is limited to documents reflecting a 

review for misappropriation of trade secrets.

3. RFP Nos. 63, 66, 121, 122: 

Uber’s motion to compel responses to request no. 63 is DENIED. 

Uber’s motion to compel responses to request no. 66 is GRANTED.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 923 Filed 07/17/17 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

Uber’s motion to compel responses to request no. 121 is GRANTED in part. Waymo shall 

produce any such analysis for the year preceding Mr. Levandowski’s departure from Waymo. 

Waymo may not refuse to produce the responsive analysis merely because it encompasses a longer 

period of time.

Uber’s motion to compel further responses to request no. 122 is DENIED. Uber does not 

even acknowledge the affected employees’ privacy interest in their personnel files and has not 

demonstrated any relevance of the files, especially in light of its other requests.

B. Levandowski Investigation

Uber’s request no. 53 seeks all documents relating to “when” Waymo began investigating 

Levandowski’s potential trade secret misappropriation. Uber claims that responsive documents 

would include “non-privileged documents communications discussing why Waymo did not

investigate Levandowski.” (Dkt. No. 868 at 4 (emphasis added).) But that is not the request that 

Uber made. Uber’s request is DENIED.

C. Exclusion of Google and Alphabet

Uber’s objection is overruled without prejudice to Uber first meeting and conferring with 

Waymo and then, after exhausting efforts through the Special Master, addressing specific 

document requests and why Uber’s search was not sufficient for a particular request and Uber’s 

reasonable proposal. For example, it would not be reasonable for Uber to insist that Waymo 

conduct a search involving every single Google engineer for the past seven years.

CONCLUSION

Waymo shall produce documents in accordance with this Order on or before July 21, 2017. 

Uber’s administrative motion to seal (Dkt. no. 867) is GRANTED.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 867 and 868.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 923 Filed 07/17/17 Page 2 of 2