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 DENYING MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGE

CORLEY’S NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER RE

MOTION TO COMPEL

INTRODUCTION

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

part plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff moves for relief from that order pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 72. The motion is DENIED. 

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Waymo LLC moved to compel defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto

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

to certain interrogatories (Dkt. No. 682). In an order dated July 12, per the discovery referral in

this action, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley granted in part and denied in part Waymo’s

motion (Dkt. Nos. 881). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72, Waymo filed a motion for relief from

the July 12 order (Dkt. No. 932). A prior order deferred ruling on the motion pending a hearing

on a related matter (Dkt. No. 1188 at 3). This order now denies the motion.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1263 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 3
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. WAYMO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

Judge Corley rejected Waymo’s argument that Anthony Levandowski “knows where the

material he downloaded from Waymo is located, and therefore Otto Trucking must know,”

noting that “Levandowski has refused to cooperate with any discovery in this matter on Fifth

Amendment grounds” (Dkt. No. 881 at 3). Waymo objects that “a corporation has no Fifth

Amendment privileges and may not withhold documents on that basis” (Dkt. No. 932 at 1). 

This objection is frivolous. Judge Corley’s order clearly referred to Levandowski’s personal

Fifth Amendment privilege, not to any Fifth Amendment privilege asserted by Otto Trucking. 

Waymo also objects that, under Judge Corley’s reasoning, “any corporate entity could avoid

compliance with discovery simply [by] stating that whoever is in charge would not ‘allow’ it to

comply” (ibid.). Wrong again. The issue here is not that Levandowski simply will not “allow”

Otto Trucking to comply with discovery but that Waymo asked Judge Corley to impute

Levandowski’s personal knowledge to Otto Trucking notwithstanding his assertion of Fifth

Amendment privilege. Finally, Waymo agrees with Judge Corley that, “[t]o the extent [it]

contends that Otto Trucking has not done enough to coerce Mr. Levandowski to speak, that is a

matter that it has raised with the District Judge” (Dkt. No. 881 at 3). Waymo nevertheless

objects that the mere fact “that Otto Trucking may likely violate the order should the Court

grant Waymo’s motion to compel cannot be the basis to deny Waymo’s motion” (Dkt. No. 932

at 1). Judge Corley, however, did not deny Waymo’s motion on that basis. In short, Waymo

has not shown that Judge Corley’s July 12 order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1263 Filed 08/18/17 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for relief from Judge Corley’s July 12 order

is DENIED. All stated objections thereto are OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1263 Filed 08/18/17 Page 3 of 3