1























































No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S MAY 19 ORDER

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com

 Melissa J. Baily (Bar No. 237649)

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887)

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886)

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-4788

Telephone: (415) 875-6600

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S REPLY IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO MODIFY 

THE COURT’S MAY 19 ORDER (DKT. 

471) EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR 

DEFENDANTS TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 496 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 3
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

-1- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S MAY 19 ORDER

Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) respectfully submit this Reply in Support of its Motion 

to Modify the Court’s May 19th Order (Dkt. 485). 

While Defendants do not oppose reinstatement of the May 31st deadline for Uber to 

comply with Item #2 of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order in some respects, Defendants fail 

to justify the objections to reinstatement they do make in their Opposition.

Uber’s request for an exception for Stroz Friedberg for Item #2—which asks only for the 

return of Waymo’s documents—is an admission that Stroz, Uber’s agent, has and continues to 

have Waymo’s stolen documents and that Uber has the power to compel their return to Waymo. It 

is further an admission that Uber is in contempt of the Court’s March 16th Order requiring return 

of these same materials by March 31st. (Dkt. 61.) Uber’s only response is generic claims of 

privilege related to the so-called Due Diligence Report, but that is a separate issue. Waymo’s own 

stolen documents are not, have never been, and cannot be protected by any claim of privilege by 

Defendants. Even now faced with a second Court order on this point, Defendants continue to seek 

to prevent the return of Waymo’s documents.

Defendants also contend that Mr. Levandowski’s Motion pertains not just to subsection (b) 

of Item #2 (concerning the return of downloaded materials), but also to subsection (a) (concerning 

the prevention of use of downloaded materials). (Dkt. 494 at 1.) While it is true that Mr. 

Levandowski’s Motion may refer to Item #2 generically (Dkt. 466 at 1-2, 9-10), the Motion 

presents no argument or discussion as to how anything in subsection (a) implicates any of Mr. 

Levandowski’s Fifth Amendment concerns. Defendants certainly point to no such argument or 

discussion. Defendants’ compliance with Item #2(a) should not be extended simply because Mr. 

Levandowski’s motion was imprecise in its general statements as to the relief sought.

For these reasons, and those stated in Waymo’s Motion (Dkt. 485), Waymo respectfully 

requests that the Court modify its May 19th Order to reinstate the original compliance date for 

Item #2, except for the portions of Item #2, subsection (b) addressing Defendants’ potential 

discipline of Mr. Levandowski should he fail to provide relevant materials and information.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 496 Filed 05/23/17 Page 2 of 3
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT’S MAY 19 ORDER

DATED: May 23, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP

By /s/Charles K. Verhoeven

Charles K. Verhoeven

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 496 Filed 05/23/17 Page 3 of 3