UBER AND OTTOMOTTO’S MOTION TO STRIKE WAYMO’S OPPOSITION

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

sf-3773573 

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 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO 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

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND 

OTTOMOTTO LLC’S MOTION TO 

STRIKE WAYMO’S OPPOSITION 

TO DEFENDANTS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL ACQUISITION 

DOCUMENTS (DKT. 526) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 529 Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 3
UBER AND OTTOMOTTO’S MOTION TO STRIKE WAYMO’S OPPOSITION

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

sf-3773573 

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 

Without any notice or attempt to meet and confer with Uber, Waymo seeks to challenge 

Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC’s (“Defendants”) confidentiality designations in the 

acquisition documents.1 (Dkt. 526; Yang ¶ 3.) Waymo’s challenge violates Paragraph 6.2 of the 

Patent Local Rule 2-2 Interim Model Protective Order in effect in this case (“Protective Order”) 

(March 16, 2017 Order, Dkt. 60), which requires Waymo to “provide written notice of each 

designation it is challenging” and “attempt to resolve each challenge in good faith.” (Yang Ex. 1 

at 7 (emphasis added).) Therefore, Defendants request an order striking Waymo’s Opposition to 

Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Acquisition Documents (Dkt. 526). 

The Protective Order expressly provides that Waymo may proceed “to the next stage of 

the challenge process only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first.” (Yang Ex. 1 

at 7 (emphasis added).) It has not. Defendants respectfully request that Waymo’s improper 

opposition be stricken, and Waymo be required to pursue any challenge in accordance with the 

Protective Order. Once Waymo complies with the procedure in the Protective Order, Defendants 

will explain, in a motion to retain confidentiality in accordance with the procedure set forth in 

Paragraph 6.3 of the Protective Order,2

 that Waymo is not only wrong on the required procedure, 

but also wrong on the merits. 

 1

 Waymo also argues that non-confidential portions of the acquisition documents should 

be filed in public. (Dkt. 526 at 1.) Uber filed twelve acquisition documents entirely under seal 

pursuant to Judge Corley’s instruction at the May 25, 2017 hearing to file the documents because 

“Judge Alsup wanted to see them” and to file them “obviously under the protective order.” 

(5/25/17 Rough Hearing Tr. at 9:16-10:2.) 

2

 As the designating party, Defendants may file a motion to retain confidentiality “within 

21 days of the initial notice of challenge or within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the meet 

and confer process will not resolve their dispute.” (Yang Ex. 1 at 7.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 529 Filed 05/31/17 Page 2 of 3
UBER AND OTTOMOTTO’S MOTION TO STRIKE WAYMO’S OPPOSITION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 2

sf-3773573 

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 

Dated: May 31, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 529 Filed 05/31/17 Page 3 of 3