EXHIBIT B 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 397-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 9
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LINAVAL DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

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

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

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000

Facsimile: 415.268.7522

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC

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

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND 

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF 

WAYMO LLC’S NOTICE OF 

DEPOSITION OF ASHEEM 

LINAVAL AND REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

AND THINGS

Honorable William H. Alsup

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 397-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 9
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LINAVAL DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

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

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

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC (collectively 

“Defendants”) hereby object and respond to the Notice of Deposition of Asheem Linaval and 

Requests for Production of Documents and Things, served by Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”).

RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC DOCUMENT REQUESTS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Documents sufficient to show the reasons behind Uber’s decision to acquire Otto, 

beginning with Uber’s first interest in Odin Wave, Otto, Tyto LiDAR, and/or 280 Systems, all 

due diligence on such acquisition, and any consulting work by Anthony Levandowski and/or 

Odin Wave, Otto, Tyto LiDAR, and/or 280 Systems for Uber before the acquisition.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Defendants will produce press releases, blog posts, and internal announcements sufficient 

to show the reasons behind Uber’s decision to acquire Otto.

To the extent Request for Production No. 1 requests anything other than the previously 

described information, Defendants object to this Request as not “very narrowly drawn” (Dkt. No. 

61) and outside the scope of the preliminary injunction briefing. Defendants further object to this 

Request as it seeks material covering subject matter about which Mr. Linaval does not have 

personal knowledge, and material outside the scope of his Declaration. Defendants object to this 

request as improperly compound to the extent it requests three separate categories of documents, 

which together with the other requests exceed six. Defendants object to the portions of this 

request seeking “all” due diligence and “any” consulting work as overly broad, not “very 

narrowly drawn,” and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendants also object to this 

Request to the extent it calls for information subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or work 

product doctrine.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Documents sufficient to show all LiDAR systems Defendants (including but not limited to 

designs considered by Odin Wave, Tyto LiDAR, Otto and/or 280 Systems) have (a) considered, 

regardless whether yet implemented on any vehicle, (b) tested, regardless whether yet 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 397-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 9
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LINAVAL DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

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

implemented or tested on any vehicle, and/or (c) used by Defendants in any vehicles. All of the 

foregoing should include third-party LiDAR systems.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Defendants will produce PowerPoint presentations, notes, and calculations from the 

custodial files of Scott Boehmke, as well as final specifications provided by Uber to a LiDAR 

vendor, sufficient to show LiDAR systems Defendants have considered, tested, and/or used.

To the extent Request for Production No. 2 requests anything other than the previously 

described information, Defendants object to the portion of this Request seeking information about 

systems Defendants have “considered, regardless whether yet implemented on any vehicle” as 

irrelevant, vague, and not very narrowly drawn. Defendants object to this request as improperly 

compound to the extent it requests three separate categories of documents, which together with 

the other requests exceed six. Defendants object to the portion of this request seeking documents 

concerning “all” LiDAR systems as overly broad and not “very narrowly drawn.” 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Documents sufficient to show the reasons why Defendants chose: (1) the position, 

orientation, and number of the laser diodes and photodetectors mounted on the printed circuit 

boards of all of its LIDAR designs; (2) the number of printed circuit boards in all of its LIDAR 

designs; (3) the methods for aligning the printed circuit boards in all of its LIDAR designs; and 

(4) the selection, materials, size, position, number, and orientation of optical elements that are 

used to manipulate and modify laser beams that are transmitted and detected all of its LIDAR 

designs, including any memoranda or documents that discuss or explain these choices or 

parameters, requirements, testing scenarios, or third party component specifications relating to 

these choices.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Defendants will produce PowerPoint presentations, notes, and calculations from the 

custodial files of Scott Boehmke and James Haslim sufficient to show the requested information.

To the extent Request for Production No. 3 requests anything other than the previously 

described information, Defendants object to this Request as not “very narrowly drawn” (Dkt. No. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 397-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 9
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LINAVAL DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

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

61), as it seeks documents concerning “all” LiDAR systems, material covering subject matter 

about which Mr. Linaval does not have personal knowledge, and material outside the scope of his 

Declaration. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

All communications concerning LiDAR between Uber (or anyone affiliated with Uber) 

and Otto (or anyone affiliated with Otto) before August 18, 2016.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Defendants will produce documents from the custodial files of Scott Boehmke reflecting

communications concerning LiDAR between Uber and Otto before August 18, 2016.

To the extent Request for Production No. 4 requests anything other than the previously 

described information, Defendants object to this Request as not “very narrowly drawn” (Dkt. No. 

61) and outside the scope of the preliminary injunction briefing. Defendants further object to this 

Request as it seeks material covering subject matter about which Mr. Linaval does not have 

personal knowledge, and material outside the scope of his Declaration. Defendants also object to 

this Request to the extent it calls for information subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or work 

product doctrine. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Documents sufficient to show Defendants’ knowledge of Waymo’s autonomous vehicle 

program, including all documents that discuss or mention the design of Waymo’s LiDAR.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Defendants will produce non-privileged documents that discuss or mention the design of 

Waymo’s LiDAR that have been collected from Defendants’ internal Slack channels, sufficient to 

show Defendants’ knowledge of Waymo’s autonomous vehicle program,. 

To the extent Request for Production No. 5 requests anything other than the previously 

described information, Defendants object to the portion of this request seeking “all” documents 

that discuss or mention the design of Waymo’s LiDAR as not “very narrowly drawn.”

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 397-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 9
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LINAVAL DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 4

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

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

All documents concerning Anthony Levandowski’s input into any component of all 

LiDAR, radar, camera, microphone, audio input or output, manual controller, wireless 

communication system, display, wheel or pedal sensor or controller systems developed or 

contemplated by Defendants, or concerning Anthony Levandowski’s input into the testing, 

assembly, tuning, or calibration of any such system, including communications authored by 

Anthony Levandowski and communications describing Anthony Levandowski’s input.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

After a diligent search of custodial documents, Defendants will produce documents found 

in Mr. Linaval’s custodial files concerning Anthony Levandowski’s input into components,

testing, assembly, tuning, or calibration of LiDAR systems contemplated by Defendants.

To the extent Request for Production No. 6 requests anything other than the previously 

described information, Defendants object to this Request as not “very narrowly drawn” (Dkt. No. 

61), as it seeks material covering subject matter about which Mr. Linaval does not have personal 

knowledge, and material outside the scope of his Declaration. Defendants object to this request 

as improperly compound to the extent it requests separate categories of documents, which 

together with the other requests exceed six. Defendants object to the portion of this request 

seeking documents concerning “all” “radar, camera, microphone, audio input or output, manual 

controller, wireless communication system, display, wheel or pedal sensor or controller systems” 

as irrelevant. Defendants further object to the portion of this request seeking “all” documents 

concerning Anthony Levandowski’s input as overly broad and not “very narrowly drawn.” 

Defendants also object to this Request to the extent it calls for information subject to the attorneyclient privilege and/or work product doctrine. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 397-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 6 of 9
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LINAVAL DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 5

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: April 13, 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 397-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 7 of 9
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LINAVAL DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 6

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

APPENDIX

Information on Document Collection and

Production Under Supplemental Order ¶ 13

Defendants further provide information on their collection efforts under Paragraph 13 of 

the Supplemental Order. As of April 12, 2017, Defendants have searched the following sources 

of information that may contain material responsive to Waymo’s requests for production:

• Defendants’ custodial document repositories (e.g. email repositories, Google Docs, 

locally stored electronic documents)

• Defendants’ internal non-custodial document repositories (e.g. Slack channels, 

personnel files)

• Publicly-available websites on the Internet

As of April 12, 2017, the following individuals employed by Defendants have searched 

for documents that may contain material responsive to Waymo’s requests for production:

• Asheem Linaval – search responsibility for documents relating to LiDAR designs 

and development and communications concerning LiDAR.

• Rhian Morgan – search responsibility for documents relating to Ottomotto’s 

human resources policies and procedures.

• David Meall – search responsibility for documents relating to Uber’s recruiting 

policies and procedures.

• Kevin Faulkner – search responsibility for documents relating to the forensic 

analysis performed by Stroz Friedberg pursuant to the March 13, 2017 engagement 

letter.

• Nina Qi – search responsibility for documents relating to Uber’s decision to 

acquire Otto.

• Scott Boehmke – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development. 

• Jim Gasbarro – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development.

• Dan Gruver – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 397-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 8 of 9
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO LINAVAL DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 7

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

• James Haslim – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development.

• Florin Ignatescu – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development.

• Mike Karasoff – documents relating to LiDAR development.

• Max Levandowski – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development.

• Tri Luong – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development.

• Gaetan Pennecot – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development.

• Will Treichler – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development.

• Filip Trojanek – documents relating to LiDAR designs and development.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 397-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 9 of 9