Exhibit 12 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 14
1

Kevin SmithFrom: Rivera, Sylvia <SRivera@mofo.com>

Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:47 PMTo: Andrea P RobertsCc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_Uber

Waymo; 'jcooper@fbm.com'; Melissa Baily

Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logsAttachments: 2017.05.26 CROSS of UBER_033_with 4 10 Deleted_Priv_Log_Entries.pdf

Andrea,As discussed during yesterday’s call, attached is a chart that matches up the bates numbers of the employee attestations produce

from the 4.10.17 privilege log to which each document corresponds.

Sylvia

From: Rivera, Sylvia Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 1:30 PM To: 'Andrea P Roberts' Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)'; QE-WMelissa Baily Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logs Andrea,The employee attestations are attachments to an internal, privileged Morrison & Foerster email. See Log Entry No. 1455. They d

in the metadata and the author is not identifiable from the email to which they are attached. Some entries mistakenly attributed 

Friedberg,” but the attestations actually appear on the log multiple times and are more accurately described elsewhere on entrie

respectfully.The attestations that were removed and were produced were non‐responsive and did not belong on the privilege log of materials 

order to be produced by March 31, which was the sole purpose of that log. They were included only because other attachments 

We disagree that the privilege descriptions have “changed significantly ” for documents that were removed from the 4.10.17 priv

request, we merely endeavored to be more specific in our entries as your colleagues previously requested.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 2 of 14
2

I look forward to discussing further on our call.

Best,Sylvia

From: Andrea P Roberts [mailto:andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:09 PM To: Melissa Baily; Rivera, Sylvia Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)'; QE-WSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logs - External Email -Sylvia,Please provide the information requested below in advance of our 1:30 p.m. call with Mr. Cooper.

Thank you.Andrea

From: Melissa BailySent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 11:52 AM

To: Rivera, Sylvia <SRivera@mofo.com>

Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com'(BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)' <BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemaSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logsApologies, now I have added Mr. Cooper back to this thread as I had intended to.

From: Melissa Baily

Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 11:51 AM

To: Rivera, Sylvia <SRivera@mofo.com>

Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com'(BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)' <BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemaSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logs

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 3 of 14
3

Sylvia,Production volume UBER_033 contains 91 “Employee Attestations.” Based on the information you have provided, these attestat

the 4.10.17 log of MoFo documents at entry nos. 334, 340‐369, 371‐378, 1456, 1460‐1471, 1478, 1484‐1513, and 1515‐1522. But 

match the Employee Attestations that were produced.

For example, entry no. 1464 had a redacted “Sent By/Author” field – presumably that was Stroz. The “Recipients” were aferarri@ecrandallwhittom@mofo.com. The “Subject Matter of Communication” was “Statement reflecting communication made in confiand/or John Gardner and shared pursuant to joint defense agreement . . .” But no emails between Stroz and MoFo are included i

Employee Attestations produced was signed by “Anthony Levandowski and/or John Gardner.”

Similarly, entry no. 1463 has the same redacted “Sent By/Author” field and the same aferrari@mofo.com and ecrandallwhittom@filed. The “Subject Matter of Communication” for this entry was “Statement reflecting communication made in confidence by An

Don Burnette, Soren Juelsgaard, and/or Colin Sebern and shared pursuant to joint defense agreement . . .” But again, no emails b

included in UBER_033. And none of the Employee Attestations was signed by any of Anthony Levandowski, Lior Ron, Don Burnet

Colin Sebern.

We also note that many descriptions of documents that have been re‐logged on the basis that they were not responsive to the Co

discovery order have changed significantly from the 4.10.17 log to the log produced with Uber_033.

Please provide – by 2 p.m. today – a chart that matches each of the 91 Employee Attestations produced (by bates number) to the 

4/10/17 log of MoFo documents (by entry number). If Defendants’ position really is that the entries listed in the first paragraph a

Employee Attestations that were produced, we need an explanation as to how those Employee Attestations could possibly have b

were in the log. This casts doubt over whether any entry on any log accurately describes any particular withheld document. This 

reserves all rights with respect to arguing that Defendants have waived the privileges asserted in their logs on the basis of this iss

We propose discussing these issues with Mr. Cooper at 4 p.m. today if he is available. I have added Mr. Cooper back to this threa

Thanks,MelissaFrom: Rivera, Sylvia [mailto:SRivera@mofo.com]

Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 11:46 PM

To: Melissa Baily <melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com>

Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com'(BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)' <BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemaSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logs

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 4 of 14
4

Melissa,Attached is the privilege log for documents that were removed from the 4.10.17 log of Morrison & Foerster LLP documents. It co

volume UBER_033, circulated earlier, contains 95 documents that initially were logged, including four documents that contain red

listed in the attached log. The 154 entries that were removed from the 4.10.17 privilege log are thus accounted for between the 

documents produced in UBER_033.Sylvia

From: Rivera, Sylvia Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 2:24 PM To: 'Melissa Baily' Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)'; jcoopSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logs Melissa,Attached please find a log of the five documents that previously were removed from the privilege log of O’Melveny & Myers docu

March 31 production of materials responsive to the March 16 order. We are producing some of the documents that were remov

Morrison & Foerster documents – we are awaiting receipt of the production volume from our vendor this afternoon and will prod

together with the log of documents previously removed that are not being produced.

Best,Sylvia

From: Melissa Baily [mailto:melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 8:21 AM To: Rivera, Sylvia Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)'; jcoopSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logs - External Email -Sylvia,Please confirm that all documents dated before February 25, 2016 that were previously logged will be produced on Monday. Let’

address on this morning’s 10 a.m. call with Mr. Cooper.

Thanks,

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 5 of 14
5

MelissaFrom: Rivera, Sylvia [mailto:SRivera@mofo.com]Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:17 PM

To: Melissa Baily <melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com>

Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com'(BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)' <BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>; jcooper@fbm.com; QE‐Waymo <qeSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logsMelissa,The following entries from the 4.10.17 “Defendants’ Privilege Log Associated with the March 31, 2017 Production of Documents” 

documents) were removed from the 4.27.17 log: 329‐334, 336‐378, 773‐775, 785, 788‐790, 795, 797, 806, 809, 811‐813, 815, 81

1478, 1480‐1522, 1599‐1605, 1621, 2055‐2060, 2068, 2343‐2345, 2349‐2351, 2354, 2356. There are 154 entries, not 158 entries

As stated in my May 11 email, they were removed because they were not responsive to the court’s March 16 order, which was th

privilege logs, and your colleagues had requested the removal of non‐responsive documents. To address your concerns, for those 

were removed from the log of O’Melveny documents, by this Monday we will re‐log any document that arguably is responsive to 

produce any documents that are not covered by the attorney‐client or any other privilege.

With regard to the five documents that were removed from the log of Uber documents, attached is the stand‐alone privilege log f

removed inadvertently, as referenced in my May 11 email. We have re‐confirmed that the other four documents are not respons

not be re‐logged.

Best,Sylvia

From: Melissa Baily [mailto:melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:35 PM To: Gonzalez, Arturo J.; Rivera, Sylvia; Patrick Schmidt; QE-Waymo Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)'; jcoopSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logs - External Email -John, Arturo,

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 6 of 14
6

The documents are responsive to at least five long‐pending expedited discovery requests: Faulkner 5 (documents pertaining to a

prepared in connection with Uber’s acquisition of Otto); Linaval 1 (documents related to due diligence on the acquisition); Meall 2 

the reasons Defendants required any employee(s) to sign an attestation in April 2016); Morgan 3 (documents sufficient to show t

Defendants to ensure that former Waymo employees hired by Defendants did not retain confidential Waymo information); Faulk

conducted by Stroz).

Melissa

From: Gonzalez, Arturo J. [mailto:AGonzalez@mofo.com]Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 4:34 PM

To: Melissa Baily <melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com>; Rivera, Sylvia <SRivera@mofo.com>; Patrick Schmidt <patrickschmidt@qu

<qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com'(BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)' <BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>; jcooper@fbm.comSubject: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logsJohn, Each of the document requests referenced below has been stayed by order of Magistrate Corley (Docket 441). Arturo J. GonzálezChair, Commercial Litigation and Trial Practice GroupMorrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105 P: 415.268.7020 | F: 415.276.7020 | C: 415.425.9548 AGonzalez@mofo.com | www.mofo.comFrom: Melissa Baily [mailto:melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:10 PM To: Rivera, Sylvia; Patrick Schmidt; QE-Waymo Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)'; jcoopSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logs - External Email -Sylvia,The documents you identified as having been removed from certain of Defendants’ privilege logs appear to relate to the Stroz Fri

documents are responsive to the Court’s March 16, 2017 Order and/or at least one or more of the following requests for product

Production 28, which calls for documents and communications regarding Uber’s due diligence of Ottomotto; (2) Waymo’s Reques

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 7 of 14
7

for communications between Mr. Levandowski and Uber before August 18, 2016; (3) Waymo’s Request For Production 66, which 

Defendants’ forensic analysis (4) Waymo’s Request For Production 67, which calls for exhibits and attachments to the Stroz Friedb

(5) Waymo’s Request For Production 73, which calls for documents regarding the misappropriated materials.

By no later than tomorrow, please produce these documents or provide an amended log that includes them.It has now been eight days since Waymo asked for an identification of the 158 entries Defendants removed from the privilege log 

Foerster. Please identify these entries and produce the corresponding documents no later than tomorrow.

We have copied Mr. Cooper here so that we can discuss these issues at 5:30 p.m.

Thanks,MelissaFrom: Rivera, Sylvia [mailto:SRivera@mofo.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:19 AM

To: Melissa Baily <melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com>; Patrick Schmidt <patrickschmidt@quinnemanuel.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewa

Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com'(BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)' <BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logsMelissa, Patrick:

We did not add new documents to those privilege logs. In the course of meeting and conferring about the logs, your colleagues a

logs by removing non‐responsive documents and also asked that entries be re‐organized into chronological order. Per that reque

both. They did not ask us to track and inform them what was removed. Your objection is therefore unfounded. But to facilitate y

you the entry numbers from the original privilege logs for documents that subsequently were removed because they were non‐re

Entries Removed from Supplemental Privilege Log (O’Melveny custodian): 287, 288, 296, 297, 298

Entries Removed from Second Supplemental Privilege Log (Uber custodians): 48, 115, 351, 535, 536. We have determined the do

inadvertently removed from the log. It is both responsive and privileged, and we will provide you a log to re‐account for that doc

We are compiling the list of entries removed from the log of Morrison & Foerster documents and will send that to you under sepa

Regards,Sylvia

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 8 of 14
8

From: Melissa Baily [mailto:melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 7:55 AM To: Patrick Schmidt; Rivera, Sylvia; QE-Waymo Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com)' Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logs - External Email -Counsel, please also provide a response on this by noon today.

Thanks, Melissa

From: Patrick Schmidt

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 12:41 PM

To: Rivera, Sylvia <SRivera@mofo.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>

Cc: UberWaymo <UberWaymo@mofo.com>; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsf<BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logsSylvia, It looks like the unredacted version of Morrison & Foerster’s original privilege log contains 158 fewer entries than the o

unredacted supplemental privilege log of O’Melveny documents contains 5 fewer entries than the original redacted versisecond supplemental privilege log of Uber documents contains 5 fewer entries than the original redacted version. Becau

changed and Defendants are unwilling to provide native versions of its logs, it is extremely difficult for us to tell which epotentially added). Please identify which entries have been deleted (and/or added) between service of the redacted logs unredacted logs, confirm that the documents related to any deleted entries have been produced, and provide bates numbePatrick SchmidtAssociateQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-443-3191 Direct 213-443-3000 Main Office Number 213-443-3100 Fax patrickschmidt@quinnemanuel.comwww.quinnemanuel.com

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 9 of 14
9

NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an at

product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, yo

received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in e

mail, and delete the original message. 

From: Rivera, Sylvia [mailto:SRivera@mofo.com]Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:31 PM

To: QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>

Cc: UberWaymo <UberWaymo@mofo.com>; ''BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsf<BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>Subject: Waymo v. Uber; privilege logsQuinn Team, Today we forwarded unredacted, amended versions of Defendants’ initial, supplemental, and second supplemental privilege logs as2017 production. We revised those logs consistent with Arturo Gonzalez’s email of April 25, 2017. Among other things, we revise(second supplemental log) to now list the individual custodians for each document and to list the author for email attachments; revi

communication” to more specifically address the “anticipated litigation”; revised certain entries to address your objection to use of 

removed from the log certain documents that were non-responsive; and attempted to place the Morrison & Foerster LLP and O’Me

chronological order. As noted in Mr. Gonzalez’s April 25 email, for each email log entry that constitutes one email in an email string, we will review thnames of any additional senders/recipients who are not already listed in the log entry. Given the volume of log entries, that potentito complete for all logs. We will endeavor to provide you with the updated logs on a rolling basis. Of course, based on our review

any email string already appear on the logs as stand-alone log entries, so you already have most of that information in the existing l

Last, we are attempting to address your concerns as they would apply to the supplemental log of Morrison & Foerster documents th

filing of the complaint in this action and the stand-alone log of the investigative report. We expect to produce those tomorrow. 

Regards, Sylvia 

============================================================================ This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohimessage in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. ============================================================================ 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 10 of 14
10

This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohimessage in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. ============================================================================ This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohimessage in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. ============================================================================ This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohimessage in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. ============================================================================ This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohimessage in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. ============================================================================ This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohimessage in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 11 of 14
Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 3:17‐cv‐00939‐WHA (N.D. Cal.)

CROSS‐REFERENCE OF EMPLOYEE ATTESTATIONS PRODUCED IN UBER_033

WITH APRIL 10, 2017 PRIVILEGE LOG ENTRIES

4/10/2017 Priv

Log Entry

PROD_BEG PROD_END

334 UBER00017154 UBER00017154

340 UBER00017155 UBER00017155

341 UBER00017156 UBER00017156

342 UBER00017157 UBER00017157

343 UBER00017158 UBER00017158

344 UBER00017159 UBER00017159

345 UBER00017160 UBER00017160

346 UBER00017161 UBER00017161

347 UBER00017162 UBER00017162

348 UBER00017163 UBER00017163

349 UBER00017164 UBER00017164

350 UBER00017165 UBER00017165

351 UBER00017166 UBER00017166

352 UBER00017167 UBER00017167

353 UBER00017168 UBER00017168

354 UBER00017169 UBER00017169

355 UBER00017170 UBER00017170

356 UBER00017171 UBER00017171

357 UBER00017172 UBER00017172

358 UBER00017173 UBER00017173

359 UBER00017174 UBER00017174

360 UBER00017175 UBER00017175

361 UBER00017176 UBER00017176

362 UBER00017177 UBER00017177

363 UBER00017178 UBER00017178

364 UBER00017179 UBER00017179

365 UBER00017180 UBER00017180

366 UBER00017181 UBER00017183

367 UBER00017184 UBER00017184

368 UBER00017185 UBER00017185

369 UBER00017186 UBER00017186

371 UBER00017187 UBER00017187

372 UBER00017188 UBER00017188

373 UBER00017189 UBER00017189

374 UBER00017190 UBER00017190

375 UBER00017191 UBER00017191

376 UBER00017192 UBER00017192

377 UBER00017193 UBER00017193

378 UBER00017194 UBER00017194

1456 UBER00017195 UBER00017195

1460 UBER00017196 UBER00017196

1461 UBER00017197 UBER00017197

1

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 12 of 14
Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 3:17‐cv‐00939‐WHA (N.D. Cal.)

CROSS‐REFERENCE OF EMPLOYEE ATTESTATIONS PRODUCED IN UBER_033

WITH APRIL 10, 2017 PRIVILEGE LOG ENTRIES

4/10/2017 Priv

Log Entry

PROD_BEG PROD_END

1462 UBER00017198 UBER00017198

1463 UBER00017199 UBER00017199

1464 UBER00017200 UBER00017200

1465 UBER00017201 UBER00017201

1466 UBER00017202 UBER00017202

1467 UBER00017203 UBER00017203

1468 UBER00017204 UBER00017204

1469 UBER00017205 UBER00017205

1470 UBER00017206 UBER00017206

1471 UBER00017207 UBER00017207

1478 UBER00017208 UBER00017208

1484 UBER00017209 UBER00017209

1485 UBER00017210 UBER00017210

1486 UBER00017211 UBER00017211

1487 UBER00017212 UBER00017212

1488 UBER00017213 UBER00017213

1489 UBER00017214 UBER00017214

1490 UBER00017215 UBER00017215

1491 UBER00017216 UBER00017216

1492 UBER00017217 UBER00017217

1493 UBER00017218 UBER00017218

1494 UBER00017219 UBER00017219

1495 UBER00017220 UBER00017220

1496 UBER00017221 UBER00017221

1497 UBER00017222 UBER00017222

1498 UBER00017223 UBER00017223

1499 UBER00017224 UBER00017224

1500 UBER00017225 UBER00017225

1501 UBER00017226 UBER00017226

1502 UBER00017227 UBER00017227

1503 UBER00017228 UBER00017228

1504 UBER00017229 UBER00017229

1505 UBER00017230 UBER00017230

1506 UBER00017231 UBER00017231

1507 UBER00017232 UBER00017232

1508 UBER00017233 UBER00017233

1509 UBER00017234 UBER00017234

1510 UBER00017235 UBER00017237

1511 UBER00017238 UBER00017238

1512 UBER00017239 UBER00017239

1513 UBER00017240 UBER00017240

1515 UBER00017241 UBER00017241

2

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 13 of 14
Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 3:17‐cv‐00939‐WHA (N.D. Cal.)

CROSS‐REFERENCE OF EMPLOYEE ATTESTATIONS PRODUCED IN UBER_033

WITH APRIL 10, 2017 PRIVILEGE LOG ENTRIES

4/10/2017 Priv

Log Entry

PROD_BEG PROD_END

1516 UBER00017242 UBER00017242

1517 UBER00017243 UBER00017243

1518 UBER00017244 UBER00017244

1519 UBER00017245 UBER00017245

1520 UBER00017246 UBER00017246

1521 UBER00017247 UBER00017247

1522 UBER00017248 UBER00017248

3

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-13 Filed 06/15/17 Page 14 of 14