J ONATHAN A . P ATCHEN

ATTORNEY

jpatchen@taylorpatchen.com 

TAYLOR & PATCHEN, LLP

ONE FERRY BUILDING, SUITE 355, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 T 415.788.8200 F 415.788.8208 

August 25, 2017 

Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

Courtroom F - 15th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

Lior Ron’s Letter Brief Re: Waymo’s Motion for a Stroz Protocol (Dkt. 1329) 

Dear Judge Corley: 

We write on behalf of Lior Ron regarding Waymo’s Motion for Relief seeking a protocol for 

the inspection of materials provided to Stroz. (Dkt. 1329). 

First, Mr. Ron respectfully requests that, whatever protocol the Court adopts (whether 

Waymo’s proposal, the one suggested by Mr. Levandowski, or otherwise), the Court order 

that such protocol apply to all diligenced employees, and not just Mr. Levandowski. Doing 

so would avoid inefficiencies and inconsistent outcomes. Having reviewed the protocol 

suggested by Mr. Levandowski, Mr. Ron agrees that such a protocol would more effectively 

serve the goals of efficiency and third-party protection than the protocol suggested by 

Waymo. 

Second, although he previously objected to the general proposal described by Waymo (as 

originally suggested by the Special Master), given the unique temporal exigencies of this 

case, Mr. Ron has been willing to accede to that proposal, but only on the condition that any 

such inspection does not waive any rights Mr. Ron may have to the documents subject to 

inspection (e.g., privilege, privacy, or otherwise). Mr. Ron respectfully requests that any 

order regarding inspection protocol make this clear. 

Third, Mr. Ron requests some modifications to Waymo’s proposal, to the extent it is adopted 

by the Court. The proposal discussed on the meet-and-confer sessions with Master Cooper 

called for (1) Waymo’s inspection of the material on one “stand-alone” computer (e.g., one 

not connected to the Internet) on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis, with counsel for the 

opposing parties (and relevant nonparty) present; (2) Waymo’s identification of the 

documents it wished to have produced based on that inspection; (3) counsel for the relevant 
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley 

August 25, 2017 

Page 2 

TAYLOR & PATCHEN, LLP

ONE FERRY BUILDING, SUITE 355, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 T 415.788.8200 F 415.788.8208 

opposing party to register any objections with respect to documents proposed for production 

(the unobjected-to documents would be promptly bates stamped and produced); and (4) 

resolution of such objections by the Special Master or the Court before production of the 

objected-to documents. 

Mr. Ron’s understanding of the protocol discussed on the calls appears to differ from 

Waymo’s filing in three key ways: (1) Waymo omitted mention of the stand-alone computer 

and attorneys’-eyes-only review; (2) Waymo’s proposal appears to limit the grounds for 

objection to privacy, while excluding other potential grounds (such as relevance or 

privilege); and (3) Waymo’s proposal calls for production of the objected-to material before 

resolution of the objections—thereby defeating the entire benefit of the objection process. 

Mr. Ron respectfully requests the Court consider the foregoing as it determines the proper 

protocol to be implemented in this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jonathan A. Patchen

Jonathan A. Patchen 

cc: Counsel of record (via ECF); Special Master John Cooper