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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER RE: WAYMO'S MOTION FOR 

RELIEF REGARDING CERTAIN 

DEPOSITIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 1083

Fact discovery closes August 24, 2017. However, the Federal Circuit is not holding oral 

argument on Anthony Levandowski’s appeal of the Court’s order compelling disclosure of the 

Stroz Report until August 11, 2017. To complete all depositions by the discovery cut off, certain

depositions must be taken before the Federal Circuit’s ruling. Waymo thus asks that it be allowed 

to take the depositions of Soren Juelsgaard, Nina Qi, Cameron Poetzscher, Colin Sebern and Don

Burnette in two steps. First, that it begin each deposition before the Federal Circuit ruling, and 

second, that it complete the deposition after the ruling and, if the ruling is affirmed, Uber’s 

production of the Stroz Report and related documents. Waymo does not ask for extra time, only 

that its time be divided over two sessions.

Uber agrees that if the Federal Circuit affirms the Court’s ruling, Waymo should be 

allowed to reopen the depositions to question the witnesses regarding matters raised by the newlydisclosed documents. However, it disputes that Waymo should be allowed to continue the 

depositions regardless of the Federal Circuit ruling; that is, if the Federal Circuit ruling does not 

lead to the disclosure of any new documents then it insists that the witnesses should not be put to 

the burden of a further deposition.

In the unique circumstances of this case the Court finds that these witnesses’ depositions 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1125 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

should be split into two sessions: one before the Federal Circuit ruling and one after. These are 

critical witnesses and thus Waymo needs to triage how to allocate its seven-hours of deposition 

time per witness. Requiring Waymo to make that decision without knowing what documents will 

be available and what they might say is not consistent with the goals of civil discovery of avoiding 

trial by surprise. Given that moving the discovery deadline is not an option, splitting the 

depositions into two sessions is the next best option. 

Doing so will not place an undue burden on these Uber witnesses as they agreed to sit for a 

further deposition session if the Court’s ruling is affirmed and the withheld documents produced. 

Further, Waymo is not getting any extra time for their depositions so the amount of time in 

deposition does not change. Finally, Uber’s suggestion that Waymo’s questions be limited to areas 

raised by newly-disclosed documents will merely result in further disputes as to whether the 

questions are within the scope of the continued deposition. Accordingly, Waymo’s motion is 

GRANTED.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 1083.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1125 Filed 08/08/17 Page 2 of 2