United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGE

CORLEY’S NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER RE

MOTION TO COMPEL

INTRODUCTION

The magistrate judge overseeing discovery in this action granted in part and denied in

part defendants’ motion to compel. Plaintiff moves for relief from that order pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 72. The motion is DENIED. 

STATEMENT

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC (collectively, “Uber”) moved

to compel plaintiff Waymo LLC to, among other things, respond to certain interrogatories and

produce certain documents (Dkt. No. 1215). In an order dated August 19, per the discovery

referral in this action, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley granted in part and denied in part

Uber’s motion (Dkt. No. 1276). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72, Waymo filed a motion for

relief from the August 19 order (Dkt. No. 1289). This order follows full briefing.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1410 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

ANALYSIS

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

Under FRCP 72, a district judge considering timely objections to a magistrate judge’s

nondispositive order must defer to the order unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). “The reviewing

court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Ibid. (citing United

States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

2. WAYMO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

Waymo’s “objections” regarding interrogatory number 25 and request for production

number 166 (see Dkt. Nos. 1289 at 1–3; 1362 at 1–3, 5) are really just requests for clarification

of Judge Corley’s August 19 order. As such, they have been mooted by Judge Corley’s

clarifications on the record during a more recent hearing on August 28. Waymo’s sole

remaining objection is that Judge Corley erred in ordering discovery into seven of its own

transactions (see Dkt. Nos. 1289 at 3–4; 1362 at 3–5). Judge Corley reasoned “that Waymo

intends to ask the jury to draw negative inferences against Uber based on how Uber conducted

the acquisition of Ottomotto,” so “how Waymo conducts its own acquisitions is relevant to the

claims and defenses in this action.” Additionally, the transactions in question are “relevant to

Waymo’s efforts to keep its self-described proprietary information secret” (Dkt. No. 1276 at

1–2). Waymo has not shown that these rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

First, Waymo complains that Uber has not shown “any aspects of those deals that

parallel the aspects of its acquisition of Otto, such as forensic due diligence or indemnity for

confessed acts of trade secret misappropriation or other malfeasance” (Dkt. Nos. 1289 at 3–4;

1362 at 4). But the point of the ordered discovery is so Uber can find out if any such parallels

exist. The showing Waymo demands would be an unreasonable prerequisite to that discovery. 

Second, Waymo suggests its transactions are not discoverable because it “has no

intention of relying on [its] own acquisitions to argue that Uber’s deal was unusual” (Dkt. Nos.

1289 at 4; 1362 at 5). This argument misses the point. Uber remains entitled to discover

evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this action even if Waymo will not use the same

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1410 Filed 08/29/17 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

evidence. Waymo’s related argument that Uber cannot discover relevant evidence merely

because there is other evidence on the same issue (Dkt. No. 1362 at 3) is similarly unpersuasive.

Third, Waymo contends its “own efforts to keep its transactions confidential” are

irrelevant because it “does not challenge Uber’s actions to keep its deal confidential,” and its

“efforts to keep transactions confidential are unrelated to [its] efforts to keep its trade-secret

development away from outside prying eyes” and thus “do not inform whether [it] takes

reasonable measures to protect its trade secrets” (Dkt. No. 1289 at 4). As Uber pointed out in

its motion to compel before Judge Corley, however, Waymo has put at issue the question of

whether efforts to keep an acquisition shrouded in secrecy — as Uber did with the Otto

acquisition — suggest a cover-up of some underlying misconduct (see Dkt. No. 1215 at 2). 

This alone shows that Judge Corley’s ruling was not clearly erroneous.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for relief from Judge Corley’s August 19

order is DENIED. All stated objections thereto are OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1410 Filed 08/29/17 Page 3 of 3