GONZALEZ DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER REQUIRING DECLARATIONS (DKT. 1536) 

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

pa-1802028 

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 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

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 

WILLIAM CARMODY (Pro Hac Vice) 

bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com 

SHAWN RABIN (Pro Hac Vice) 

srabin@SusmanGodfrey.com 

SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 

1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor 

New York, NY 10019-6023 

Telephone: 212.336.8330 

Facsimile: 202.336.8340 

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

DECLARATION OF ARTURO J. 

GONZÁLEZ IN RESPONSE TO 

COURT’S ORDER REQUIRING 

DECLARATIONS (DKT. 1536) 

Judge: Honorable William Alsup 

Trial Date: October 10, 2017 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1586 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 6
GONZALEZ DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER REQUIRING DECLARATIONS (DKT. 1536) 

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

pa-1802028 

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 

I, Arturo J. González, declare as follows: 

1. I am a partner with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel of record for 

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC (collectively “Uber”) in this action. I 

am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of California. I make this declaration in 

response to this Court’s Order Requiring Declarations. (Dkt. 1536.) I have personal knowledge 

of the facts contained in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify 

competently thereto. 

THE 14,000 FILES 

2. In its Complaint in this case, Waymo alleged that Anthony Levandowski 

misappropriated “14,000 highly confidential and proprietary files.” (Dkt. 1 at 3:12.) Waymo 

used that allegation in support of its successful effort to obtain preliminary injunctive relief and 

an expedited discovery and trial schedule. 

DOCUMENTS PRODUCED LAST DAY OF DISCOVERY 

3. On the last day of discovery, August 24, 2017, Waymo produced approximately 

7,350 documents, which represents roughly 33% of its total document production to date of 

approximately 22,572 documents. Since the close of fact discovery, Waymo has produced 

approximately 1,679 documents. These document totals are based on the documents from 

Waymo’s productions uploaded by Uber’s discovery vendor. 

SASHA ZBROZEK: “DOESN’T RING ALARM BELLS” 

4. In its August 24, 2017 production, Waymo produced documents that it had 

previously withheld as privileged. Those documents include emails between Google engineers 

who were asked to assist in the investigation regarding Mr. Levandowski, and lawyers for Google 

(both in house lawyers and lawyers from Keker, Van Nest, & Peters). In one of the email chains, 

a Google engineer (Sasha Zbrozek) advises one of the Google lawyers from the Keker firm that 

the 14,000 files that were accessed by Mr. Levandowski are “low-value” files. (WAYMOUBER-00086885 at 86.) He goes on to say that it was not “particularly surprising” that Mr. 

Levandowski may have accessed those files and summarized his views by saying: “Doesn’t ring 

the alarm bells for me.” (Id.) A true and correct copy of this email chain is attached hereto as 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1586 Filed 09/15/17 Page 2 of 6
GONZALEZ DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER (DKT. 1536) 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 2

pa-1802028 

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 

Exhibit 1 at WAYMO-UBER-00086885. We applied redactions to be in compliance with 

Magistrate Judge Corley’s Order denying in part Waymo’s sealing motion. (Dkt. 1444.) 

5. The email chain also shows that Google investigated eight former employees who 

had joined Uber, and that six of them had never accessed the repository where the 14,000 files 

were allegedly downloaded. (See Ex. 1 at 86888.) 

6. A second Google engineer on the email chain stated that it “wouldn’t be out of 

normal operation” for the entire folder to be “sync’d” if someone accessed the repository to sync 

files “locally for work.” (Ex. 1 at 86890.) 

ZBROZEK’S EMAIL TO GOOGLE’S IN-HOUSE COUNSEL 

7. There is a related email chain that was produced after the close of discovery, on 

September 2, 2017. A true and correct copy of this email chain, which Google has marked 

Attorneys’ Eyes Only but has been redacted in order to allow for public filing, is attached hereto 

as Exhibit 2 at WAYMO-UBER-00086932. That email was written on February 22, 2017, the day 

before this lawsuit was filed. In that email, Mr. Zbrozek writes to Shana Stanton, an in-house 

Google lawyer: 

Well, Anthony’s log speaks to the number of files. It also expresses 

the (rough) filesize for each transaction. Figuring out the totals for 

both can be done by parsing the log snippet. Do you need assistance 

with that? I'm a little leery because both of those numbers aren't 

really meaningful to any narrative. It also has a chilling effect on 

being a hardware engineer - we all do full checkouts, and it makes 

me uncomfortable to think that lawyers are trying to ascribe 

suspicion to it. 

(Exhibit 2 at 86936 (emphasis added).) 

8. In response to Mr. Zbrozek’s reservations and concerns about what the lawyers 

were saying, and his statement that the files that were downloaded by Anthony Levandowski 

were “low value,” one of the Google in-house lawyers wrote to him and said: “Sasha, we want 

to also be able to say that SVN contains only internal confidential stuff, which I understand 

from Pierre is the case.” (Ex. 2 at 86932 (emphasis added).) SVN is the repository that contained 

the 14,000 files that were allegedly misappropriated. It was only after this prodding from 

Google’s lawyer that Mr. Zbrozek modified his position: “Mostly. There’s a bit of boilerplate 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1586 Filed 09/15/17 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1586 Filed 09/15/17 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1586 Filed 09/15/17 Page 5 of 6
GONZALEZ DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER (DKT. 1536) 

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

pa-1802028 

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 

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 

15th day of September, 2017 at San Francisco, California. 

 /s/ Arturo J. González 

Arturo J. González 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1586 Filed 09/15/17 Page 6 of 6