sf-3763607 

Writer’s Direct Contact 

+1 (415) 268.7020 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

425 MARKET STREET 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 

TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000 

FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522 

WWW.MOFO.COM 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

BEIJING , BERLIN , BRUSSELS , 

DENVER , HONG KONG , LONDON , 

LOS ANGELES , NEW YORK , 

NORTHERN VIRGINIA , PALO ALTO , 

SAN DIEGO , SAN FRANCISCO , SHANGHAI ,

SINGAPORE , TOKYO , WASHINGTON , D . C . 

April 27, 2017 

The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

USDC, Northern District of California 

San Francisco Courthouse 

Courtroom F - 15th Floor 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

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

Dear Magistrate Judge Corley: 

This letter briefly addresses the issues we would like to raise with the Court today at 1:30. 

1. Documents Requested in the Page Notice of Deposition 

As this Court will recall, Plaintiff agreed to respond to the document requests served with the 

Larry Page notice of deposition. Plaintiff has now refused to produce documents in response 

to Nos. 3, 4, and 6. (Notice of Deposition attached as Ex. A.) After discussing these requests 

with the Special Master, we agreed to narrow Request No. 3 to only require three joint 

interest agreements that Google or Waymo have entered into. Plaintiff has advised us that 

Waymo has no such agreements and that Google will not produce any. These documents are 

relevant because Plaintiff has argued that in its reply brief in support of preliminary 

injunction that Uber has used this privilege to “hide its unlawful conduct.” Indeed, Waymo 

has included Uber’s privilege logs as exhibits to its reply brief. To the extent that Waymo has 

asserted this privilege in similar circumstances, it will show that Waymo is being 

inconsistent on this issue and provide evidence that Uber’s assertion of the privilege is valid. 

(See Dkt. 142 [Judge Alsup ordering the parties to disclose under oath positions they have 

previously taken with respect to arbitration agreements].) 

Requests 4 and 6 are related and seek communications about possibly bringing an action 

against Defendants or sufficient to show when Waymo began investigating the possibility of 

files having been misappropriated by Anthony Levandowski. Google refuses to produce any 

documents in response to these requests. This information is relevant to Plaintiff’s 

knowledge and motive, to the importance of the purported misappropriated files, and of the 

need for obtaining preliminary relief. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 284 Filed 04/27/17 Page 1 of 2
Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley 

April 27, 2017 

Page Two 

sf-3763607 

2. The Deposition of John Krafcik, Mr. Levandowski’s Former Supervisor 

After the Court sustained the objection to Larry Page’s deposition, we noticed the deposition 

of Mr. Levandowski’s former supervisor. He was head of the autonomous division when Mr. 

Levandowski worked at Google. Recently, he was made CEO of Waymo, which Google 

spun off as a subsidiary in December 2016. Plaintiff refuses to produce him for deposition on 

the same grounds as Mr. Page. They also claim he is not available on Monday, but that is not 

the real dispute. We need to be able to question Mr. Levandowski’s former supervisor. 

We have less than one hour left of our 18 hour allotment so this will be a short deposition. 

We are willing to take it tomorrow afternoon or on the weekend if he is not available on 

Monday. 

Sincerely, 

Arturo J. González 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 284 Filed 04/27/17 Page 2 of 2