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

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502) 

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com 

 Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649) 

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com 

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887) 

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com 

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886) 

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4788 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S RESPONSE TO 

SECOND ORDER RE SCHEDULING 

DEPOSITIONS (DKT. 679) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 699 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 5
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

-1- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

Pursuant to the Court’s June 21 Second Order Re Scheduling Depositions (Dkt. 679), Waymo 

submits the following list of the top ten depositions it wishes to take, identifying each deponent by 

name and advising as to whom they work for. 

Name Employer (if known) 

Travis Kalanick* Formerly Uber (represented by 

Morrison & Foerster) 

Eric Meyhofer Uber 

Max Levandowski Uber 

Brian McClendon* Formerly Uber (represented by 

Morrison & Foerster) 

Ognen Stojanovski Uber 

Emil Michael* Formerly Uber 

Bryan Salesky Argo AI 

Eric Tate* Morrison & Foerster 

Adam Bentley* Uber 

Anthony Levandowski* Otto Trucking 

Names with an * indicates that Waymo requests these depositions be scheduled a reasonable 

period of time after resolution of any privilege issues surrounding the Stroz Report, the subpoena to 

Stroz Friedberg, and the 3500 documents on Defendants’ privilege logs. 

Waymo has attempted to meet and confer with Defendants regarding deposition scheduling 

since the Court’s Order on June 14, but have been facing roadblocks from Defendants. The parties 

agree that more than 10 depositions will be necessary for each side,1

 and in order to develop a 

schedule under which all of these depositions will be completed before August 24, 2017, both Waymo 

and the Special Master have repeatedly asked Defendants to agree to exchange the lists of all 

depositions they wish to take (based on existing discovery). But Defendants refused to share their list 

 

1

 Waymo proposes that these additional depositions be scheduled according to the procedure set 

forth in Waymo’s Response to Order Re Scheduling of Depositions (Dkt. 671.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 699 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 5
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

01980-00104/9383904.2

-2- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

with Waymo saying it was “premature,” despite the Court’s June 14 Order – making a specific 

schedule, or even a framework for them impossible. (See, e.g., Ex. 1.) 

Given the Court’s June 21 Order, in order to assist the Court with assigning a schedule for the 

ten depositions submitted with today’s list, Waymo proposed in advance of a 10 AM meet and confer 

that the parties exchange their lists of ten deponents by no later than 1 PM today, so that each side 

could consult with their witnesses regarding scheduling and inform the Court of any preferred (or 

currently conflicted) dates. On the 10 AM call, Wendy Ray, counsel for Uber, agreed that Waymo’s 

proposal made sense and indicated she would get back to Waymo as soon as possible regarding a 

specific time for the mutual exchange of the top ten depositions. The call ended before 10:15 AM, but

by noon Waymo still had not even heard back from Defendants about a proposed time to exchange the 

lists. Accordingly, and given the urgency of the issues and the importance that the parties meet and 

confer in good faith in connection with the Court’s Order, at 12:05 Waymo requested a 12:30 call with 

the Special Master, which the Special Master immediately scheduled. (Ex. 2.) Initially, no one for 

Defendants showed up on the 12:30 call. At approximately 12:35, however, Arturo Gonzalez (counsel 

for Uber) joined the call. No other attorney representing any Defendant joined the call at any time, 

including those from Defendants who had discussed Waymo’s proposal in the morning. On the call, 

Mr. Gonzalez (who had not participated in the 10 AM call on these issues), said that he was personally

drafting the top ten list on his computer at that very moment, and that his team had not yet discussed

the top ten list with his client. Mr. Gonzalez also indicated that he did not understand the specifics of 

Waymo’s exchange proposal, despite the fact that Waymo first sent it before 10 AM and it was 

discussed by his colleague Ms. Ray on the 10 AM call with the Special Master, and during that 

conversation neither Ms. Ray nor anyone else representing Defendants suggested they did not 

understand Waymo’s proposal. Waymo explained on the 12:30 call that it was ready to exchange 

deposition lists immediately, and that its concern was that Defendants were intentionally delaying and

avoiding a good faith meet and confer so that the Court would assign deposition dates for Waymo’s 

witnesses – which may include Waymo and Google executives – without Waymo’s being given the 

opportunity to inform the Court of existing scheduling conflicts so that he could consider those factors 

in setting the schedule. Both Waymo and the Special Master requested that Uber agree to provide its 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 699 Filed 06/22/17 Page 3 of 5
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

01980-00104/9383904.2

-3- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

deposition list by no later than 2 PM, but Mr. Gonzalez refused saying only that he would try in good 

faith. Waymo also explained that it was ready to provide its entire deposition list – which the sides

had already prepared and sent to the Special Master – and requested, along with the Special Master, 

that both sides agree to an exchange so that the sides could meet and confer in good faith towards a 

complete deposition schedule. Mr. Gonzalez refused that proposal as well. (Ex. 3.) 

As a courtesy and in order to meet and confer in good faith, Waymo provided Defendants with 

its top ten list at 2:41 PM, as well as proposed dates of availability for witnesses that it anticipated 

Defendants may include on their list. (Ex. 3.) Those dates are: 

Name Proposed Deposition Date 

Andrew Schultz July 11 

John Krafcik August 2 

Gary Brown July 12 

Pierre Droz August 4 

Dmitri Dolgoz August 8 

Ben Ingram August 16 

Dan Chu August 22 

Kristinn Gudjonsson July 18 

Michael Janosko July 26 

Chelsea Bailey July 7 

Larry Page^ July 17 

Sergey Brin^ July 17 

David Drummond^ July 17 

Names with a ^ indicates that Waymo does not think these witnesses would be subject of 

proper deposition notices, in particular under the apex doctrine. 

Despite repeated requests from both Waymo and the Special Master, counsel for Defendants 

refused to disclose its list, or even substantively respond to Waymo’s proposal, and as of the time of

this filing Waymo still does not have any information about Defendants’ list. Waymo respectfully 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 699 Filed 06/22/17 Page 4 of 5
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

01980-00104/9383904.2

-4- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

requests that the Court grant Waymo the opportunity to take under consideration the available dates 

above and existing scheduling conflicts of its witnesses before assigning deposition dates. 

DATED: June 22, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP 

By /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven 

Charles K. Verhoeven 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 699 Filed 06/22/17 Page 5 of 5