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: UBER’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DAMAGES DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 1032

In this trade secret misappropriation action Waymo seeks monetary damages in addition to 

injunctive relief. Uber moves to compel additional documents regarding Waymo’s damages 

claim.

A. Waymo’s Financial Viability (RFP 61, 62, 93)

RFP 61 seeks documents “relating to Waymo’s financial viability, including but not

limited to internal business plans, estimates, and future projections at Waymo or Project

Chauffeur.” RFP 62 seeks documents “relating to Waymo’s performance, including but

not limited to the development of and progress assessment for any schedules and milestones at 

Waymo LLC or Project Chauffeur.” And RFP 93 seeks documents “relating to Waymo’s business 

plans, strategic plans, operating plans, marketing plans, financial plans, sales plans, and 

investment plans for its ride-sharing business, including projections for revenue generation and 

profitability.” 

Waymo has produced some documents responsive to these requests. Uber contends the 

production is inadequate because Waymo has (1) refused to produce responsive emails, (2) refused 

to produce responsive documents that exist at Google or Alphabet, and (3) refused to produce 

documents responsive to RFP 93 other than those shared with executives.

While responsive emails may have some relevant information, Uber has failed to articulate 

search parameters that will not result in thousands of unresponsive emails; that is, that make the 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1051 Filed 07/31/17 Page 1 of 3
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

likely value from what is discovered by the search worthwhile. However, as a compromise Uber 

suggests that Waymo produce emails discussing the documents that Waymo did produce. The 

Court agrees. Waymo shall search for and produce emails which discuss or attach the documents 

responsive to these requests that Waymo has already produced.

Waymo has not articulated any reasonable grounds for not producing non-duplicative 

responsive documents that exist at Alphabet or Google other than it believes there will not be 

many. But a belief is not the same as conducting a search and determining if there are responsive 

documents. Waymo shall perform a search at Alphabet and Google for responsive documents; 

however, it does not need to search for emails discussing these to-be-produced documents, if any. 

While such emails might include responsive documents, Uber is not entitled to every piece of 

relevant evidence. A line must be drawn.

Finally Waymo suggests that Uber agreed that in response to Request No. 93 it would 

accept responsive documents shared with executives. However, the attached emails do not reflect 

such an agreement. Request No. 93 is highly relevant to Waymo’s damages claim which, given 

the nascent self-driving car industry, is anything but straight forward. And Waymo has not 

offered any evidence that producing all responsive documents would be burdensome and 

disproportionate to the needs of the case. Waymo’s insistence that responsive documents should 

be limited to those “sufficient to show” is not acceptable. Such an approach allows Waymo to 

unilaterally decide what documents are sufficient to show its business prospects, and would allow 

it to cherry pick those that support its damages claim while withhold those that do not. Waymo 

shall produce all non-duplicative responsive documents, but again need not search for emails 

discussing these to-be-produced documents. 

B. Waymo’s Analysis of the Ridesharing Market (RFP 90, 91, 92, and 94)

Request No. 90 seeks documents “relating Waymo’s estimates of the size of the ridesharing market in the United States for each of the last six years.” Request No. 91 makes the same 

request, but for the “next six years.” Request No. 92 seeks documents “relating to Waymo’s 

forecasts regarding the number of Waymo’s ride-sharing vehicles in the United States, for each of 

the next six years—broken out by U.S. city and on a quarterly basis.” And Request No. 94 seeks

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1051 Filed 07/31/17 Page 2 of 3
3

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

all documents “relating to Waymo’s analysis of any barriers to entry in the ride-sharing

market and the status of any attempts by Waymo to overcome any such barriers, including 

investments and infrastructure needed.”

These documents are directly relevant to Waymo’s damages claim and Waymo does not 

claim otherwise. Instead, it appears to suggest that during the parties’ meet and confer Uber 

agreed to accept Waymo documents discussing Uber’s business prospects and waive any request 

for Waymo documents discussing Waymo’s forecasts for its own business. Again, the parties’ 

emails do not reflect such an agreement. It is unclear whether Waymo is withholding responsive 

documents other than emails. Waymo shall produce emails which discuss or attach the documents 

Waymo has already produced responsive to these requests. It shall also produce any additional 

responsive documents, whether located at Waymo, Alphabet or Google, but it does not need to 

produce emails discussing or attaching these newly-produced documents absent Uber’s showing 

of a particular need related to a specific document.

CONCLUSION

Uber’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as explained above. Given 

the inherently speculative nature of Waymo’s damages claim in light of the nascent status of its 

self-driving vehicle program more discovery is required than in the run-of-the-mill damages case. 

However, more discovery does not mean unlimited discovery; the Court has attempted to draw a 

reasonable line. Waymo shall produce the additional responsive documents on or before August 

10, 2017 and shall advise Uber of how it is conducting its additional search on or before August 4, 

2017. Any objections to this Order shall be filed with the district court on or before Thursday, 

August 3, 2017. This Order is not stayed.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 1032.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1051 Filed 07/31/17 Page 3 of 3