KSHIRSAGAR DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

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 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC 

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 

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, and OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

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

DECLARATION OF SAMEER 

KSHIRSAGAR IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Date: May 3, 2017 

Time: 7:30 a.m. 

Ctrm: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William Alsup 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 222-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 7
2

KSHIRSAGAR DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

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, Sameer Kshirsagar, declare as follows: 

1. I am Director of Global Product Operations for Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”) 

Advanced Technologies Group and served in the same function for Ottomotto LLC (“Otto”) and 

Otto Trucking LLC before Uber’s acquisition of Otto in August 2016. I understand that Waymo 

has filed a lawsuit against Uber and Otto in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

California. I submit this declaration in support of Uber and Otto’s Opposition to Waymo LLC’s 

(“Waymo”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth 

in this declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could and would do so competently. 

2. I joined Otto on July 25, 2016, as its Director of Supply Chain. After Uber 

completed its acquisition of Otto, in October 2016, my title changed to Director of Technical 

Product Operations. In January 2017, my title changed to Director of Global Product Operations 

at Uber. 

3. Prior to joining Otto, I was a Global Supply Manager in Google’s Self-Driving 

Cars division, now Waymo, from August 2015 to July 2016. I first joined Google’s Self-Driving 

Car division as a Manufacturing Engineer in March 2015. 

4. I signed an offer letter when I joined Otto, and signed another offer letter with 

Uber when it acquired Otto. Both letters included provisions regarding third-party intellectual 

property (“IP”) and confidential information, instructing employees not to bring with them and 

use the IP and/or confidential information of any other companies. My Otto offer letter provided 

that “Company does not want you to, and hereby directs that you must not, bring to Company, or 

otherwise use in connection with performing any services on behalf of the Company, any 

intellectual property rights or other proprietary or confidential material or information of any 

former employer or other third party. Accordingly by signing this Offer Letter you represent and 

warrant that you will not bring to Company, or otherwise use in connection with performing any 

services on behalf of the Company, any intellectual property rights or other proprietary or 

confidential material or information of any former employer or other party.” My Uber offer letter 

similarly provided that “In connection with your Employment, you shall not use or disclose any 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 222-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 222-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 222-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 7
5

KSHIRSAGAR DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

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 left Waymo, I turned in my Waymo-assigned laptop and phone to Derek Ivy at Waymo’s 

TechStop. I did not take the transition memorandum or transition documents with me. 

13. With respect to the “Ramp Checklist” (Willis Decl. Ex. C), this was a file that, 

although I do not have a specific recollection of doing so, I believe that I may have forwarded to 

my personal phone in order to review it in the course of my work at Waymo. The “Ramp 

Checklist” document was prepared to assist Waymo in documenting a process that could support 

transitioning hardware ownership from the development team to the commercial team. I needed 

to read and understand this document to assist in the transition, and give feedback to my 

successors and others who had recently joined the team. I have not accessed this file since 

leaving Waymo. I have provided my personal phone to my legal counsel so that the phone can 

undergo forensic examination and this document can be returned to Waymo. 

14. With respect to the “All Things” document (Willis Decl. Ex. F), I believe this was 

one document in a three-part series that would have been prepared for a weekly presentation that I 

and my counterparts supporting the LiDAR team could attend for the purpose of listening, 

technical growth, and improving my ability to support the team in the course of my work at 

Waymo, not for any future use. I do not have a specific recollection of accessing this document. 

I do recall accessing another document in this three-part series, and I may have forwarded that 

document to my personal phone to review it in the course of my work. I have not accessed this 

file since leaving Waymo. I have provided my personal phone to my legal counsel so that the 

phone can undergo forensic examination and this document can be returned to Waymo. 

15. Willis Decl. Ex. B, the “Laser Questions” document, appears to have been 

prepared by a Waymo LiDAR team member for a weekly presentation that I and my counterparts 

supporting the LiDAR team could attend for the purpose of listening, technical growth, and 

improving my ability to support the team. This is a file that, although I do not have a specific 

recollection of doing so, I believe I would have accessed simply to read it in the course of my 

employment at Waymo. If it was a document forwarded to my personal phone as part of my 

work at Waymo, I have provided my personal phone, my work-issued phone, and work-issued 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 222-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 7
6

KSHIRSAGAR DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

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 

laptop to counsel for forensic examination. If it was a document downloaded to my Waymoassigned laptop as part of my work at Waymo, I turned in that laptop to Derek Ivy at the 

TechStop when I left Waymo. 

16. I have not used any information from the files listed in Paragraphs 24-28 of the 

Brown Declaration and Paragraph 7 of the Willis Declaration in my work at Uber and Otto. 

17. I understand that Waymo’s First Amended Complaint alleges in Paragraphs 51-52 

that a former Waymo supply chain manager knew of the identity of an allegedly confidential 

vendor that Waymo ultimately engaged to provide manufacturing services. I do not know which 

vendor is referenced in these allegations, nor do I know which vendors Waymo ultimately 

engaged after July 2016. 

18. Furthermore, I have not made any decisions regarding suppliers or vendors for 

Uber or Otto based on confidential information obtained from Google or Waymo. Before my 

arrival at Otto, the LiDAR team at Otto had already established relationships with certain 

vendors. Due to the growth of my team, I am not directly involved in choosing vendors for the 

LiDAR team. I have not given the LiDAR team, or my team, any confidential vendor 

information. 

19. I note that vendor information is publicly available from forums such as the annual 

SPIE Photonics West convention at San Francisco’s Moscone Center, which is one of the largest 

photonics technologies events in the world. Many vendors that provide components and services 

for LiDAR technology have exhibits and public demonstrations at events such as Photonics West. 

There were 1,300 companies at the most recent expo, which occurred from January 31 to 

February 2, 2017, which I attended. Additionally, I believe a number of high technology 

companies, including Apple, have published lists of their top vendors that are publicly available 

on their websites. 

20. Before this lawsuit, I had never heard of the 14,000 files Waymo alleges that 

Anthony Levandowski downloaded. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 222-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 222-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 7