GONZÁLEZ DECL. ISO DEFTS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

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

pa-1779382 

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 app. pending) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice app. pending) 

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; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

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

DECLARATION OF ARTURO J. 

GONZÁLEZ IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO 

COMPEL ARBITRATION OF, AND 

TO STAY, TRADE SECRET AND 

UCL CLAIMS [9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4] 

Date: May 4, 2017 

Time: 8:00 a.m. 

Ctrm: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William H. Alsup 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT 

PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 133 Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 3
GONZÁLEZ DECL. ISO DEFTS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

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

pa-1779382 

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 member of the bar of the State of California and a partner with Morrison & 

Foerster LLP, counsel of record for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, and 

Otto Trucking LLC in this action. I am admitted to practice before this Court. I submit this 

declaration in support of Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel Arbitration of, and to Stay, Trade 

Secret and UCL Claims. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a 

witness, I could and would testify competently as to these facts. 

2. Google commenced two separate arbitration proceedings on October 28, 2016. 

3. The first arbitration demand is directed against two former Google employees, 

Anthony Levandowski and another employee, and is based on three at-will employment 

agreements. Attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Google’s 

October 28, 2016 Arbitration Demand to Anthony Levandowski and [other employee], which 

includes copies of Levandowski’s 2012 and 2009 “At-Will, Employment, Confidential 

Information, Invention Assignment and Arbitration Agreement[s],” which Google attached to its 

Arbitration Demand. The 2012 Employment Agreement begins on page 34 of Exhibit 1; the 

2009 Employment Agreement begins on page 46. 

4. The second arbitration demand is directed to Mr. Levandowski alone. It is based 

on two non-competition and non-solicitation agreements he entered into in 2011 while he was a 

Google employee. This separate Arbitration Demand asserts a single cause of action for breach 

of contract. Attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Google’s 

October 28, 2016 Arbitration Demand to Anthony Levandowski, and the documents Google 

attached to that Demand. 

5. All of the agreements at issue in the two arbitration proceedings contain arbitration 

provisions. For example, Mr. Levandowski’s 2012 at-will employment agreement requires 

arbitration of “all employment-related disputes,” including “any and all controversies, claims, or 

disputes with anyone . . . arising out of, or relating to, or resulting from [his] employment with the 

Company or the termination of [his] employment with the Company.” (2012 Empl. Agreement, 

¶ 14(a), Exhibit 1, p. 38.) Similarly, Mr. Levandowski’s 2011 non-competition and nonCase 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 133 Filed 04/03/17 Page 2 of 3
GONZÁLEZ DECL. ISO DEFTS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

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

pa-1779382 

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 

solicitation agreements state that “any claim or dispute arising out of, or related to or in 

connection with this Agreement” is subject to “binding arbitration.” (2011 Non-Competition and 

Non-Solicitation Agreement, ¶ 9, Exhibit 2, p. 35.) 

6. This week, Defendants will initiate arbitration proceedings in the same 

jurisdiction, at JAMS in San Francisco, seeking a declaratory judgment that Waymo’s claims that 

it misappropriated trade secrets and violated the UCL are meritless. Defendants will initiate this 

arbitration proceeding based upon the broad arbitration provisions in Levandowski’s employment 

agreements with Waymo. 

I declare until penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 

true and correct. Executed this 27th day of March, 2017, in San Francisco, California. 

 /s/ Arturo J. González 

Arturo J. González 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 133 Filed 04/03/17 Page 3 of 3