DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO COURT-ORDERED INTERROGATORIES

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; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

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

DEFENDANTS UBER 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OTTOMOTTO 

LLC, AND OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S 

RESPONSES TO COURT-ORDERED 

INTERROGATORIES TO ASSIST 

COURT IN SUPERVISING CASE 

MANAGEMENT AND EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 265 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 8
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO COURT-ORDERED INTERROGATORIES

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

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 

COURT INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 

Identify by name and position each present and former officer, director, or employee of 

defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (including attorneys), who received prior to the acquisition of 

Ottomotto LLC and Otto Trucking LLC any electronic or paper material or communication 

regarding LiDAR or any aspect thereof from: 

(i) Anthony Levandowski or his representatives, or 

(ii) Anyone else advising that the material came from Anthony Levandowski or his 

representatives. 

Any name or communication already disclosed on a privilege log may be omitted. 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 

Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Ottomotto LLC (“Otto”) set forth their response in 

Exhibit A. 

Otto Trucking LLC has not been acquired by Uber Technologies, Inc. and remains a 

distinct legal entity. Otto Trucking has no independent knowledge of the contents of Exhibit A 

beyond Uber and Otto’s disclosure. 

COURT INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 

For each such person, identify and describe the material or communication received with 

sufficient detail to establish any privilege from production, or simply produce the material or 

communication received to plaintiff’s counsel by APRIL 25. 

Any name or communication already disclosed on a privilege log may be omitted. 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 

Uber and Otto respond as follows: 

The numbers in this response correspond to the names in Exhibit A. 

1. Discussions regarding potentially providing LiDAR hardware for Uber; 

discussions in connection with acquisition of OttoMotto and Otto Trucking 

2. Discussions regarding potentially providing LiDAR hardware for Uber 

3. See UBER00011972 - UBER00011981, UBER00011989 - UBER00011998, 

UBER00012004 - UBER00012006. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 265 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 8
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO COURT-ORDERED INTERROGATORIES

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

4. See UBER00011982 - UBER00011988, UBER00012031. 

5. Discussions regarding whether to purchase Velodyne LiDARs. See also 

UBER00011972 - UBER00011981. 

6. See UBER00011972 - UBER00011981. 

7. See UBER00011972 - UBER00011981, UBER00011989. 

8. Discussions regarding whether to purchase Velodyne LiDARs. See also 

UBER00011972 - UBER00011981. 

9. See UBER00011972 - UBER00011988, UBER00011992 - UBER00012003, 

UBER00012007 - UBER00012039. 

10. See UBER00011972 - UBER00011981. 

11. See UBER00011972 - UBER00011981. 

12. Discussions regarding whether to purchase Velodyne LiDARs. 

13. Discussions regarding how LiDAR works. 

14. May have had discussions about Uber’s requirements for LiDAR. 

15. May have discussed reliance on LiDAR versus camera. 

16. May have discussed labeling LiDAR data or spurious points. See also 

UBER00012030 - UBER00012039. 

17. Present when Anthony Levandowski and Drew Bagnell discussed background 

subtraction and the possibility of changing the laser firing order to eliminate spurious points. 

18. Presented to Mr. Levandowski and others about Uber’s LiDAR simulation efforts 

(creating fake LiDAR points for simulation purposes). 

19. Presented with Mr. Liemhetchara. 

20. Presented to Mr. Levandowski and others about how Uber does mapping. LiDAR 

would only have come up in the context of how LiDAR returns are used to localize the vehicle. 

21. When discusing radar, Mr. Levandowski used LiDAR as an example to back up 

his position about where to locate radar sensors on a car 

22. Very brief chit-chat regarding general LiDAR technology 

23. Discussions regarding how LiDAR works 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 265 Filed 04/25/17 Page 3 of 8
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO COURT-ORDERED INTERROGATORIES

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

24. Discussions regarding mapping vehicles and what kinds of LiDAR data was being 

collected and was available 

25. Discussions regarding how LiDAR works and why LiDAR is important; 

discussions in connection with acquisition of OttoMotto and Otto Trucking 

26. Discussions about how the Velodyne was returning spurious points during road 

testing 

27. See UBER00012004 - UBER00012006. 

Otto Trucking LLC has not been acquired by Uber Technologies, Inc. and remains a 

distinct legal entity. Otto Trucking has no independent knowledge of the contents of Exhibit A or 

their response to this Interrogatory beyond Uber and Otto’s disclosure above. 

COURT INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 

Identify and describe in approximate chronological sequence all LiDAR-related work 

Anthony Levandowski has done since leaving Waymo, including whether or not that work led to 

or related to any prototype or device, and describe how and where that work is reflected. 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 

Immediately after leaving Google, Anthony Levandowski began working at the entity that 

ultimately became Otto. His primary responsibilities involved management of the new startup 

company. Otto’s first concept for an optical scanner that could have potentially been used for 

LiDAR applications was . 

Mr. Levandowski was not a LiDAR engineer, but contributed some high-level ideas to the 

concept. He made some rough sketches of potential designs, which contemplated the use of off 

the shelf parts (i.e., lens, lens mount, optical breadboard) and worked on some of the math 

relating to potential beams (points per second), but never created any Computer-Aided Design 

(CAD) files. He also approved purchases of commercially available parts for tools and may have 

suggested a commercially available motor that could be used to spin the mirrors. This concept 

never progressed past the early stages of design before it was abandoned. Although a few 

components for this concept may have been built by other engineers at Otto, this concept could 

not be used for LiDAR applications because it did not include many of the components necessary 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 265 Filed 04/25/17 Page 4 of 8
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO COURT-ORDERED INTERROGATORIES

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 4

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 

for a LiDAR sensor (e.g., a pulsed light source, timing circuitry, a receiver, etc.). In 

February 2016, Mr. Levandowski and Mr. Dan Gruver attended Photonics West and met with 

vendors including Princeton Light Wave, Kyopsys, O-Net, and Nalux to discuss LiDAR. 

Around May 2016, Otto began operating out of its 737 Harrison Street location in 

San Francisco, California. During this time frame, Mr. Levandowski continued to be primarily 

involved in management of the company but also did a lot of cheerleading on the sidelines, asked 

for progress reports from his engineers, and encouraged the team to focus on developing a 

LiDAR prototype. 

In April 2016, while Otto was being considered as a potential LiDAR hardware supplier 

for Uber, Mr. Levandowski met with Mr. Scott Boehmke (an engineering manager at Uber) to 

discuss Uber’s requirements for a potential custom LiDAR sensor. Mr. Levandowski also 

introduced Mr. Boehmke to several engineers at Otto. 

In May 2016, Mr. Boehmke met with Mr. Levandowski and discussed a potential LiDAR 

concept that included 8 cavities and 8 fiber lasers, split into 4, 6, or 8 beams to create 32, 48, or 

64 channels, respectively. This concept later evolved into a project that was code-named 

“Spider.” Mr. Levandowski did not provide the beam spacing or angles for Spider, but instead 

asked Mr. Boehmke, as the customer, to provide Uber’s desired beam parameters, which were 

ultimately used as starting requirements for Spider. 

The Spider design incorporated concepts from a pre-existing fiber laser design called 

“Owl” that had previously been developed by a company called Tyto, which Otto acquired in 

May 2016. Again, although Mr. Levandowski was not a LiDAR engineer, he brainstormed a few 

rough sketches of possible optical layouts for Spider with Gaetan Pennecot. Mr. Pennecot 

designed around those rough sketches and used them as a starting point for designing the lenses 

for Spider. Mr. Levandowski neither created any CAD files, nor conducted any in-depth analysis 

or calculations for Spider. He asked for periodic status updates on the Spider project, approved 

purchases for parts, and provided occasional feedback on the design. Most of his involvement 

consisted of encouraging the team to quickly assemble a prototype that could be tested on a truck. 

Despite that encouragement, Otto never completed a prototype of the Spider design. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 265 Filed 04/25/17 Page 5 of 8
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO COURT-ORDERED INTERROGATORIES

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

On August 23, 2016, Otto was acquired by Uber. After the acquisition, Mr. Levandowski 

became the head of the Advanced Technology Group at Uber, which consolidated the 

pre-existing Advanced Technology Center at Uber with the newly acquired Otto team. At this 

time, Mr. Levandowski assumed responsibility over a substantially larger group and became 

much more focused on management duties. Mr. Levandowski does not provide input on detailed 

technical LiDAR design choices at Uber. 

By October 2016, it was brought to Mr. Levandowski’s attention that some Otto engineers 

did not believe in the viability of Spider. This was initially brought to his attention by Mr. Eric 

Meyhofer, who is in charge of the LiDAR hardware team. When Mr. Meyhofer, Mr. Boehmke, 

Mr. James Haslim (an engineering manager at Uber) and other LiDAR engineers determined that 

“Spider” was not a technically viable design and that Uber needed to pivot to a new LiDAR 

design, Mr. Levandowski deferred to their judgment and assented to their recommendation to 

pursue a very different, diode-based, bistatic LiDAR design, which later become the project that 

was code-named “Fuji.” 

Mr. Levandowski has on occasion attended weekly status update meetings for the LiDAR 

team, which includes updates on Fuji, but generally does not attend such meetings and does not 

provide any detailed technical design input. Moreover, Mr. Levandowski did not provide any 

design input for the number of boards in the transmit block, configuration of the boards in the 

transmit block, number of laser diodes on each transmit PCB, number of optical cavities, number 

of channels, beam parameters, positioning of the laser diodes with respect to the edge of the PCB 

or on bond pads, the use of guide holes, the location and orientation of the laser diodes on the 

transmit PCBs, the manufacturing or alignment of FAC lenses, or methods of spacing. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 265 Filed 04/25/17 Page 6 of 8
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO COURT-ORDERED INTERROGATORIES

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 6

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 

Otto Trucking LLC has not been acquired by Uber Technologies, Inc. and remains a 

distinct legal entity. Otto Trucking has no independent knowledge of the contents of Exhibit A or 

their response to this Interrogatory beyond Uber and Otto’s disclosure above. 

Dated: April 25, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 265 Filed 04/25/17 Page 7 of 8