Exhibit 10 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-11 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 9
1

Kevin SmithFrom: Rivera, Sylvia <SRivera@mofo.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 2:40 PMTo: QE-Waymo; UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' 

(BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com); JCooper@fbm.com; MCate@fbm.com; 'rwalsh@go

(rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com); nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com; 'sbrun@goodwinlaw.com' (sbrun@g

'bschuman@goodwinlaw.com' (bschuman@goodwinlaw.com)

Subject: FW: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review

Melissa,Below are responses to your questions:

“Defts’ Amended Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 Production of Doc Identifying Potential Privilege Change Based on 

 Entry # 23 and 243 will be “Produced In Full”

 Entry # 857, 861, 862 remain “Privileged.” They are drafts with comments from attorneys for Uber, exchanged among at

Defts’ Amended Suppl Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 Production of Docs Identifying Potential Privilege Change Bas

 Entry # 121 will be “Produced In Full”

“Defendants’ Privilege Log 5.22.22017 (MoFo) Identifying Privilege Change Based on Judge Corley’s Order.”

 Entry # 31 remains “Privileged.” It is a draft with comments from attorneys for Uber, exchanged among attorneys for Ube

Sylvia

From: Rivera, Sylvia Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:25 PM To: 'Melissa Baily'; John Cooper; 'Edward Takashima'; Matthew Cate; 'Rachel Walsh (RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Neel Chatterjee (nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Shane Brun (SBrun@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Brett Schuman (BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com)'; QE-WaCc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit' Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review Melissa,We’ll look into these and let you know.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-11 Filed 06/15/17 Page 2 of 9
2

SylviaFrom: Melissa Baily [mailto:melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 1:51 PM To: John Cooper; Rivera, Sylvia; 'Edward Takashima'; Matthew Cate; 'Rachel Walsh (RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Neel Chatterjee (nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Shane Brun (SBrun@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Brett Schuman (BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com)'; QE-WaCc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit' Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review - External Email -Counsel,It appears that at least the following entries, which Defendants’ amended logs identify as “Privileged” based on Magistrate Judge 

be produced based on that Order under the criteria provided by Defendants below.

 Entry # 23, 243, 857, 861, 862 from “Defts' Amended Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 Production of Doc Ide

Change Based on Judge Corley's Order”

 Entry # 121 from “Defts' Amended Suppl Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 Production of Docs Identifying Po

on Judge Corley's Order”

 Entry # 31 from “Defendants’ Privilege Log 5.22.22017 (MoFo) Identifying Privilege Change Based on Judge Corley’s Orde

Please let us know whether Defendants agree, in which case we can eliminate this issue from briefing.

MelissaFrom: John Cooper [mailto:JCooper@fbm.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 9:58 AM

To: Melissa Baily <melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com>; Rivera, Sylvia <SRivera@mofo.com>; 'Edward Takashima' <etakashima@BS

<MCate@fbm.com>; 'Rachel Walsh (RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com)' <RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com>; 'Neel Chatterjee (nchatterjee@go<nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com>; 'Shane Brun (SBrun@goodwinlaw.com)' <SBrun@goodwinlaw.com>; 'Brett Schuman (BSchuma<BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit' <BSF_EXTERNAL_USubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review

CounselWe will address this issue in our meet and confer call at 10:30 this morning. John

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-11 Filed 06/15/17 Page 3 of 9
3

From: Melissa Baily [mailto:melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 9:54 AM To: Rivera, Sylvia; 'Edward Takashima'; Cooper, John (19) x4410; Cate, Matthew (20) x4469; 'Rachel Walsh (RWalsh@goodwinlaw(nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Shane Brun (SBrun@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Brett Schuman (BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com)'; QE-WaCc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit' Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review John and Sylvia,

Nothing we asked for is internally inconsistent. We need logs that are useable and understandable, and we need to be able to fo

any particular entry – i.e., the entries cannot be renumbered, though entries related to the same document can certainly be cons

all prior numbering.

Defendants have now refused to provide a single log, have refused to provide redlines, and have refused repeated requests to pr

logs. These refusals seem to indicate that Defendants are intentionally making the logs as difficult to decipher as possible.

We need an immediate identification of any log entries that have been amended in any way beyond the addition of a final “poten

John, we would appreciate your instructing Defendants to provide this information right away, so that the parties can have a mea

noon.MelissaFrom: Rivera, Sylvia [mailto:SRivera@mofo.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 9:08 AM

To: Melissa Baily <melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com>; 'Edward Takashima' <etakashima@BSFLLP.com>; 'John Cooper (JCooper@

<JCooper@fbm.com>; 'Matthew Cate (MCate@fbm.com)' <MCate@fbm.com>; 'Rachel Walsh (RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com)' <RWaChatterjee (nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com)' <nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com>; 'Shane Brun (SBrun@goodwinlaw.com)' <SBrun@gSchuman (BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com)' <BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit' <BSF_EXTERNAL_USubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review

Melissa,When the parties conferred on Friday and agreed that Uber would furnish the privilege logs on Tuesday, you asked only that we “

each amended entry remains the same so that [Quinn] can understand the changes that have been made.” We did that. You did 

response to your belated request below, we tried to run redlines, but they are not useful – possibly because the privilege log entr

handle redlining well. For example, in several instances they mark whole rows as deletions, and then mark the insertion of the sa

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-11 Filed 06/15/17 Page 4 of 9
4

With regard to your request that we create a new, consolidated log that does not contain any duplicate documents held by differ

raised for the first time on Sunday afternoon while we were in mid‐stream – that is an impossible ask given the time constraints. 

with what you previously asked for, which is an update of our existing privilege logs.

Best,Sylvia

From: Melissa Baily [mailto:melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:41 PM To: 'Edward Takashima'; 'John Cooper (JCooper@fbm.com)'; 'Matthew Cate (MCate@fbm.com)'; 'Rachel Walsh (RWalsh@goodwin(nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Shane Brun (SBrun@goodwinlaw.com)'; 'Brett Schuman (BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com)'; QE-WaCc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit' Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review - External Email -John and Counsel,

In order to facilitate discussion and resolution of remaining issues regarding privilege, Waymo requested that Defendants produc

each withheld document only once, indicating all of its custodians in the “custodian” field. (See below.) This request was ignored

cumbersome set of multiple logs for each “custodian” (MoFo, OMM, Uber), a situation that makes the privilege issues harder to p

referenced, so we assume that each entry has the same number in the recently served logs as in prior logs – we ask that Defenda

case.John, to facilitate the Court’s, yours, and our analysis of these logs, we would ask that Defendants be instructed to provide a redli

log to the previous version of the same log by no later than 9 a.m. tomorrow.

MelissaFrom: Melissa BailySent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 1:24 PM

To: 'Edward Takashima' <etakashima@BSFLLP.com>; 'John Cooper (JCooper@fbm.com)' <JCooper@fbm.com>; 'Matthew Cate (M

<MCate@fbm.com>; 'Rachel Walsh (RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com)' <RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com>; 'Neel Chatterjee (nchatterjee@go<nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com>; 'Shane Brun (SBrun@goodwinlaw.com)' <SBrun@goodwinlaw.com>; 'Brett Schuman (BSchuma<BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>Cc: 'UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys' <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit' <BSF_EXTERNAL_USubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review

Counsel,

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-11 Filed 06/15/17 Page 5 of 9
5

In order to facilitate discussion and resolution of remaining issues regarding privilege, Waymo requests that, in connection with t

Defendants produce a single log that lists each withheld document only once, indicating all of its custodians in the “custodian” fie

cross reference the prior entries related to the same document in Defendants’ previous logs, but we think a single consolidated lo

the Special Master, and the parties in evaluating Defendants’ privilege claims.

MelissaFrom: Melissa Baily

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 1:34 PM

To: Edward Takashima <etakashima@BSFLLP.com>; John Cooper (JCooper@fbm.com) <JCooper@fbm.com>; Matthew Cate (MCa

<MCate@fbm.com>; Rachel Walsh (RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com) <RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com>; Neel Chatterjee (nchatterjee@goo<nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com>; Shane Brun (SBrun@goodwinlaw.com) <SBrun@goodwinlaw.com>; Brett Schuman (BSchuman<BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit <BSF_EXTERNAL_UbSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review

Counsel,Our understanding from today’s call with Mr. Cooper is that Defendants have stipulated that they will be revising their privilege lo

detailed entries by 5 p.m. on Tuesday June 13. Such logs will incorporate the information that Defendants were supposed to have 

indication as to which documents they will continue to withhold on privilege grounds regardless of Magistrate Judge Corley’s June 

without waiving any of our arguments or remedies as to the infirmities in the logs to date, we will be forego filing our motion on S

Please make sure that the number of each amended entry remains the same so that we can understand the changes that have be

our request for the production of logs in native form.

We will review Defendants’ statement to be circulated by 2 p.m. today, so that we can meet and confer as much as possible in th

logs. Once we have the revised logs, we propose that all remaining privilege issues be teed up for motion practice on Wednesday

Thanks,MelissaFrom: Melissa Baily

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 11:17 AM

To: 'Edward Takashima' <etakashima@BSFLLP.com>; John Cooper (JCooper@fbm.com) <JCooper@fbm.com>; Matthew Cate (MC

<MCate@fbm.com>; Rachel Walsh (RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com) <RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com>; Neel Chatterjee (nchatterjee@goo

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-11 Filed 06/15/17 Page 6 of 9
6

<nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com>; Shane Brun (SBrun@goodwinlaw.com) <SBrun@goodwinlaw.com>; Brett Schuman (BSchuman<BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit <BSF_EXTERNAL_UbSubject: RE: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege Review

Special Master Cooper and Counsel,

This is unacceptable.

On Wednesday, Judge Alsup repeatedly admonished the parties to move as quickly as possible on this specific issue, and the Spec

the same. Judge Corley’s order regarding the due diligence materials was issued on Monday. Defendants have already had plent

entries on their logs they contend remain privileged in light of that order. And Defendants themselves had agreed they would pro

today.Moreover, the notion that Waymo should do something to analyze Defendants’ privilege assertions is ridiculous on its face, but it 

fact that Defendants’ logs are essentially meaningless. Not only are the descriptions of the logged documents hopelessly broad a

contained in the log appears to bear no relationship to the actual documents described. We have already provided the example o

4/10/17 privilege log, which was later produced as UBER00017199. Not a single bit of information in any field of that entry corres

document. The same is true for Priv. Log. No. 1464 from the 4/10/17 privilege log, which was later produced as UBER00017200 – 

contains information describing the associated document. Defendants’ explanation was that the description of the email to whic

attached was erroneously used for the attachments as well. But that is not true: the descriptions of the attachments vary, with – 

to Levandowski, Ron, Burnette, Juelsgaard, and/or Sebern and others referring only to Levandowski and/or Gardner.

The uselessness of the logs is further exemplified by Sylvia’s commentary in the email thread attached. There she indicates that t

logged twice – once as Priv. Log. Nos. 1456‐1522 and again at Priv. Log. Nos. 312‐378. But the same 67 attachments appear to ha

each time: in the first instance, 52 attachments were produced, 11 were re‐logged, and 4 were neither produced nor re‐logged; i

attachments were produced, 10 were re‐logged, and 18 were neither produced nor re‐logged. Moreover, it appears that the doc

continue to carry the date of the cover email, when we suspect that those documents were prepared prior to their attachment to 

Defendants are contending that timing may be relevant to determining whether the common interest privilege applies, Defendan

actual date of any email attachments. In addition, the re‐logged documents refer to four entire law firms in the “sent by / author

required to provide, and Waymo is entitled to know, the actual individual author(s) of the documents. Similarly, re‐logged docum

“and/or” notations and some refer to an unidentified “Ottomotto employee” – all of which is improper.

We can provide additional examples.

As we have noted, we cannot keep going around and around with respect to these logs, which are facially deficient, inconsistent, 

cannot be used to justify any asserted privilege, and it is Waymo’s view that, at this point, all asserted privileges should be deeme

propose that the parties file simultaneous 3‐page letter briefs at 5 p.m. on Sunday, addressing (i) why Defendants have or have no

of the state of their logs and, in the alternative, (ii) why Defendants should or should not be ordered to provide detailed, accurate 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-11 Filed 06/15/17 Page 7 of 9
7

documents that Defendants contend remain privileged in light of Judge Corley’s June 5 order by 5 p.m. on June 13. No meaningfu

place without privilege logs that correctly describe – in detail – the actual documents being withheld. To the extent the privileges 

we are going to need such privilege logs to make any progress regarding claims of privilege, and the Court should order Defendan

13, so that all remaining issues can be crystallized for motion practice by June 14.

In parallel, we will review whatever “principles” Defendants wish to share regarding their privilege assertions and meet and confe

will facilitate teeing up any remaining issues based on any accurate, detailed logs that Defendants provide.

Thanks, Melissa

From: Edward Takashima [mailto:etakashima@BSFLLP.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 11:37 PM

To: John Cooper (JCooper@fbm.com) <JCooper@fbm.com>; Matthew Cate (MCate@fbm.com) <MCate@fbm.com>; Rachel Wals

<RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com>; Neel Chatterjee (nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com) <nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com>; Shane Brun (SB<SBrun@goodwinlaw.com>; Brett Schuman (BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com) <BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com>; QE‐Waymo <qewayCc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit <BSF_EXTERNAL_UbSubject: Waymo v. Uber: Privilege ReviewSpecial Master Cooper and Counsel, We write to follow up on our discussions concerning Uber’s privilege logs pertaining to documents produced in responsOrder, as well as in response to Magistrate Judge Corley’s order today (Dkt. 567) requiring the parties to meet and confe

promptly resolving privilege log disputes. The privilege logs at issue are: Defendants’ 4-27-17 Amended Privilege Log; 

Amended Supplemental Privilege Log; Defendants’ 4-27-17 Second Supplemental Privilege Log; Defendants’ 4-28-17 TLog; and Defendants’ 5-18-17 Fourth Supplemental Privilege Log. We are in the process of reviewing our logged documents to determine how they are affected by Judge Corley’s June 5 O

Order”). Due to the volume of documents, we will not be able to complete that process by tomorrow. However, we can 2:00 p.m. tomorrow of the principles we believe should govern any downgrades, based on the MTC Order. We propose interpretation of the MTC Order at the same time so that the parties can come into the scheduled noon meet and confer o

others’ positions. We will have a better sense tomorrow of when we will have a complete list of documents that would bprivilege logs based on Uber’s interpretation of the MTC Order, and can discuss that on the scheduled noon meet and coEdward H. Takashima

Partner

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-11 Filed 06/15/17 Page 8 of 9
8

401 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 850Santa Monica, CA 90401(t) +1 310 752 2408(m) +1 213 399 4154etakashima@bsfllp.comwww.bsfllp.comThe information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that, among otclient privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or arecipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have reimmediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1]============================================================================ This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohi

message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthor

distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the o

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

============================================================================ 

This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee is prohi

message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 634-11 Filed 06/15/17 Page 9 of 9