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

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

SUPPL. COOPER DECLARATION ISO WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502) 

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com 

 Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649) 

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com 

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887) 

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com 

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886) 

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4788 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF 

LINDSAY COOPER IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION 

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, 

SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS, AND 

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS THERETO

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 342 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 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

-2- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

SUPPL. COOPER DECLARATION ISO WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

I, Lindsay Cooper, declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and am admitted to 

practice before this Court. I am an associate at the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, 

LLP, counsel for the Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”). I have personal knowledge of the matters set 

forth in this Declaration, and if called as a witness I would testify competently to those matters. 

2. I make this supplemental declaration in support of Waymo’s Administrative Motion to 

File Under Seal Portions of Its Reply in Support of Its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, 

Supporting Declarations, and Supporting Exhibits Thereto (Dkt. 245) (the “Administrative Motion”). 

This declaration is made in addition to – and supplements – my initial declaration in support of the 

Administrative Motion (Dkt. 245-1). I am filing this supplemental declaration because Waymo 

expected Uber1

 to support sealing certain information designated by Uber, which reflects or refers to 

Waymo’s confidential and proprietary trade secrets, but Uber did not file any such supporting 

declaration. 

3. The Administrative Motion originally sought an order sealing the following materials 

filed concurrently herewith: 

Document Portions to Be Filed 

Under Seal 

Designating Party 

Waymo’s Reply in Support of 

Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction 

Highlighted Portions Waymo (green 

highlighting); 

Uber (blue highlighting) 

Exhibits 64-66, 82-84, and 90 to 

the Declaration of Jordan Jaffe 

(“Jaffe Decl.”) 

Green Highlighted 

Portions 

Waymo 

Exhibits 65-67, 84, and 91 to the 

Jaffe Decl. 

Blue Highlighted 

Portions 

Uber 

Exhibits 61-64, 68-78, 80-83, 85-

88, 92-101, 104-107, 109-110 to 

the Jaffe Decl. 

Entire Documents Uber 

Declaration of Gregory Kintz 

(“Kintz Decl.”) 

Highlighted Portions Waymo (green 

highlighting); 

Uber (blue highlighting) 

 

1

 “Uber” means Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC, collectively. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 342 Filed 05/03/17 Page 2 of 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

-3- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

SUPPL. COOPER DECLARATION ISO WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

4. Although Waymo expected Uber to support sealing portions of Exhibits 65-67, 84, and 

91, and Exhibits 61-64, 68-78, 80-83, 85-88, 92-101, 104-107, 109-110 to the Jaffe Decl., Uber’s 

sealing declaration was more limited than Waymo expected. For example, Uber had previously 

designated the material in portions of Waymo’s Reply Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 

declarations in support thereof, and exhibits thereto (collectively “PI Reply”) as containing Uber 

confidential information. Uber has since withdrawn those designations. But because Waymo 

maintains that this material is confidential to Waymo, Waymo still seeks to seal it. 

5. Specifically, Waymo’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 

declarations in support thereof, and exhibits thereto (collectively “PI Reply”) contain or refer to trade 

secret and confidential business information, which Waymo seeks to seal. 

6. Waymo’s PI Reply (portions highlighted in green), Exhibits 65-66, 68, 83-84, & 91 

(portions highlighted in green), Exhibits 85, 87, 101, & 107, and the Kintz Decl. (portions highlighted 

in green) each contain, reference, and/or describe Waymo’s asserted trade secrets. The information 

Waymo seeks to seal includes the confidential design and functionality of Waymo’s proprietary 

autonomous vehicle system, which Waymo maintains as secret. This information also contains Uber 

documents that reflect Waymo’s misappropriated trade secrets. I understand that these trade secrets 

are maintained as secret by Waymo (Dkt. 25-47) and are valuable as trade secrets to Waymo’s 

business (Dkt. 25-31). The public disclosure of this information would give Waymo’s competitors 

access to in-depth descriptions—and analysis—of the functionality of Waymo’s autonomous vehicle 

system. If such information were made public, I understand that Waymo’s competitive standing 

would be significantly harmed. 

7. For the Court’s convenience, a revised table including the materials that both Waymo 

and Uber seek to seal is below, and Waymo is also submitting a revised proposed order herewith. 

Document Portions to Be Filed 

Under Seal 

Designating Party 

Waymo’s Reply in Support of 

Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction 

Highlighted Portions Waymo (green 

highlighting); 

Uber (blue highlighting) 

Exhibits 65-66, 68, 83-84, & 91 

(portions highlighted in green) to 

the Declaration of Jordan Jaffe 

Green Highlighted 

Portions 

Waymo 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 342 Filed 05/03/17 Page 3 of 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

-4- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

SUPPL. COOPER DECLARATION ISO WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

(“Jaffe Decl.”) 

Exhibits 61-63 and 67 to the Jaffe 

Decl. 

Blue Highlighted 

Portions 

Uber 

Exhibits 85, 87, 101 and 107 to the 

Jaffe Decl. 

Entire Documents Waymo 

Exhibits 69, 70-78, 86, 92-100, 

104-106, and 109-110 to the Jaffe 

Decl. 

Entire Documents Uber 

Declaration of Gregory Kintz 

(“Kintz Decl.”) 

Highlighted Portions Waymo (green 

highlighting); 

Uber (blue highlighting) 

8. Waymo’s request to seal is narrowly tailored to those portions of the PI Motion and 

supporting exhibits that merit sealing. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United 

States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed in San 

Francisco, California, on May 3, 2017. 

By /s/ Lindsay Cooper 

 Lindsay Cooper 

 Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 342 Filed 05/03/17 Page 4 of 4