EXHIBIT 18 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 16
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 

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA) 

Neel Chatterjee (SBN 173985)

nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, California 94025-1105 

Tel.: +1 650 752 3100 

Fax.: +1 650 853 1038 

Brett Schuman (SBN 189247) 

bschuman@goodwinlaw.com

Rachel M. Walsh (SBN 250568) 

rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Tel.: +1 415 733 6000 

Fax.: +1 415 677 9041 

Attorneys for Defendant

OTTO TRUCKING LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

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

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND 

SET OF EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION 

Trial Date: October 10, 2017 

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff: WAYMO LLC 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant: OTTO TRUCKING LLC 

SET: Second Set of Expedited Requests for Production 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 16
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 1

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant Otto Trucking LLC 

(“Otto Trucking”) hereby provides objections and responses (“Objections” and “Responses”) to 

Plaintiff Waymo LLC’s (“Waymo”) Second Set of Expedited Requests for Production (the 

“Requests”) served by Waymo on Otto Trucking on May 26, 2017. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Otto Trucking states that it is responding to the Requests to the best of its present ability. 

Otto Trucking has not completed its pre-trial research, investigation, or analysis of all the facts 

relating to this case, however, and has not completed its preparation for trial. Accordingly, while 

these Responses are based upon appropriate investigation by Otto Trucking and its counsel, they 

reflect the current state of Otto Trucking’s knowledge respecting the matters about which inquiry 

is made. Thus, the information contained herein remains subject to further review, and, in making 

these Responses, Otto Trucking reserves the right to amend, supplement, and/or otherwise change 

its Responses to these Requests as further investigation and discovery may make appropriate in 

accordance with Otto Trucking’s obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Furthermore, Otto Trucking has prepared these Responses based on its good faith interpretation 

and understanding of each individual Request, but Otto Trucking reserves its right to correct any 

errors or omissions. 

Otto Trucking does not waive or intend to waive any objections that it may have regarding 

the use of any information provided, and Otto Trucking expressly reserves the rights to: (a) object 

to Plaintiff’s use of any information provided on the ground of inadmissibility; and (b) object on 

any and all proper grounds, at any time, to any other discovery involving or relating to any 

information produced. No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the Responses set 

forth herein. 

These Responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Nothing herein shall be 

construed as an admission respecting the admissibility or the relevance of any facts, documents, or 

information, as an admission that documents or information exist, or as an admission as to the 

truth or accuracy of any characterization or assertion contained in any Request. Each Response is 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 3 of 16
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

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, and 

any and all other objections on grounds that would require the exclusion of any statement herein if 

any of the Requests were asked of, or statements contained herein were made by, a witness present 

and testifying in court, all of which objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at 

the time of trial. 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

1. Otto Trucking objects to the Requests to the extent it purports to impose any 

obligations upon Otto Trucking beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and any 

applicable orders of this Court, including the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. 

2. Otto Trucking objects to the Requests on the grounds that they are overbroad and 

unduly burdensome, indefinite as to time and scope, call for information not relevant to any claim 

or defense in this litigation, and are not proportional to the needs of the case. 

3. Otto Trucking objects to each and every Request to the extent it seeks information 

protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint 

defense privilege, or any other privilege. Plaintiff’s discovery will not be construed to seek such 

information. Inadvertent disclosure of privileged information is not intended to be, and may not 

be construed as, a waiver of any applicable privilege or similar basis for non-disclosure. 

4. Otto Trucking reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses if new or 

further information is obtained in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e).

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 

All lab notebooks belonging to LiDAR personnel or associated with LiDAR workstations. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 4 of 16
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

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking further objects to 

this Request as vague and ambiguous, as to the terms “LiDAR personnel” and “LiDAR 

workstations” are nowhere defined. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any documents responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody, or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show how the placement of FAC lenses on laser diodes is 

performed. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any documents responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody, or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the design of any assembly tools for FAC lenses. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking further objects to 

this Request as vague and ambiguous, as the term “assembly tools” is nowhere defined. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 5 of 16
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

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any documents responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody, or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 

All COMMUNICATIONS between Brian McClendon and LEVANDOWSKI. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking objects to this 

Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “[a]ll 

COMMUNICATIONS.” 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any communications responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 

All COMMUNICATIONS between Brian McClendon and any PERSON REGARDING 

OTTOMOTTO or OTTO TRUCKING before August 23, 2016. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking further objects to 

this Request to the extent it seeks information or materials not within Otto Trucking’s possession, 

custody, or control. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any communications responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody or control following a diligent search. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 6 of 16
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 5

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: 

All COMMUNICATIONS between Travis Kalanick and LEVANDOWSKI. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking objects to this 

Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “[a]ll 

COMMUNICATIONS.” 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any communications responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 

All COMMUNICATIONS between Travis Kalanick and any PERSON REGARDING 

LiDAR. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking further objects to 

this Request to the extent it seeks information or materials not within Otto Trucking’s possession, 

custody, or control. Otto Trucking further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks 

communications protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, 

joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any communications responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody or control following a diligent search. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 7 of 16
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 6

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 

All COMMUNICATIONS between Travis Kalanick and any PERSON REGARDING, 

LEVANDOWSKI, OTTOMOTTO or OTTO TRUCKING before August 23, 2016. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking further objects to 

this Request to the extent it seeks information or materials not within Otto Trucking’s possession, 

custody, or control. Otto Trucking further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks 

communications protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, 

joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any communications responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: 

All invoices submitted to any DEFENDANT in connection with the March 4 Engagement 

Letter (Exhibit 3 to the May 8, 2017 Declaration of Eric A. Tate in Support of Defendants’ 

Opposition to Waymo’s Motion to Compel). 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking further objects to 

this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the attorney client privilege, 

the attorney work product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other 

applicable privilege or immunity. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 8 of 16
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 7

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any documents or communications responsive to this 

Request in its possession, custody or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 

All COMMUNICATIONS between any DEFENDANT and John Gardner. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks communications protected by the joint 

defense or common interest privilege. Otto Trucking further objects to this Request to the extent 

that it seeks communications protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney work product 

doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Otto Trucking further objects to this 

Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret misappropriation claims only,” 

as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents unrelated to any claims or defenses in this matter. Otto Trucking objects to this 

Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “[a]ll 

COMMUNICATIONS.” 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: documents responsive to this Request are subject to the joint defense privilege, common 

interest privilege, attorney-client privilege, and the attorney work-product doctrine, and have been 

logged in privilege logs served on April 13, 2017 in Defendants’ Supplemental Privilege Log 

Associated with March 31, 2017 Production of Documents, on April 27, 2017 in Defendants’ 

Amended Supplemental Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 Production of Documents, 

on April 28, 2017 in Defendants’ Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 Production of 

Documents, on May 1, 2017 in Defendants’ Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 

Production of Documents, and on May 22, 2017 in Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC’s 

Privilege Log 5.22.2017 (O’Melveny & Myers LLP). 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 9 of 16
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 8

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 

All agreements and “software modules” identified in Sections 2.8, 2.10 and 2.15 of the 

OTTOMOTTO DISCLOSURE SCHEDULES. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any documents responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody, or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 

All agreements identified in Sections 2.10 and 2.15 of the OTTO TRUCKING 

DISCLOSURE SCHEDULES. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking states that it has produced documents responsive to this Request. Otto 

Trucking will further produce indemnification agreements and restricted unit purchase agreements 

responsive to this Request following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 

All agreements between TYTO and/or ODIN WAVE, on the one hand, and any 

DEFENDANT or LEVANDOWSKI, on the other, and any disclosures, schedules, exhibits, 

appendices, or attachments to such agreements. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 10 of 16
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 9

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking objects to this 

Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “[a]ll agreements.” 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any agreements responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 

All COMMUNICATIONS between any DEFENDANT and NALUX REGARDING FAC 

lenses or LIDAR. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking objects to this 

Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “[a]ll 

COMMUNICATIONS.” 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any documents responsive to this Request in its 

possession, custody or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 

All DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING any of 

LEVANDOWSKI’s past and present “Authorized Devices” (as that term is defined in 

UBER00006444, Section 7), INCLUDING (without limitation) any request for approval in 

connection with Section 7.2 or any de-authorization (whether contemplated or effectuated [sic]) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 11 of 16
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 10

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

under Section 7.3. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking further objects to 

this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the 

attorney work product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other 

applicable privilege or immunity. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking has not located any documents or communications responsive to this 

Request in its possession, custody or control following a diligent search. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: 

All DOCUMENTS REGARDING the satisfaction of conditions for closing in the 

ACQUISITION DOCUMENTS. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). Otto Trucking objects to this 

Request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorneywork product doctrine, the joint defense privilege and any other applicable privileges. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Documents responsive to this Request are subject to the joint defense privilege, the 

common interest privilege, the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and 

have been logged in privilege logs served on April 13, 2017 in Defendants’ Supplemental 

Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 Production of Documents, on April 27, 2017 in 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 12 of 16
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 11

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

Defendants’ Amended Supplemental Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 Production of 

Documents, on April 28, 2017 in Defendants’ Privilege Log Associated with March 31, 2017 

Production of Documents, on May 1, 2017 in Defendants’ Privilege Log Associated with March 

31, 2017 Production of Documents, and on May 22, 2017 in Uber Technologies, Inc. and 

Ottomotto LLC’s Privilege Log 5.22.2017 (O’Melveny & Myers LLP). 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 

All DOCUMENTS submitted REGARDING reaching Milestones to trigger payments set 

forth in LEVANDOWSKI’S employment agreement with UBER. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 

Otto Trucking incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Otto Trucking 

further objects to this Request as not “reasonably narrow” or relevant to its “trade secret 

misappropriation claims only,” as required by the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Relief. (Dkt. No. 464). 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Otto Trucking responds as 

follows: Otto Trucking will produce responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, 

custody or control following a diligent search. 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 13 of 16
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 12

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

Dated: June 9, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Neel Chatterjee

Neel Chatterjee (SBN 173985) 

nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, California 94025-1105 

Tel.: +1 650 752 3100 

Fax.: +1 650 853 1038 

Brett Schuman (SBN 189247) 

bschuman@goodwinlaw.com

Rachel M. Walsh (SBN 250568) 

rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Tel.: +1 415 733 6000 

Fax.: +1 415 677 9041 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Otto Trucking LLC 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 14 of 16
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 13

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Rachel M. Walsh, declare as follows: 

1. I am of counsel at the law firm of Goodwin Procter, LLP, whose address is Three 

Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA 94111. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to 

this action. 

2. On June 9th, 2017, I caused the following document to be served on all counsel of record 

via electronic mail: Defendant Otto Trucking LLC’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff 

Waymo LLC’s Second Set of Expedited Requests for Production Pursuant to Paragraph Six of the 

May 11, 2017 Preliminary Injunction Order. 

3. This document was transmitted via electronic mail to the addresses below, pursuant to the 

agreement between the parties, and the electronic mail transmission was reported as complete and 

without error. 

Recipient Email Address:

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & 

SULLIVAN, LLP 

Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 

David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502) 

Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649) 

John Neukom (Bar No. 275887) 

Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886) 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4788 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

QE-Waymo@quinnemanuel.com

Arturo J. Gonzalez 

Daniel Pierre Muino 

Eric Akira Tate 

Esther Kim Chang 

Matthew Ian Kreeger 

Michael A. Jacobs 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Michelle Ching Youn Yang 

MORRISON FOERSTER LLP 

2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

UberWaymoAttorneys@mofo.com 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 15 of 16
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 14

DEFENDANT OTTO TRUCKING LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S SECOND SET OF 

EXPEDITED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CASE NO.: 3:17-CV-00939-WHA)

Washington, DC 20006 

Rudolph Kim 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

755 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Wendy Joy Ray 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

707 Wilshire Boulevard 

Suite 6000 

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Michael Darron Jay 

BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 

401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Meredith Richardson Dearborn 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

435 Tasso Street 

Suite 205 

Palo Alto, CA 94301 

Hamish Hume 

Jessica E Phillips 

Karen Leah Dunn 

Kyle N. Smith 

Martha Lea Goodman 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com 

John L. Cooper 

Farella Braun + Martel LLP 

235 Montgomery Street 

17th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

415.954.4410 

415.954.4480 

jcooper@fbm.com 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 9th

day of June, 2017, in San Francisco, CA. 

/s/ Rachel M. Walsh 

Rachel M. Walsh 

Attorneys for OTTO TRUCKING LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 682-18 Filed 06/21/17 Page 16 of 16