1

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

PURSUANT TO RULE 24(b); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. 3:17-00939-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

MILES EHRLICH (Bar No. 237954)

miles@ramsey-ehrlich.com

ISMAIL RAMSEY (Bar No. 189820)

izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com

AMY CRAIG (Bar No. 269339)

amy@ramsey-ehrlich.com

RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP

803 Hearst Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94710

(510) 548-3600 (Tel)

(510) 291-3060 (Fax)

Attorneys for Non-Party Anthony Levandowski

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

NON-PARTY ANTHONY 

LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF 

MOTION AND MOTION FOR 

INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 24(b); 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Date: June 8, 2017

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: F, 15th Floor

Judge: The Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in the courtroom of the 

Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley, San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom F, 15th Floor, 450 

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, non-party Anthony Levandowski will and 

hereby does bring a motion for permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 371 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 5
2

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

PURSUANT TO RULE 24(b); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. 3:17-00939-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

24(b) in the above-entitled matter for the limited purpose of opposing Waymo’s motion to 

compel material subject to a joint defense agreement to which Mr. Levandowski is a party.

This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the below memorandum of 

points and authorities, the pleadings, files and records in this case, as well as other written or oral 

argument which may be presented at the hearing.

Date: May 8, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/

Miles Ehrlich

Ismail Ramsey

Amy Craig

Ramsey & Ehrlich

Counsel for Non-Party Anthony 

Levandowski 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 371 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 5
3

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

PURSUANT TO RULE 24(b); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. 3:17-00939-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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

On April 25, 2017, this Court set deadlines for Waymo to bring a motion to compel 

production of a due diligence report that Mr. Levandowski and the defendants assert is protected 

by attorney-client, attorney work product, and common interest privileges. Docket No. 271. The 

Court’s order required Waymo to file its motion to compel production of the report by May 1, 

and for the defendants and Mr. Levandowski to file their opposition briefs by May 8, 2017 at 

noon. Id. 

By the present motion, Mr. Levandowski, a non-party, officially requests that this Court 

grant him permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) to fully litigate his opposition to Waymo’s 

motion to compel and to join Uber and Ottomotto LLC’s separately-filed opposition to that same 

motion. This Court previously granted Mr. Levandowski’s motion to intervene to litigate his 

Fifth Amendment privilege, but emphasized that the intervention was “solely for purposes” of 

Mr. Levandowski’s Motion to Modify the Court’s Expedited Discovery Order. Docket No. 169 

at 4:10-13. The Court’s scheduling order with respect to Waymo’s pending Motion to Compel 

expressly contemplates Mr. Levandowski filing an opposition to Waymo’s motion. Docket No. 

271 at 1:26-27 (“Defendants and Levandowski shall have until May 8 at noon to oppose . . . .”)

(emphasis added). In keeping with the Court’s order, we ask the Court to again grant Mr. 

Levandowski permissive intervention for the limited purpose of opposing Waymo’s discovery 

motion filed on May 1, 2017 (Docket No. 321). 

Under Rule 24(b), the district court has the discretion to grant permissive intervention 

where the intervenor’s “claim . . . and the main action have a question of law or fact in 

common.” Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002). The rule 

is liberal: “If there is a common question of law or fact, the requirement of the rule has been 

satisfied and it is then discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention.” Id. at 1109, 

quoting 7C Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1911, 357-63 (2d ed. 

1986). As such, courts will grant permissive intervention where a non-party seeks to oppose 

production of materials subject to a claim of privilege. See, e.g., Convertino v. United States 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 371 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 5
4

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

PURSUANT TO RULE 24(b); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. 3:17-00939-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

DOJ, 674 F. Supp. 2d 97, 109 (D.D.C. 2009) (“Without the right to intervene in discovery 

proceedings, a third party with a claim of privilege in otherwise discoverable materials could 

suffer ‘the obvious injustice of having his claim erased or impaired by the court’s adjudication 

without ever being heard.’”). Further, the grant of permissive intervention will protect Mr. 

Levendowski’s right to appeal orders of this Court: “An intervenor may appeal from ‘all 

interlocutory and final orders that affect him . . . whether the right under which he intervened 

was originally absolute or discretionary.’” Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 

U.S. 370, 376 (1987) quoting Moore & J. Kennedy, Moore's Federal Practice para. 24-15, pp. 

24-169-24-170 (2d ed. 1985). 

Because Mr. Levandowski seeks to oppose Waymo’s motion seeking compelled 

production of materials subject to a joint defense agreement to which Mr. Levandowski is a 

party, this Court should grant the present motion for permissive intervention. A grant of 

permissive intervention will allow Mr. Levandowski to fully litigate the issue both in the district 

court and the Ninth Circuit. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the present motion to intervene under 

Rule 24(b). 

Date: May 8, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/

Miles Ehrlich

Ismail Ramsey

Amy Craig

Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP

Counsel for Non-Party Anthony 

Levandowski

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 371 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 5
5

NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

PURSUANT TO RULE 24(b); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. 3:17-00939-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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, non-party Anthony Levandowski may intervene pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) in order to i) oppose Waymo’s Motion to Compel 

Production of a Due Diligence Report (Docket No. 321), and ii) to join in Uber Technologies, 

Inc. and Ottomotto LLC’s Opposition to Waymo’s Motion (Docket No. 369).

DATE: ________________ ________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 371 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 5