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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

[Counsel listed on signature page] 

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 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Date: May 18, 2017 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Location: Ctrm. 8, 19th Floor 

Date Filed: February 23, 2017 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 1 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Civil Local Rule 16-9, Patent Local 

Rule 2-1, the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California – Contents of 

Joint Case Management Statement, and the Supplemental Order to Order Setting Initial Case 

Management Conference in Civil Cases Before Judge William Alsup, the parties to the abovetitled action, Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) and Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), 

Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), jointly submit this Case 

Management Statement and Proposed Order in advance of the Case Management Conference on 

May 18, 2017. 

1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Waymo’s federal trade secret claim 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-39 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over Waymo’s claims for patent infringement pursuant to the Federal Patent 

Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The Court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The 

parties do not dispute personal jurisdiction, venue, or service. All parties have been served. 

2. FACTS 

Waymo’s Statement

As set forth in detail in Waymo’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23) and Preliminary 

Injunction Motion (Dkt. 24), in December 2016, a LiDAR vendor inadvertently sent Waymo a 

drawing of a circuit board used by Uber in connection with developing its custom LiDAR. That 

drawing appeared to copy Waymo’s own design. In February 2017, Waymo discovered that Uber 

made a sworn declaration to a Nevada regulator confirming Uber’s plan to use LiDAR built inhouse at Uber. 

A former Waymo manager, Anthony Levandowski, illicitly downloaded more than 14,000 

files from Waymo’s confidential design server in late 2015, shortly before resigning from Waymo. 

 Among the 9 GBs of data downloaded, 2 GBs relate to Waymo’s proprietary LiDAR designs, 

including the one that was sent by the LiDAR vendor. Around the time Mr. Levandowski 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 2 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

downloaded Waymo’s files, Mr. Levandowski confided in some Waymo colleagues that he 

planned to “replicate” Waymo’s LiDAR technology at a Waymo competitor. Defendants’ own 

privilege log shows that two days after Mr. Levandowski left Waymo, Uber and Mr. Levandowski 

were discussing an acquisition of Mr. Levandowski’s company, which Uber ultimately purchased 

for $680 million. Discovery to date has revealed that at least two of Uber’s LiDAR projects 

reflect numerous Waymo trade secrets and at least one infringes Waymo’s patents. 

Defendants’ Statement 

As detailed in Defendants’ Opposition to Waymo’s Preliminary Injunction Motion 

(Dkt. 177), there is no evidence that any files allegedly taken from Waymo1 were ever obtained by 

Defendants or used by Defendants’ engineers to develop Defendants’ LiDAR technology. An 

extensive search of Uber’s computers has not yielded any of the 14,000 files Waymo alleges were 

misappropriated. Defendants are independently developing their own LiDAR system known as 

“Fuji,” a dual bistatic design with multiple lenses that is starkly different from Waymo’s patented 

single-lens (monostatic) LiDAR. Uber engineer Scott Boehmke began developing laser beam 

patterns in 2015 (well before Mr. Levandowski arrived at Uber) that informed the development of 

Fuji’s design. Fuji does not infringe Waymo’s patents on its single-lens design, and Waymo’s 

retained technical expert has withdrawn his prior erroneous opinion of infringement. Waymo 

accuses Fuji’s transmit boards of incorporating Waymo’s trade secrets, but the specifications 

reveal that every critical parameter in Fuji is different from its counterpart in Waymo’s LiDAR. 

The general concepts that Waymo claims as trade secrets are known, routine design choices 

disclosed in the public literature. An earlier LiDAR design by Defendants known as “Spider” was 

never finished, never developed into a working prototype, and has been abandoned. 

3. LEGAL ISSUES 

The principal disputed legal issues are: 

 

1

 Defendants use “Waymo” to mean Waymo LLC, Google Inc., and Alphabet Inc. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 3 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

• Whether Defendants have misappropriated any valid Waymo trade secrets in violation 

of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act; 

• Whether any such misappropriation has been willful;

• Whether Defendants have infringed any valid and enforceable claims of Waymo’s U.S. 

Patent Nos. 8,836,922, 9,285,464, 9,368,936, and 9,086,273; 

• Whether any such infringement has been willful;

• Whether Defendants’ conduct has constituted fraudulent and unfair business acts and 

practices in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law; 

• Whether an injunction should issue against Defendants arising from the alleged trade 

secrets misappropriation, patent infringement, and unfair competition; and

• The amount of any damages owed Waymo by Defendants for the alleged trade secrets 

misappropriation and patent infringement, as well as any fees and costs owed Waymo. 

Waymo reserves the right to raise additional factual or legal issues that may arise through 

the course of this action. 

4. MOTIONS

A. Pending Motions 

• Waymo’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 24) is currently pending. 

 Defendants filed their opposition on April 7. (Dkt. 177.) Waymo filed its reply on 

April 21. (Dkts. 245, 254.) Defendants’ sur-reply is due April 28 (Dkt. 61), and the 

Court will hear the motion on May 3. (Dkt. 121.)

• Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on Waymo’s trade secret and unfair 

competition claims is also pending. (Dkt. 115.) Waymo opposed the motion on April 

10. (Dkt. 204.) Defendants’ reply was filed April 17 (Dkt. 243), and Waymo to filed a 

sur-reply on April 24. (Dkt. 255.) The Court will hear the motion on April 27. (Dkt. 

130.)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 4 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

• The parties have a discovery hearing before Magistrate Judge Corley scheduled for 

1:30 p.m. on April 27 to address discovery issues, which may include those discussed 

in the parties’ letter briefs, Docket Nos. 278-281.

B. Anticipated Motions 

The parties anticipate that the following motions may be brought: 

Waymo’s Motions 

• After it receives un-redacted privilege logs, Waymo will determine whether it will 

move to compel production of documents (including the “due diligence report”) 

withheld by Defendants under a purported common interest privilege. To date, 

Defendants have failed to provide adequate information to test their claims of privilege 

(such as the names of specific individuals who authored and received allegedly 

privileged communications), in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

this Court’s Standing Orders. 

• Should Uber continue its strategy of obstructing discovery, Waymo anticipates various 

discovery motions may need to be filed and heard by Magistrate Judge Corley and 

potentially this Court. 

• Waymo anticipates moving for summary judgment on at least some of its claims. 

• Waymo plans to oppose the motion to dismiss that Otto Trucking describes in its 

statement below. Waymo disagrees that Otto Trucking put Waymo “on notice” of its 

independent status “numerous times.” When Otto Trucking filed its corporate 

disclosure statement, it did so jointly with Uber and Ottomotto; Otto Trucking has 

never made any individualized statement regarding its ownership, nor has it revealed 

the persons or entities that have a more than 10% stake in it. Waymo also disagrees 

that Otto Trucking clarified this issue with Magistrate Judge Corley on April 24, 2017. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 5 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

During that hearing, Otto Trucking merely pointed Waymo to the previously 

referenced corporate disclosure statement, which gives no information regarding Otto 

Trucking’s ownership. 

Defendants’ Motions 

• Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss Waymo’s Seventh Cause of Action for 

alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. 

• Defendants anticipate moving for summary judgment on at least some of Waymo’s 

claims. 

• Should Waymo continue its strategy of overreaching discovery, Defendants anticipate 

various discovery motions may need to be filed and heard by Magistrate Judge Corley 

and potentially this Court. 

Otto Trucking’s Motion 

• Waymo claims it has been “informed and believes that Uber acquired Defendant . . . 

Otto Trucking LLC in approximately August 2016.” FAC, para. 16. Waymo's claims 

against Otto Trucking depend entirely on this alleged purchase by, and relationship 

with, Uber. Waymo's allegations lack a good faith basis. Even a cursory pre-filing 

investigation by Waymo would have revealed that (1) Otto Trucking was not bought by 

Uber, (2) that Otto Trucking remains an independent and separate company, and (3) 

that Waymo has no basis to include Otto Trucking in its dispute with Uber. Waymo 

has been told this fact numerous times. Otto Trucking disclosed its independent status 

in its Corporate Disclosure Statement and in response to a set of Court issued 

Interrogatories. Most recently, Otto Trucking disclosed this fact in a hearing with 

Magistrate Judge Corley on Monday, April 24, 2017, where counsel for Otto Trucking 

advised the Court and Waymo's counsel that Otto Trucking was not bought by Uber 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 6 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

and thus does not belong in this case. Waymo’s counsel's response was that he did 

know anything about Otto Trucking. But despite Waymo now knowing that Otto 

Trucking is a separate company with no role in this dispute, and that its claims against 

Otto Trucking are baseless, Waymo still refuses to dismiss Otto Trucking from this 

case. Accordingly, in response to the First Amended Complaint, Otto Trucking will be 

filing on April 28 a motion to dismiss Waymo’s claims against it. 

5. AMENDMENTS OF PLEADINGS 

Waymo’s Statement 

Waymo does not intend to amend the pleadings before the preliminary injunction hearing 

on May 3. 

Defendants’ Statement 

Defendants have not yet answered Waymo’s Amended Complaint. Defendants’ responses 

to the Amended Complaint are due on April 28, 2017. 

6. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION 

Waymo’s Statement

Waymo has reviewed the ESI Guidelines and represents that it has taken reasonable and 

proportionate steps to preserve evidence to the issues reasonably evident in this action, including 

electronic data and materials. It does not appear that Uber has taken similarly reasonable and 

proportionate steps to preserve evidence. Uber alleges that it was anticipating litigation regarding 

the issues raised in this case starting in January 2016 but has “declined to answer questions about a 

litigation hold,” including questions regarding whether a litigation hold was ever issued and when. 

 (4/19/17 Email from S. Rivera (“I did not confirm or deny the date any litigation hold issued.”).) 

 In light of this, Waymo’s position is that Uber should preserve any and all back-up tapes. 

Defendants’ Statement 

Counsel for Defendants have reviewed the ESI Guidelines and represent that they have 

taken reasonable and proportionate steps to preserve evidence to the issues reasonably evident in 

this action, including electronic data and materials. Defendants issued litigation holds as 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 7 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

appropriate, including after Google commenced arbitration against Anthony Levandowski in 

October 2016. Until then, Defendants were not on notice that litigation was probable, the standard 

for when the duty to preserve attaches. See In re Napster Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1068 (N.D. 

Cal. 2006). Defendants’ document preservation efforts were proper. Preserving back-up tapes 

would be an undue burden for which Waymo has offered no justification. 

7. INITIAL DISCLOSURES 

The parties exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a) on April 3, 2017. 

8. DISCOVERY 

The parties anticipate taking discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Local Rules, and the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. Pursuant to Rule 

26(f) and paragraph 8 of the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California – 

Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, the parties propose the following discovery plan. 

A. Discovery Taken To Date 

Pursuant to the Court’s orders regarding expedited discovery (Dkts. 54, 61), Waymo and 

Defendants are engaging in preliminary expedited discovery in connection with Waymo’s motion 

for a preliminary injunction. 

B. Scope of Anticipated Discovery 

The parties expect to engage in additional fact discovery, including third party discovery, 

and expert discovery. 

1. Waymo’s Anticipated Discovery 

Waymo currently anticipates seeking additional discovery on at least the following topics: 

• The design, development and operation of all LiDAR technologies by Uber, 

including those in testing and development;

• Uber’s knowledge of Mr. Levandowski’s porting of trade secret materials to Uber, 

including but not limited to the alleged due diligence report created for Uber in 

connection with its acquisition of Otto; 

• The basis for Uber’s alleged common interest privilege with Mr. Levandowski;

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 8 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

• Damages and harm caused by Uber’s trade secret misappropriation, patent 

infringement, and unfair competition.

2. Defendants’ Anticipated Discovery 

Defendants currently anticipate seeking additional discovery on at least the following 

topics: 

• The design, development and operation of all LiDAR technologies by Waymo;

• Waymo’s delay in bringing this lawsuit; 

• Waymo’s motivations for litigating against Defendants and Mr. Levandowski; 

• Waymo’s practice of allowing competing side businesses; 

• Waymo’s failure to protect the confidentiality of its alleged trade secrets; 

• Prior public disclosure of Waymo’s alleged trade secrets, by either Waymo or 

third parties who independently developed technology claimed in Waymo’s 

alleged trade secrets; 

• Prior art to the asserted patents.

C. Proposed Limitations or Modifications Of the Discovery Rules 

The parties agree on the following modification to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

• The parties agree that privilege logs need not include documents authored 

following the filing of the Complaint in the first instance; however, each party 

reserves the right to request that the other party log one or more categories of 

documents authored following the filing of the Complaint should a basis arise for 

such a request.

• Each side may serve up to 50 non-authentication requests for admission and 

unlimited authentication requests for admission. 

The parties disagree as to the number of depositions that each party should be entitled to take. 

Waymo’s Position 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 9 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

Waymo proposes that each side may take 15 party depositions and 10 non-party 

depositions. Uber has already identified close to 30 party witnesses who communicated with 

Mr. Levandowski regarding LiDAR before Uber acquired Ottomotto and Otto Trucking. As for 

third parties, Defendants identified three third parties with an interest in the outcome of this 

litigation in their corporate disclosure statement; Defendants have pointed to third-party 

companies as part of their purported “independent development” story; and Waymo intends to 

depose the supplier that sent Waymo a schematic of one of Uber’s PCBs last fall. When 

Defendants serve their un-redacted privilege logs, they will likely reveal additional relevant 

witnesses. 

Throughout discovery to date, Defendants have stonewalled Waymo at every turn, hiding 

the ball and refusing to provide relevant, responsive information even when under a Court order to 

do so. Moreover, the overall equities in this case favor permitting Waymo to conduct the 

discovery necessary to fully understand the extent to which Defendants have misappropriated and 

infringed Waymo's intellectual property. Defendants should not be heard to oppose Waymo’s 

proposed deposition limits, which are reasonable for this case, on the basis that discovery 

regarding their misconduct is too burdensome for them. 

Defendants’ Position 

It is Waymo that has insisted on the expedited trial date and demanded that the case be put 

on the fast track. Indeed, the Court recognized that Waymo was “the one that wants this on a 

hurry-up basis” and forewarned Waymo: “[Y]ou can't have everything. . . [Y]ou’re not going to 

get a full deck of cards. You're going to get a half a deck of cards because it’s all expedited. It's

impossible to get everything.” (Apr. 12, 2017 Hearing Tr. 97:-18-98:2.) 

Fact discovery closes in less than three months. During those three months, the parties will 

be preparing infringement contentions, invalidity contentions, damages contentions, and 

exchanging preliminary claim constructions. In addition, Waymo has already taken 12 

depositions during the preliminary injunction phase, and Defendants have taken eight. In light of 

the compressed case schedule and the depositions taken to date, Defendants propose that each side 

may take 10 party depositions and 5 non-party depositions. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 10 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

D. Report on Whether the Parties Have Considered Entering Into A 

Stipulated E-Discovery Order 

During the Rule 26(f) conference, the parties discussed entering into a stipulated protective 

order and a stipulated order regarding e-discovery. The parties plan to submit these proposed 

stipulated orders at or before the May 18 case management conference. 

E. Discovery Disputes 

Waymo’s Statement 

Uber has been and continues to stonewall Waymo’s discovery efforts and to obfuscate the 

truth. Uber has not complied with the Court’s March 16, 2017 Order. Uber has not conducted a 

reasonable inquiry to locate, much less produce, all documents reflecting the confidential materials 

that Mr. Levandowski took from Waymo to use at Uber. Uber has specifically excluded Mr. 

Levandowski from any investigation related to Waymo’s claims and has purposefully avoided 

searching Mr. Levandowski’s Otto/Uber email for information responsive to Waymo’s document 

requests. Where useful to Uber however, it appears Uber has consulted Mr. Levandowski (see 

e.g., Uber’s purported basis for deposing Alphabet CEO Larry Page regarding his “private 

discussions” with Mr. Levandowski). Uber ignored one of its LiDAR devices entirely in its 

Opposition to Waymo’s preliminary injunction motion; then, Uber misled this Court regarding the 

existence of the LiDAR device referenced in its September 2016 Nevada regulatory filing and 

delayed production of that device until Waymo elicited confirmation of the existence of that 

device during its depositions of Uber engineers. Uber has produced over 1,000 pages in privilege 

logs without providing the basic information required in a privilege log (such as the names of 

authors, the names of recipients, and the identify and inception date of the asserted common 

interest privilege); Uber’s privilege logs contain boilerplate that has been cut and pasted into log 

entries to which it clearly does not apply (e.g., Uber includes boilerplate about Uber’s “potential” 

acquisition of Otto with entries that post-date that acquisition); Uber has admittedly included nonprivileged documents on its log but has yet to identify or produce those documents. Uber purports 

to assert Mr. Levandowski’s privilege against self-incrimination (something that, if upheld, would 

be unprecedented in criminal law) and actively consults with Mr. Levandowski regarding this case 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 11 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

while simultaneously arguing that no adverse inference against Uber should result from Mr. 

Levandowski’s assertion of the Fifth. Uber purports to have contemplated litigation over the very 

issues at the heart of this case starting in January 2016 but has “declined to answer questions about 

a litigation hold,” including questions regarding whether a litigation hold was ever issued and 

when. 

Uber has not just stonewalled in responding to discovery but it has also violated this 

Court’s orders with respect to taking discovery. For example, this Court ordered that Uber’s surreply on Waymo’s preliminary injunction motion address only matters raised in Waymo's reply 

briefing – i.e., discovery taken between Waymo’s reply brief and Uber’s sur-reply brief must 

relate only to issues raised in Waymo’s reply. But, after Uber filed an opposition and before 

Waymo filed any reply, Uber requested the deposition of Larry Page, the CEO of Alphabet (which 

is the parent of the parent of the managing member of plaintiff Waymo LLC). Uber could not 

possibly need a deposition of Mr. Page for purposes of a sur-reply submission when it did not yet 

know the contents of Waymo’s reply. And Uber did not even try to address, let alone satisfy, the 

Apex doctrine for a deposition of Mr. Page. Uber also purports to want to explore topics with Mr. 

Page that it only could have learned from Mr. Levandowski, thereby using Mr. Levandowski’s 

Fifth Amendment privilege as both a sword and a shield. 

Defendants’ Statement 

Defendants have worked diligently and in good faith to comply with the Court’s orders on 

expedited discovery. Defendants complied with the March 16, 2016 order, which required that 

Defendants “produce for inspection all files and documents downloaded by Anthony 

Levandowski, Sameer Kshirsagar and Radu Raduta before leaving plaintiff’s payroll and 

thereafter taken by them” and “all subsequent emails, memoranda, PowerPoints, text messages or 

notes that have forwarded, used or referred to any part of said downloaded material.” Contrary to 

Waymo’s assertions, Defendants searched the computers of all three named individuals, their 

emails, their Google Drive files and the entire software/engineering repository. With his 

permission, Defendants also searched Mr. Kshirsagar’s personal phone and gmail and produced 

two emails that it located in Mr. Kshirsagar’s personal email. Defendants even went beyond what 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 12 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

was ordered and interviewed all former Waymo employees and searched the data of seven 

additional former Waymo employees, which was all that could be searched in the short time 

frame. Defendants produced over 5,000 files that were filename and hash matches for the 14,000 

allegedly stolen files. (Notably, Waymo has not asserted that any of these files are those that were 

allegedly stolen—because they are not. The list of 14,000 files contains a significant number of 

standard files and filenames that are not trade secrets.) 

Defendants have continued to diligently search all LiDAR custodians and servers. By the 

end of this week, Uber will have finished searching all active LiDAR servers, all LiDAR 

custodian email, Drive data, and nearly all primary workstations (totaling over 150 machines). 

With respect to the last server, filename and hash searching will be completed next week. Uber 

will finish reviewing the hits next week. 

The March 16 order did not require Defendants to produce broad discovery related to its 

LiDARs. Defendants, however, have also provided a significant amount of discovery into 

Defendants’ LiDARs and have not refused to provide anything requested by Waymo. 

Defendants have not misled the Court about their LiDAR devices. In its preliminary 

injunction motion, Waymo made reference only to Defendants’ Fuji system. In response, 

Defendants addressed those allegations. Work on the prior Spider LiDAR design never 

progressed beyond the development of a few components; a complete Spider device was never 

built. For example, of eight optical cavities that were intended to be included in the Spider design,

only one was ever completed and that one never worked. So there was no need for Defendants to 

focus on Spider. Nonetheless, Spider was discussed in the declaration of engineer Scott Boehmke 

submitted on April 7, 2017, along with Defendants’ opposition to Waymo’s preliminary injunction 

motion, well before Waymo “elicited confirmation” of this fact during subsequent depositions. 

The September 2016 Nevada regulatory filing, which makes reference to a LiDAR with 

6.4 million beams per second, does not refer to Spider, which was to have 3.2 million beams per 

second. The statement in the Nevada submission regarding the 6.4 million beams per second 

referred neither to an existing LiDAR sensor, nor a LiDAR that Defendants were developing or 

have ever developed or are currently developing. That submission was corrected with the agency 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 13 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

when the error came to Defendants’ attention. 

Defendants have allowed Waymo to inspect both the Fuji prototype and the Spider 

components, along with an earlier prototype called OWL. 

Defendants’ privilege logs demonstrate Defendants’ diligence in attempting to comply 

with the expedited discovery schedule. Counsel for Defendants have reviewed and logged over 

3,000 privileged documents, setting forth each of the required categories of information. Though 

voluminous, those privilege logs pertain to narrow subject matter, which warrants inclusion of the 

same or very similar privilege descriptions. Defendants have not withheld non-privileged 

documents from production. Defendants issued appropriate legal holds, including after Waymo 

commenced arbitration proceedings against Anthony Levandowski in October 2016. Until then, 

Defendants was not on notice that litigation with Waymo was probable, the applicable standard 

for when the duty to preserve attaches.

9. CLASS ACTIONS 

This section is not applicable to the above-captioned action. 

10. RELATED CASES 

There are no cases related to the above-captioned action. 

11. RELIEF 

Waymo’s Statement

Waymo’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23) seeks the following relief: 

• Judgment in Waymo’s favor and against Defendants on all causes of action 

alleged;

• Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;

• Trebling of all damages awarded with respect to infringement of the ’922, ’464, 

and ’273 patents;

• Judgment that this is an exceptional case;

• Punitive damages;

• Restitution;

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 14 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

• Costs of suit;

• Prejudgment interest;

• Attorneys’ fees and costs; and

• Such other and further relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper.

Waymo has been and will be irreparably harmed by Defendants’ ongoing trade secret 

misappropriation, patent infringement, and unfair competition such that monetary damages are 

insufficient and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief are necessary. To estimate past 

damages to the limited extent that damages are quantifiable here, Waymo will need, among other 

things, to understand the full extent of Defendants’ use of Waymo’s trade secrets and patented 

technology, the identity of all individuals who have ever had access to Waymo’s confidential files 

(or information derived from those files), and the work each of those individuals has done for 

Defendants and/or other Waymo competitors. Defendants have not been forthcoming on those 

subjects (Uber has not even completed its search for Waymo’s files) and more discovery on those 

subjects is necessary. To the extent Defendants satisfy their discovery obligations, Waymo 

expects to be able to provide a non-binding, good-faith estimate of the damages range expected for 

the case (along with an explanation for the estimate) after additional discovery, by June 26, 2017. 

Defendants’ Statement

Defendants seek the following relief: 

• Denial of Waymo’s preliminary injunction motion;

• Declaratory judgment that the patents are not infringed and invalid; 

• Declaratory judgmnent that Waymo’s asserted trade secrets are not trade secrets or 

were not misappropriated by Defendants in developing their LiDAR systems;

• Waymo take nothing for any of the claims asserted in its Amended Complaint;

• Costs of suit;

• Attorneys’ fees and costs; and

• Such other and further relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 15 of 23
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

-15- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

Defendants do not see a basis for awarding Waymo any damages in this action for the 

following reasons: (1) Defendants do not infringe the asserted patents or the asserted patents are 

invalid; (2) the 14,000 files allegedly downloaded by Mr. Levandowski never crossed into Uber’s 

grounds; and (3) Waymo’s asserted trade secrets are not trade secrets or Defendants have not used 

Waymo’s asserted trade secrets in developing its LiDAR systems. In addition, this case is not a 

“money case.” Neither side has sold anything. Further, Waymo is exposed to an award of 

attorney’s fees if it persists in pursuing meritless claims. 

12. SETTLEMENT AND ADR 

Pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-5, the parties have reviewed the Court’s ADR handbook, 

discussed the available ADR procedures and considered whether this case would benefit from an 

ADR procedure. This case has already been referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte for 

settlement, and a settlement conference took place on April 26, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. (Dkt. 178.) 

13. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES 

The parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings 

including trial and entry of judgment. 

14. OTHER REFERENCES 

This case has already been referred to a special master for discovery disputes. (Dkt. 235.) 

The parties do not otherwise believe that this case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration or 

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 

15. NARROWING OF ISSUES 

Waymo’s Statement 

Without prejudice to any positions that Waymo has taken in this case, and although an 

Uber engineer has confirmed that Uber considers the identity of its vendors and suppliers for its 

LiDAR systems to be confidential trade secrets, Waymo does not plan to proceed on the trade 

secrets listed in Section H of its Asserted Trade Secrets List (Dkt. 25-7) at this time. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 16 of 23
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

-16- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

In light of Defendants' position below, Waymo notes that the evidence to date confirms 

that Defendants' Spider system infringes Waymo's patents and that Defendants’ Fuji and Spider 

systems each reflect numerous Waymo trade secrets. 

Defendants’ Statement 

Waymo has conceded that Defendants’ Fuji system does not infringe the claims of the 

‘922, ‘464, and ‘273 patents. (Kintz Dep. 211:5-7; 217:5-18). In addition, Waymo has conceded 

that Defendants’ Spider system components do not use the trade secrets discussed in Waymo’s 

preliminary injunction motion, i.e., Asserted Trade Secret 1-4, 7, 14, 94-99 from Waymo’s List of 

Asserted Trade Secrets (Dkt. 25-7). (Kintz Dep. 223:10-13.) In addition, Spider was a design 

idea that never evolved into a working prototype and was abandoned in October 2016, months 

before this lawsuit was filed. Only one cavity was ever built and, because of problems with the 

design, that single cavity never even worked. There is no evidence that Defedants have made, 

used, offered for sale, sold, or imported Spider, (Kintz Dep. 206:24-208:10), as required for patent 

infringement. 

16. EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE 

The parties do not propose that this case proceed under the Expedited Trial Procedure of 

General Order 64 Attachment A. 

17. SCHEDULING 

The parties’ proposed schedule is detailed in Exhibit A. 

18. TRIAL 

The parties understand that the Court has set a trial date of October 2, 2017. The parties 

estimate that this case can be tried in eight court days. 

19. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 

Each party has filed the Certification of Interested Entities or Persons required by Civil 

Local Rule 3-15. 

20. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 

All attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional 

Conduct for the Northern District of California. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 17 of 23
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

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

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

21. PLAN TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR JUNIOR LAWYERS 

Waymo’s Plan 

Waymo plans to provide opportunities for junior lawyers working on this matter to argue 

discovery-related motions and portions of claim construction motions; to take or defend 

depositions of witnesses; and to examine witnesses at trial. To date, Felipe Corredor (class of 

2013) presented a portion of Waymo’s technology tutorial to the Court, and Jeff Nardinelli (class 

of 2012) and Lindsay Cooper (class of 2012) have taken depositions for Waymo. 

Defendants’ Statement 

Defendants plan to provide opportunities for junior lawyers working on this matter to 

argue motions, take or defend depositions of witnesses, and examine witnesses at trial. To date, 

associates Esther Kim Chang and Michelle Yang presented Defendants’ technology tutorial to the 

Court, and Ms. Chang has taken depositions for Defendants. 

22. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

The parties provided the Court with a tutorial regarding the technology at issue on 

April 12. The parties propose that claim construction issues be addressed in the context of 

dispositive motions pursuant to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 18 of 23
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

-18- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

DATED: April 27, 2017 

By/s Charles K. Verhoeven

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 

DATED: April 27, 2017 By 

/s Arturo Gonzalez

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

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

425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-

2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice)

kdunn@bsfllp.com

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice)

hhume@bsfllp.com

1401 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington DC 20005

Telephone: 202.237.2727

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants UBER 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC OTTOMOTTO LLC. 

and OTTO TRUCKING LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 19 of 23
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

-19- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

DATED: April 27, 2017 By

s/ Shane Brun 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Indra Neel Chatterjee (SBN 173985)

nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com 

Goodwin Procter LLP

135 Commonwealth Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Tel: (650) 752-3100 

Fax: (650) 853-1038 

Brett M. Schuman (SBN 189247)

bschuman@goodwinlaw.com

Shane Brun (SBN 179079)

sbrun@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 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 20 of 23
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

-20- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

ATTESTATION 

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained from every other signatory to this document. 

 By: /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven 

Charles K. Verhoeven 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 21 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER is 

approved as the Case Management Order for this case and the parties shall comply with its 

provisions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

HON. WILLIAM ALSUP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 22 of 23
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- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

APPENDIX A 

The parties propose that the Court enter the following schedule for this action: 

Events Proposed Deadline

Case Management Conference May 18, 2017 (Dkt. 20)

Infringement Contentions May 23, 2017

Invalidity Contentions June 2, 2017

Exchange of Proposed Terms Needing 

Construction,

June 9, 2017 

Exchange of Preliminary Claim 

Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence

June 19, 2017 

Damages Contentions June 26, 2017

Close of Fact Discovery July 21, 2017

Opening Expert Reports July 21, 2017

Responsive Expert Reports August 7, 2017

Close of Expert Discovery August 18, 2017

Deadline to file Dispositive and Daubert 

Motions 

August 23, 2017 

Oppositions to Dispositive and Daubert 

Motions

September 4, 2017 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures September 4, 2017

Serve Motions in Limine September 8, 2017

Oppositions to Motions in Limine September 15, 2017

Replies in support of Dispositive and 

Daubert Motions

September 15, 2017 

File Motions in Limine and Oppositions September 18, 2017

Joint Pretrial Order September 18, 2017

Objections to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) 

Disclosures

September 18, 2017 

Final Pretrial Conference 

Hearing on Dispositive and Daubert 

Motions

September 25, 2017 

Trial October 2, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 283 Filed 04/27/17 Page 23 of 23