sf-3768583 

Writer’s Direct Contact 

+1 (415) 268.7020 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

425 MARKET STREET 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 

TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000 

FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522 

WWW.MOFO.COM 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

BEIJING , BERLIN , BRUSSELS , 

DENVER , HONG KONG , LONDON , 

LOS ANGELES , NEW YORK , 

NORTHERN VIRGINIA , PALO ALTO , 

SAN DIEGO , SAN FRANCISCO , SHANGHAI ,

SINGAPORE , TOKYO , WASHINGTON , D . C . 

May 15, 2017 

The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

USDC, Northern District of California 

San Francisco Courthouse 

Courtroom F - 15th Floor 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00939 

Dear Magistrate Judge Corley: 

At the request of Special Master Cooper, we write to request clarification 

regarding the timing of expedited and normal discovery. Paragraph 6 of the 

May 11, 2017 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Provisional Relief states: 

Waymo is hereby granted further expedited discovery in aid of possible 

further provisional relief. [Description of expedited discovery] After 

Waymo has exhausted its expedited discovery, it may continue with 

normal discovery.

(ECF No. 426 at 25 (emphasis added).) 

Defendants believe that the Order stays Waymo’s normal discovery until after it 

has completed its expedited discovery. Waymo disagrees and contends that 

normal discovery may continue concurrently. Prior to the issuance of the Order, 

Waymo served 152 requests for production and two third-party subpoenas. 

Waymo contends that the deadlines for this discovery are unaltered by the Order. 

Waymo’s further expedited discovery, as well as compliance with the other 

aspects of the Order, will require an enormous amount of work from defendants. 

Specifically, the Court has ordered seven depositions on seven days’ notice; 

28 document requests and 28 interrogatories with 14-day response deadlines; an 

inspection of all of Uber’s LiDAR work; and a detailed accounting and 

chronological log of all of Anthony Levandowski’s oral and written 

communications mentioning “LiDAR to any officer, director, employee, agent, 

supplier, or consultant of defendants.” It is not reasonable to expect defendants to 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 439 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 2
Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley 

May 15, 2017 

Page Two 

sf-3768583 

respond to 152 additional document requests and additional normal discovery at 

the same time. Defendants believe the Court understood this in stating that 

normal discovery may continue after expedited discovery. If no changes to 

normal discovery were contemplated, there would have been no need to say 

anything. 

During the conference with the Special Master, Waymo expressed concern about 

obtaining timely discovery from third parties should normal discovery follow 

expedited discovery. While defendants disagree, they do not object to Waymo’s 

continued pursuit of the pending subpoena directed to Gorilla Circuits during the 

expedited discovery period. Waymo’s other subpoena is directed to Stroz 

Friedberg and calls for the information that is the subject of the pending motion to 

compel, which is set for hearing on May 24. To conserve judicial and party 

resources, defendants believe that this subpoena should be stayed pending the 

resolution of the motion. 

Sincerely, 

Arturo J. González 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 439 Filed 05/15/17 Page 2 of 2