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: June 7, 2017 

Time: 8:00 a.m. 

Location: Ctrm. 8, 19th Floor 

Date Filed: February 23, 2017 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017 

PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION OF 

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 26
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 

June 7, 2017. 

Waymo’s Statement: Waymo is ready to proceed on June 7. While Charles 

Verhoeven, Waymo’s lead trial counsel, will be in Washington D.C. arguing an appeal 

before the Federal Circuit next week during the currently-scheduled case management 

conference, in light of the extremely expedited schedule, Waymo believes that the case 

management conference should go forward and is prepared to proceed. Although 

Defendants have proposed postponing the case management conference until a later date 

when their lead trial counsel is available, at the same time, Defendants insist that the 

hearings on their two pending motions and non-party Anthony Levandowski’s pending 

motion stay on calendar on June 7. Waymo submits it is unreasonable and unfair for them 

to suggest hearings go forward with their two motions and Mr. Levandowski’s Motion 

(which Defendants have not joined, but have supported (Dkt. 514 at 3)), while the CMC 

not go forward. 

Defendants’ Statement: Uber notes that its lead trial counsel, Arturo Gonzalez, is 

currently in the middle of a trial before Judge Gilliam which will continue through at least 

June 7, 2017. To permit Mr. Gonzalez to attend the case management conference in this 

case, Uber will request that the conference be re-scheduled for June 16, 2017. Uber has 

asked Waymo’s counsel to agree to a short one-week continuance of the conference, but 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 2 of 26
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

Waymo’s counsel, in this statement, has indicated its refusal to do so.. Uber will promptly 

file an administrative motion to move the conference date. Waymo claims that Defendants 

“insist” that the three scheduled motions proceed on June 7. That is not accurate. 

Defendants are willing to continue their motion to dismiss to the new CMC date if that is 

convenient for the Court. 

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 

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

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 3 of 26
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

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. In its order granting Waymo’s motion for a preliminary injunction in part, the 

Court found that Uber “knew or should have known” that Mr. Levandowski had misappropriated 

Waymo’s trade secrets when it brought Mr. Levandowski on board. (Dkt. 433 at 12.) The Court 

further found credible evidence to support the idea that Defendants are using at least two of 

Waymo’s trade secrets. With respect to Trade Secret # 7 ( ), the Court held that 

“This would likely qualify as a trade secret. Uber’s Fuji indeed 

 Defendants do not deny this and have no credible 

explanation for how they arrived at ” (Id. at 14.) With respect to 

Trade Secret # 2 ), the Court held that, the fact “that Fuji — and, at 

least on this record, no other LiDAR — copies such specific GBr3 specifications is striking 

evidence suggesting that at least some information from Waymo’s files has already found its way 

into Uber’s LiDAR designs.” (Id. at 15.) 

 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. 

Substantial evidence of Defendants’ knowledge of the bad acts (including trade secret 

misappropriation) of Mr. Levandowski and other former Waymo employees has been withheld to 

date on Defendants’ massive privilege logs. The privilege log Defendants provided in response to 

the Court’s March 16 Order, which required Defendants to “produce for inspection all files and 

documents downloaded by Anthony Levandowski, Sameer Kshirsagar, or Radu Raduta before 

leaving plaintiff’s payroll and thereafter taken by them,” “the card reader, thumb drive, or other 

media used for the downloads, as well as all subsequent emails, memoranda, PowerPoints, text 

messages, or notes that have forwarded, used, or referred to any part of said downloaded 

material,” and “all documents bearing on [the] deletion, destruction, or modification” of the 

downloaded material, identifies over 3,000 responsive but withheld documents. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 4 of 26
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

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, Waymo’s retained 

technical expert was forced to withdraw his prior erroneous opinion of infringement, and Waymo 

did not assert those patents against Fuji in its infringement contentions of May 23, 2017. Waymo 

has indicated that it is dropping its infringement contentions with respect to U.S. Patent 9,086,273 

entirely. 

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. 

On May 11, 2017, the Court issued an order on Waymo’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction partially granting “narrowly-tailored provisional relief” that “mainly prohibits 

Levandowski from working on Uber’s LiDAR,” but denying Waymo’s requests for broader relief. 

(Dkt. 433 at 2, 23.) The Court observed that “not all of Waymo’s 121 asserted trade secrets 

actually qualify as such, and few have been traced into the accused technology. Waymo’s patent 

 

1

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

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 5 of 26
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

infringement accusations on this motion also proved meritless.” (Id. at 2.) The Court also noted 

that “Waymo’s descriptions of its asserted trade secrets follow a pattern of claiming broad swaths 

of solutions to general competing considerations and engineering tradeoffs rather than the single, 

specific solution adopted by Waymo. The problem, of course, is that such considerations and 

trade-offs are known outside of Waymo.” (Id. at 12-13.) With respect to Waymo’s first asserted 

trade secret, the Court concluded that “Waymo’s supposed trade secret is nothing more than 

Optics 101.” (Id. at 17.) 

In compliance with the Court’s order, Uber has undertaken further measures to confirm 

that none of the Waymo materials allegedly downloaded by Mr. Levandowski are present or being 

used at Uber. Uber also directed Mr. Levandowski to fully cooperate in complying with the 

Court’s order. Mr. Levandowski declined to do so. Uber terminated Mr. Levandowski’s 

employment on May 26, 2017. 

3. LEGAL ISSUES 

The principal disputed legal issues are: 

• 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, and 9,368,936; 

• 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. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 6 of 26
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

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 to Compel Production of Withheld Documents (Dkt. 321) is 

currently pending. Defendants and Mr. Levandowski filed oppositions on May 8, 

2017. (Dkt. 369, 379.) Waymo filed its reply on May 16, 2017. (Dkt. 444.) 

Defendants sought leave to file a sur-reply on May 17, 2017 (Dkt. 456), and filed their 

sur-reply on May 19, 2017. (Dkt. 474.) Judge Corley held a hearing on Waymo’s 

motion on May 25, 2017. (Dkt. 506.) As requested by the Court, Waymo filed a 

supplemental brief on May 30, 2017. (Dkt. 523.) 

• Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Waymo’s Unfair Competition Law claim (Dkt. 312) is 

currently pending. Waymo filed its opposition on May 12, 2017 (Dkt. 431), and 

Defendants filed a reply on May 19, 2017. (Dkt. 475.) A hearing is scheduled for June 

7, 2017.

• Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. 476) is currently pending. Waymo filed an 

opposition on May 25, 2017 (Dkt. 511), and Defendants filed a reply on May 30, 2017. 

(Dkt. 518.) A hearing is scheduled for June 7, 2017.

• Non-party Anthony Levandowski’s Motion for Intervention and Modification of the 

Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order (Dkt. 466) is currently pending. Waymo filed an 

opposition on May 26, 2017 (Dkt. 512), and Anthony Levandowski filed a reply on 

May 30, 2017. (Dkt. 519.) A hearing is scheduled for June 7, 2017. 

B. Anticipated Motions 

The parties anticipate that the following motions may be brought: 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 7 of 26
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

Waymo’s Motions 

• 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. These motions may include but are not limited to: (1) further 

motion practice regarding the propriety and scope of Anthony Levandowski’s Fifth 

Amendment assertions, particularly following Mr. Levandowski’s submission of a 

further privilege log in camera on Friday, June 2, 2017; (2) motion practice regarding 

Stroz Friedberg’s compliance with its third party subpoena; (3) motion practice 

regarding redactions to agreement between Stroz Friedberg and Anthony Levandowski; 

and (4) motion practice regarding an order to show cause with respect to Defendants’ 

failure to comply with Preliminary Injunction Order. 

• Pursuant to the Court’s order granting Waymo’s motion for a preliminary injunction in 

part (Dkt. 433), Waymo anticipates bringing a renewed motion for provisional relief 

after completing the “further expedited discovery in aid of possible further provisional 

relief” ordered by the Court. (Dkt. 433 at 25.) 

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

Defendants’ Motions 

• 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, including potentially imposing a limit on the number of 

discovery requests permitted by the parties. To date, Waymo has propounded 72 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 8 of 26
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

requests for production (RFPs) in the preliminary injunction phase, 28 RFPs as part of 

further expedited discovery, and 265 regular RFPs. 

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’ Motion to 

Dismiss Waymo’s Unfair Competition Law claim (Dkt. 312) is currently pending and scheduled 

for hearing on June 7, 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 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 9 of 26
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

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 order granting Waymo’s motion for a preliminary injunction in part 

(Dkt. 433), Waymo and Defendants are engaging in further expedited discovery. By order of 

Magistrate Judge Corley, Waymo must first exhaust its expedited discovery requests before 

proceeding with regular discovery. 

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 

In addition to the further expedited discovery that has been ordered by the Court, Waymo 

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;

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 10 of 26
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

• 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;

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

infringement, and unfair competition.

2. Defendants’ Anticipated Discovery 

Defendants are currently seeking discovery and 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.

• Lack of damages or irreparable harm to Waymo.

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 11 of 26
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

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 

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, and 

Defendants will likely identify even more when they comply with Paragraph 4 of the Court’s order 

granting Waymo’s motion for a preliminary injunction in part (Dkt. 433). 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. In addition, Waymo intends to depose Stroz 

Friedberg LLC, the author of the due diligence report commissioned by Defendants. 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 12 of 26
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

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 two months. During those two months, the parties will 

be preparing invalidity contentions, damages contentions, and exchanging preliminary claim 

constructions. In addition, Waymo already took 12 depositions during the preliminary injunction 

phase, and Defendants took eight. The Court’s order on preliminary injunction permits Waymo to 

take an additional seven depositions on an expedited basis, of which Waymo has already taken 

one. In light of the compressed case schedule and the depositions taken to date, Defendants 

propose that each party (Waymo, Uber/Ottomotto, and Otto Trucking) be limited to an additional 

10 party depositions and 5 non-party depositions. 

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 June 7 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 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. As 

the Court noted in its order granting Waymo’s motion for a preliminary injunction in part, the 

narrative that Defendants have put forward in this case has “studiously omitted any inquiry into 

Levandowski’s work, essentially erasing him from the history of Uber’s self-driving car 

development.” (Dkt. 433 at 7.) And Uber has attempted to hide from discovery huge swaths of 

relevant information in this case, including key documents and communications relating to Uber’s 

acquisition of Ottomotto and Otto Trucking. As the Court recognized in the preliminary 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 13 of 26
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

injunction order, Defendants have engaged in the “relentless concealment of likely probative 

evidence, both documentary and testimonial, from Waymo’s view.” For example, Uber has 

produced over 1,000 pages in privilege logs in this case claiming a combination of attorney-client, 

work product, and common interest privileges, even where such privileges clearly do not apply. 

Uber initially asserted a common interest privilege over the identity of Stroz Friedberg, the third 

party investigator retained to prepare the Due Diligence Report on Mr. Levandowski’s trade secret 

theft. Uber has also asserted the common interest privilege over documents that predate the 

February 22, 2016 term sheet, the first date on which Defendants even arguably had a common 

interest. Uber also redacted important portions of the term sheet itself, and only agreed to produce 

an unredacted version at the insistence of Magistrate Judge Corley, who had to instruct Uber that 

“you are not allowed to redact documents because you just don’t want to give that information. 

You can only redact it if you have a good faith belief that it is attorney-client privilege or work 

product privilege.” (5/25/2017 Hearing Tr. at 23:10-13.) Uber withheld until June 1 the 

agreement between Mr. Levandowski and Stroz Friedberg that Uber has been affirmatively relying 

on to justify its common interest privilege over the Due Diligence Report and the downloaded 

materials Mr. Levandowski provided to Stroz in connection with the Due Diligence investigation 

– and even then, only producing a heavily redacted copy. Uber has also represented to Waymo 

and Special Master John Cooper that the redacted terms of this belatedly-produced agreement 

prevent it from asking Stroz Friedberg to return to Waymo the downloaded materials. Uber also 

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 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. 

Defendants’ Statement 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 14 of 26
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

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

expedited discovery, including the May 11, 2017 order on preliminary injunction, and to contend 

with Waymo’s apparent strategy of flooding the litigation with discovery demands and disputes to 

distract attention from the lack of merit in its patent infringement and overbroad trade secret 

contentions. 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 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.) 

Pursuant to the Court’s May 11, 2017 order on preliminary injunction, Uber has 

undertaken numerous compliance measures and provided additional discovery to Waymo, 

including, but not limited to, the following: 

(1) Uber sent letters to Mr. Levandowski and Uber’s officers, directors, and over 11,000 

employees around the world instructing the recipients to respond if they possessed any of the 

allegedly downloaded materials or any copies, excerpts, or summaries thereof. Uber received no 

affirmative responses. Uber also sent letters to its LiDAR suppliers, all in an effort to comply with

item no. 2 of the May 11, 2017 order. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 15 of 26
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

(2) Uber sent a survey to its employees in its effort to comply with items no. 4 and 5 of the 

May 11, 2017 order. 

(3) Uber has collected documents and information to prepare the required log of Mr. 

Levandowski’s LiDAR-related communications, in compliance with item no. 5 of the May 11, 

2017 order. Further to this effort, Uber has begun conducting interviews with persons to whom 

Mr. Levandowski has mentioned LiDAR. 

(4) In a further effort to comply with item no. 2 of the May 11, 2017 order, Uber initially 

placed Mr. Levandowski on paid time-off. When Mr. Levandowski failed to comply with Uber’s 

request that he fully cooperate in complying with the Court’s order, Uber terminated his 

employment on May 26, 2017. 

(5) On May 24, 2017, Uber allowed Waymo’s attorneys and the special master to inspect 

its facilities for more than seven hours. Uber has responded to numerous follow-up requests for 

information stemming from this inspection. 

(6) On May 26, 2017, Uber allowed Waymo’s attorneys to inspect LiDAR-related source 

code. 

(7) On June 1, 2017, Uber allowed Waymo’s attorneys to inspect more than 100,000 

emails. 

(8) On May 30, 2017, Uber produced employee Mason Feldman for deposition on an 

expedited basis. 

(9) Uber is collecting and will be producing documents and information responsive to 

Waymo’s expedited interrogatories and document requests. 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 16 of 26
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

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. 

On May 25, Uber was ordered by the Court to produce the February 22, 2016 term sheet 

relating to the Uber/Ottomotto acquisition in unredacted form. In doing so, Uber continues to 

stand by its assertions of various privileges, and has not waived those assertions. 

Waymo also mischaracterizes Uber’s representations regarding why Uber has not directed 

Stroz to do anything with respect to any allegedly downloaded files. Uber has not done so 

because Uber does not have control over Mr. Levandowski’s personal property, including any 

property he may have provided to Stroz. Uber cannot compel a third party to produce documents 

that it does not control. Uber directed Mr. Levandowski to return any downloaded files under his 

control, which would include any files that Mr. Levandowski may have provided to Stroz. To 

date, he has not complied and therefore he has been terminated. 

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;

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 17 of 26
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

• Punitive damages;

• Restitution;

• 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 judgment 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;

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 18 of 26
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

• Attorneys’ fees and costs; and

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

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.) 

The parties have also filed ADR certificates as required by Civil L.R. 16-8(b) and ADR L.R. 3-5 

(b ). (Dkt. 454, 461, 477.) 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 19 of 26
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

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. 

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 Defendants 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. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 20 of 26
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

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. 

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 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 21 of 26
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

-21- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

DATED: June 1, 2017 

/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: June 1, 2017 

/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 and OTTOMOTTO 

LLC. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 22 of 26
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

-22- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

DATED: June 1, 2017 

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 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 23 of 26
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

-23- 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 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 24 of 26
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 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 25 of 26
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 June 7, 2017 

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 536 Filed 06/01/17 Page 26 of 26