EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 546-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 6
1

Patrick Schmidt

From: Hamish Hume <hhume@BSFLLP.com>

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 2:00 PM

To: Melissa Baily

Cc: Andrea P Roberts; 'John Cooper'; 'Matthew Cate'; 'UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys'; 

BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit; 'nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com'; 

'rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com'; 'sbrun@goodwinlaw.com'; 'bschuman@goodwinlaw.com'; 

QE-Waymo; 'Ray, Wendy J.'

Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber Meet and Confer Follow-Up

Melissa, 

We do not agree with your assertions below. In any event, in accordance with the protocol and schedule we agreed to 

yesterday, we hereby confirm that Defendants Uber and Ottomotto maintain their attorney-client privilege, attorneywork product, and common-interest doctrine privileges over the redacted portions of the March 21, 2016 Letter 

Agreement (“Letter Agreement”) between Stroz Friedberg LLC (“Stroz”) and John Gardner, which was produced to you 

yesterday, with some redactions, with the bates number UBER_00017893. 

All of the redacted material is protected by the attorney-client privilege because it contains a description of the type of 

factual information being requested by Stroz on behalf of MoFo and OMM, acting on behalf of Uber and Ottomotto, 

respectively, in order to obtain legal advice. It therefore reflects confidential attorney-client communications regarding 

the purpose of Stroz’s engagement, as well as the directions to Stroz made by the attorneys in the joint defense 

group. For the same reason, these descriptions reflect attorney work product provided in order to direct Stroz in its 

conduct of a work product privileged investigation.

Second, the material redacted from the Protocol attached to the Letter Agreement is protected by the work product 

doctrine as opinion work product because it reflects methods for document culling, analysis, and review as agreed by all 

the parties and attorneys participating in and directing the scope of the Stroz investigation. The sharing of these 

communications with John Gardner, and his subsequent recitation of those communications in the Letter Agreement, is 

protected by the common-interest doctrine for the reasons explained in Uber’s opposition and sur-reply to the Motion 

to Compel Production of the Due Diligence Report and Exhibits. 

Uber has previously logged the Letter Agreement. It is entry #3 on Defendants 5-1-17 Stroz Report Privilege Log. While I 

was personally not aware of this during yesterday’s call, it is also the case that Uber’s privilege assertions over this 

document are part of the subject of Waymo’s motion to compel currently pending before Judge Corley. For this reason, 

and in order to conserve judicial resources, Defendants respectfully suggest that Waymo await decision from Judge 

Corley on its pending Motion to Compel Production of the Due Diligence Report and Exhibits rather than filing a 

duplicative motion to compel the redacted portions of the Letter Agreement. 

Thank you, 

Hamish 

From: Melissa Baily [mailto:melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com] 

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 12:51 AM 

To: 'Ray, Wendy J.' 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 546-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 6
2

Cc: Andrea P Roberts; 'John Cooper'; 'Matthew Cate'; 'UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys'; BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit;

'nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com'; 'rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com'; 'sbrun@goodwinlaw.com'; 'bschuman@goodwinlaw.com'; QEWaymo 

Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber Meet and Confer Follow-Up 

Hamish, Wendy, 

We write follow up on issues related to the contract executed by Eric Friedberg on behalf of Stroz Friedberg and John 

Gardner on behalf of Mr. Levandowski. 

We first learned of that contract when Defendants referred to it and characterized it – but did not submit it to the Court 

– in their opposition to Waymo’s motion to compel the due diligence materials. During today’s discussion, Defendants 

stated that they are relying on the same contract as the sole justification for declining to ask their agent Stroz to return 

documents taken from Waymo by Mr. Levandowski. Defendants’ position – as stated this morning – is that: “with 

respect to Anthony, anything he might have provided [to Stroz] was his personal property and he put very tight 

restrictions on the ability even of Stroz to share that with anyone, including Uber.” In other words, Defendants’ position 

is that Waymo’s proprietary files, stolen by Mr. Levandowski, are his personal property, such that Defendants need not 

facilitate their return. 

As you know, until 1:56 p.m. Pacific today, Defendants had not produced even a redacted version of the

Stroz/Levandowski contract. Even after Mr. Levandowski’s counsel stated yesterday evening that he had no objection to 

the production of that contract by Stroz in response to Waymo’s subpoena, Defendants took the position that they “had 

not produced the contractual agreement between Mr. Levandowski and Stroz Friedberg because it contains attorneyclient privileged and work product information.” This morning, Defendants confirmed that position, while also stating 

that the privilege issues were not something “anyone had given attention to prior to yesterday.” 

Defendants’ redactions to the Stroz/Levandowski contract – as it was produced this afternoon – are improper on their 

face. 

As an initial matter, Defendants cannot assert that the contract supports their position that Waymo’s stolen files are Mr. 

Levandowski’s personal property while redacting key definitions of terms relevant to that contention (and other critical 

information). This is an example of the very sword/shield problem that Judge Alsup was seeking to address by requiring 

Defendants to disclose any trial theories that might implicate a waiver of privilege by noon today. Having disclosed 

none, Defendants cannot now rely on cherry-picked portions of a contract to support their positions in this case while 

simultaneously claiming the remainder of the contract is privileged. 

Moreover, the asserted privilege claims are obviously baseless. A contract between Mr. Levandowski and Stroz simply 

cannot be covered by Uber’s attorney/client privilege. Even Defendants conceded that “it’s unusual for a contract to be 

subject to a privilege issue.” And the fact that Mr. Levandowski is not objecting to the production of the contract reveals 

that it is not covered by his attorney/client privilege and it is not subject to a common legal interest that could somehow 

turn Waymo’s proprietary documents into Defendants’ work product. 

For the same reasons that Magistrate Judge Corley ordered that the February 22 term sheet be produced without 

redaction, the Levandowski/Stroz contract needs to be produced without redaction. 

Defendants have committed to producing either an un-redacted version of the Levandowski/Stroz contract or an 

explanation for any remaining redactions by 2 p.m. tomorrow. If the latter is provided, we expect that the assertions of 

privilege will be described in “bone-crushing detail” so that Waymo can immediately bring a motion regarding these 

issues. 

Thanks, 

Melissa 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 546-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 3 of 6
3

From: Melissa Baily 

Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:35 AM 

To: Ray, Wendy J. <WRay@mofo.com> 

Cc: Andrea P Roberts <andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com>; John Cooper <JCooper@fbm.com>; Matthew Cate 

<MCate@fbm.com>; UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; 

'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com) 

<BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>; nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com; rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com; 

sbrun@goodwinlaw.com; bschuman@goodwinlaw.com; QE-Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com> 

Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber Meet and Confer Follow-Up 

Wendy and John, 

We will be prepared to discuss this on the call at 11. 

Melissa 

From: Ray, Wendy J. [mailto:WRay@mofo.com] 

Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:32 AM 

To: Melissa Baily <melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com> 

Cc: Andrea P Roberts <andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com>; John Cooper <JCooper@fbm.com>; Matthew Cate 

<MCate@fbm.com>; UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; 

'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com) 

<BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>; nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com; rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com; 

sbrun@goodwinlaw.com; bschuman@goodwinlaw.com; QE-Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com> 

Subject: Re: Waymo v. Uber Meet and Confer Follow-Up 

John and Andrea,

As I mentioned yesterday, I cannot join a call at 10. I will be on the call at 11 and can discuss then. 

Best, 

Wendy 

Wendy J. Ray 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 6000 

Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 

213-892-5446 

On Jun 1, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Melissa Baily <melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com> wrote: 

John,

We request that this issue be added to the agenda for our call at 10 a.m.

Thank you,

Melissa

From: Ray, Wendy J. [mailto:WRay@mofo.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:21 PM 

To: Andrea P Roberts <andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com>; John Cooper <JCooper@fbm.com>; Matthew Cate 

<MCate@fbm.com>; UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 546-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 4 of 6
4

'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com) 

<BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>; nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com; rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com; 

sbrun@goodwinlaw.com; bschuman@goodwinlaw.com

Cc: QE-Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com> 

Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber Meet and Confer Follow-Up 

 

Andrea and John,

We have not produced the contractual agreement between Mr. Levandowski and Stroz Friedberg because it 

contains attorney-client privileged and work product information, but we are continuing to analyze this issue, 

which is closely related to issues before Magistrate Judge Corley.

We have not directed Stroz to do anything with respect to any allegedly downloaded files 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 Stroz may 

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

In addition to the JDA, work product privilege may apply.

Esther sent the search terms in a separate communication.

Best,

Wendy

From: Andrea P Roberts [mailto:andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:06 PM 

To: John Cooper; Matthew Cate; UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' 

(BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com); nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com; rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com; 

sbrun@goodwinlaw.com; bschuman@goodwinlaw.com

Cc: QE-Waymo 

Subject: Waymo v. Uber Meet and Confer Follow-Up

 

- External Email -

John, 

I write regarding the items discussed during this afternoon’s meet and confer for which Defendants committed 

to providing responses today, and for which we have not yet received the promised information. To the extent 

that Defendants do not provide this information tonight as promised, or to the extent issues remain from these 

responses, lets add these issues on the call tomorrow at 11 am so we can promptly bring these issues to the 

Court.

• Defendants were supposed to get back to us today to let us know whether Defendants have produced the 

contractual agreement between Levandowski and Stroz Friedberg that Defendants contended on the call 

today (as they have previously including in representations to the Court) preclude Uber from instructing 

Stroz to return any copies of the downloaded materials, and if not, they were to produce the agreement

absent a basis not to. And if there was a basis, they would provide it.

• Defendants were to get back to us as to whether they instructed Stroz Friedberg to return all of the 

downloaded materials pursuant to the PI Order and, if not, the basis for not doing so.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 546-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 5 of 6
5

• Defendants were to let us know today whether Defendants are relying on anything other than the 

original JDA to shield communications between Defendants and Stroz Friedberg regarding responding 

to the subpoena on Stroz. 

• Defendants were to provide us with the list of search terms Defendants agree to run on the emails being 

made available for inspection. This was to include the approximately 19 that Defendants are already 

running, and the 160 search terms from the PI phase.

We look forward to receiving this information.

Thanks,

Andrea

 

Andrea Pallios Roberts

Of Counsel,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

650-801-5023 Direct 

650.801.5000 Main Office Number 

650.801.5100 FAX 

andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com

www.quinnemanuel.com

NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message 

may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended

recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any 

review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately 

by e-mail, and delete the original message. 

 

 

============================================================================ 

This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee 

is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email.

============================================================================ 

This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee 

is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. 

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information 

that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this 

electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in 

error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1]

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 546-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 6 of 6