NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, OTTOMOTTO LLC,

Defendants

ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI,

Intervenor-Appellant

______________________ 

2017-1904

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:17-cv-00939-

WHA, Judge William H. Alsup.

______________________ 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 351 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 4 Case: 17-1904 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2017
2 WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Anthony Levandowski, an intervenor, petitions for a 

writ of mandamus to direct the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California to vacate its 

order directing defendants to produce an unredacted 

privilege log and to stay, pending resolution of the mandamus petition, production of the unredacted privilege 

log. 

Waymo brought this suit against Uber Technologies, 

Inc., Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC (collectively, 

“Uber”), alleging trade secret misappropriation, patent 

infringement, and unfair competition. Waymo’s complaint alleges that, before leaving Waymo as an employee, 

Mr. Levandowski downloaded over 14,000 files containing 

Waymo’s trade secrets and proprietary information pertaining to self-driving cars, transferred them to a portable 

storage device, wiped the laptop clean, and then left with 

the downloads to start competing autonomous-vehicle 

ventures, Ottomotto and Otto Trucking. Uber acquired 

those companies in August 2016 for $680 million to develop its own self-driving car program. 

The district court ordered that the defendants serve 

the unredacted privilege log (part two of the order) and 

set the schedule for briefing a motion to compel production of a due diligence report (part three of the order). 

The district court allowed Mr. Levandowski to intervene 

to move for the district court to modify its standing order 

on privilege logs so that defendants could redact information related to a due diligence report. Mr. Levandowski argued that compelling disclosure of information 

concerning the due diligence report and the third party

that prepared said report would infringe upon his right 

against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment 

and would violate the attorney-client privilege that arose 

from the joint defense agreement. On April 10, 2017, the 

district court issued an order denying the motion to 

modify. Mr. Levandowski appealed. On April 13, 2017, 

this court issued an order that temporarily stayed parts 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 351 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 4 Case: 17-1904 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/25/2017
WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3

two and three of the district court’s order pending consideration of the motions papers. 

Because Mr. Levandowski is not a party to this action 

and the order about which he complains is directed to 

Uber, not him, we treat his appeal as a petition for writ of 

mandamus, an alternative he suggested. Mandamus is a 

drastic remedy reserved for extraordinary situations. See 

Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 

(1980). “The federal courts traditionally have used the 

writ only ‘to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise 

of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its 

authority when it is its duty to do so.’” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) 

(quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26

(1943)). The burden is on the petitioner to establish that 

his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, 

Allied, 449 U.S. at 35, and that there is no other adequate 

remedy to attain the desired relief. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. 

Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 

(1989).

Mr. Levandowski argues that he is entitled to relief 

under the Fifth Amendment because production of the 

unredacted privilege log could potentially incriminate 

him. We are not persuaded that the district court erred in 

its ruling requiring defendants to produce an unredacted 

privilege log. Mr. Levandowski has therefore failed to 

establish that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to 

the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

 (2) The motion for stay is moot. 

(3) The court’s April 13, 2017 order is vacated. The 

temporary stay of the district court’s order is lifted.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 351 Filed 04/25/17 Page 3 of 4 Case: 17-1904 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 04/25/2017
4 WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s32

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 351 Filed 04/25/17 Page 4 of 4 Case: 17-1904 Document: 9 Page: 4 Filed: 04/25/2017