United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER REQUIRING REPLY

RE MOTION TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE

A hearing on plaintiff Waymo LLC’s motion to continue the trial date (Dkt. No. 1604) is

set for SEPTEMBER 20 AT 8:00 A.M. Waymo shall reply to defendants’ opposition thereto (Dkt.

No. 1623-4) by TOMORROW AT 5:00 P.M. The reply shall include a sworn declaration by

counsel that (1) quotes each of the following statements from defendants’ opposition in full, and

(2) admits the full extent, if any, to which said statements are correct. Please make these

admissions to the full extent required by counsel’s duty of candor.

1. Page 1:7–10 (regarding the “critical information [that] had

never previously been disclosed to Uber, or to this Court”).

2. Page 1:13–16 (regarding what “Waymo fails to point out”

about evidence in the due diligence report by Stroz Friedberg).

3. Page 3:3–6 (regarding how “Uber did not receive any

confidential or proprietary Google information identified by

Stroz,” including the information “that Waymo makes a

centerpiece of its brief”). Specifically explain under oath what

evidence Waymo has, if any, to show that said information ever

made its way into defendants’ LiDAR development efforts.

4. Page 4:21–24 (regarding how the due diligence report

“confirms that [the 14,000 files] could not have come to Uber”).

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1629 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5. Page 5:2–5 (regarding how “no one at Uber ever received

access to” the two specific alleged trade secrets mentioned in

Waymo’s motion).

6. Page 5:6–25 (regarding the comparison of certain

deposition testimony against the due diligence report).

7. Page 6:8–11 (regarding “Waymo’s assertion that the

‘Report states plainly that Levandowski took trade-secret

information from Waymo’”). Please explain under oath where the

due diligence report states that the information in question

qualifies as trade secret(s).

8. Page 7:4–6 (regarding how “Uber has provided deposition

dates for five deponents” but “Waymo has rejected these dates,”

and “Stroz has provided a date for its deponents” but “Waymo has

not responded to Stroz’s proposal”).

9. Page 13:22–23 (regarding how “Waymo cannot possibly

try 120+ trade secrets at once”).

No continuance has been granted yet, and perhaps none will be granted. Before a final

decision, counsel would be well-advised to take advantage of any deposition dates or other

discovery cooperation offered by the opposing side. While Waymo’s motion to continue will

be given complete and fair consideration, our trial date has long been set for October 10, and

both sides should diligently continue to prepare for trial on that date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1629 Filed 09/18/17 Page 2 of 2