1























































No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S OPPOSITION TO NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S MOTION FOR INTERVENTION 

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

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

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S OPPOSITION TO 

NON-PARTY ANTHONY 

LEVANDOWSKI’S MOTION FOR 

INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 24(b)

Hearing:

Date: May 24, 2017

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Place: Courtroom F, 15th Floor

Judge: The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 451 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 4
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

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S OPPOSITION TO NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S MOTION FOR INTERVENTION 

Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) respectfully opposes Mr. Levandowski’s motion for 

intervention. Mr. Levandowski’s request is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24(b)(1)(B), which provides the district court discretion to permit intervention by a party having 

“a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” In 

exercising its discretion, the court should “consider whether intervention will unduly delay the

main action or will unfairly prejudice the existing parties.” Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 

412 (9th Cir. 1988) (upholding denial of permissive intervention where “allowing intervention 

would only serve to undermine the efficiency of the litigation process” (quotation omitted)). The 

court does not abuse its discretion in denying or limiting permissive intervention where the 

positions of the purported intervenors are adequately represented by another party. See Dep’t of 

Fair Employment & Housing v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 742 (9th Cir. 2011). A court 

may also properly deny intervention where the would-be intervenor has “no new evidence or 

arguments to introduce into the case.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898, 906 (9th Cir. 

2011) (per curiam). 

Here, Mr. Levandowski seeks permissive intervention for the sole purpose of “oppos[ing] 

Waymo’s motion seeking compelled production of materials subject to a joint defense agreement 

to which Mr. Levandowski is a party . . . .” (Mot. at 4.) However, the Defendants in this case, comembers of Mr. Levandowski’s purported joint defense group, are already vigorously contesting 

the production of these materials based on the same common interest privilege that Mr. 

Levandowski seeks to assert. (See Defs’ Opp. to Mot. to Compel (Dkt. 369).) This renders this

case distinguishable from Mr. Levandowski’s cited authority Convertino v. United States DOJ, 

674 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2009), where the intervenor was seeking to vindicate privileges that 

were not being asserted by any party in interest to the action. Id. at 108. 

In fact, in his “Joinder” to Defendants’ Opposition, Mr. Levandowski expressly admits that 

he has no additional or unique facts or arguments to add to this issue, but rather that he is 

“rel[ying] on the points and authorities set forth in Uber’s memorandum . . . .” (Dkt. 384.) Thus, 

although Judge Alsup’s April 25 Order does contemplate that “Defendants and Levandowski” will 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 451 Filed 05/16/17 Page 2 of 4
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

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S OPPOSITION TO NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S MOTION FOR INTERVENTION 

file an Opposition to Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 382), Mr. Levandowski should not be permitted to 

intervene just to incorporate by reference and rehash Defendants’ arguments. 

This is especially true where Mr. Levandowski is not seeking intervention to protect his 

Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Nor could he. This Court has already rejected 

the notion that Mr. Levandowski can use his personal right against self-incrimination to withhold 

information or documents within the possession, custody, or control of Defendants (Dkt. 202 at 7-

8, examining Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 402 (1976)). And Mr. Levandowski’s request 

for a writ of mandamus on that issue was denied. (See USCA Fed. Cir. Case No. 2017-1904). 

Mr. Levandowski’s motion to intervene now is especially inappropriate given that he 

previously refused to testify regarding both the alleged common interest and the “due diligence”

materials sought to be discovered by Waymo. For example, Mr. Levandowski asserted his Fifth 

Amendment rights and refused to testify as to when the alleged common interest between him and 

Defendants was formed. (Dkt. 366-8, Levandowski Depo. Tr. at 37:7-38:3, 34:3-35:13.) Mr. 

Levandowski also asserted the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify about the factual 

circumstances underlying the “due diligence” report that is at the center of this dispute. (Id. at 

43:11-17.) And in response to questions regarding the nature of his alleged common interest with 

Defendants, Mr. Levandowski was instructed not to answer on the nonsensical grounds that such 

information about the contours of the asserted privilege was itself privileged. (Id. at 33:16-23, 

35:14-37:6, 38:4-43:7.) Mr. Levandowski should not be permitted to first thwart discovery into 

the circumstances of the alleged common interest and to then make arguments in opposition to 

Waymo’s motion. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Richards, 541 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(affirming district court’s preclusion of defendant’s testimony at trial based on defendant’s earlier 

invocation of Fifth Amendment privilege during deposition).

For these reasons, Waymo respectfully requests that the Court DENY Mr. Levandowski’s 

request for intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 451 Filed 05/16/17 Page 3 of 4
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

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S OPPOSITION TO NON-PARTY ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI’S MOTION FOR INTERVENTION 

DATED: May 16, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP

By /s/Charles K. Verhoeven

Charles K. Verhoeven

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 451 Filed 05/16/17 Page 4 of 4