EXHIBIT 5

   

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-5 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 6
Page 1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

 ______________________________

 )

 WAYMO LLC, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

 vs. ) Case No.

 ) 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )

 OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO )

 TRUCKING LLC, )

 )

 Defendants. )

 ______________________________)

 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF GARY T. BROWN

 San Francisco, California

 Friday, March 24, 2017

 Volume I

Reported by: SUZANNE F. GUDELJ

CSR No. 5111

Job No. 2577644

PAGES 1 - 65

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-5 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 6
Page 9

1 related.

2 Q All right. Let me ask it this way: When

3 did you first do any kind of analysis of whether or

4 not an Uber employee or an Otto employee who used to

5 work at Google or Waymo may have taken documents 11:38:40

6 that they weren't supposed to take?

7 A I -- I have the same response, that I'm

8 unsure whether someone was an Uber or an Otto

9 employee.

10 Q All right. Let me show you your 11:39:03

11 declaration, Exhibit 1013.

12 (Deposition Exhibit 1013 marked by the

13 court reporter.)

14 BY MR. GONZALEZ:

15 Q Is this a copy of the declaration that you 11:39:08

16 put together -- or that you signed?

17 MR. HOLMES: Be sure to take a look at it.

18 THE WITNESS: Yes.

19 BY MR. GONZALEZ:

20 Q All right. And just as an example of what 11:39:24

21 I'm talking about, if you go to page 5, you'll see

22 that you have some paragraphs based upon an

23 individual named Sameer. Do you see that --

24 A Yes.

25 Q -- beginning with paragraph 24? When did 11:39:40

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-5 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 6
Page 10

1 you first start doing any kind of an analysis

2 pertaining to Sameer?

3 A I believe August or September 2016.

4 Q And the same question with respect to Radu,

5 who is referenced at paragraph 29. I notice that 11:40:18

6 there isn't any indication of when you did that

7 work. When did you do your analysis pertaining to

8 Radu that resulted in the information that is in

9 paragraph 29?

10 A I believe that began August or 11:40:38

11 September 2016.

12 Q At around the same time?

13 MR. HOLMES: Objection to form.

14 BY MR. GONZALEZ:

15 Q Did you do your analysis pertaining to 11:40:47

16 Mr. Raduta at the same time that you did the

17 analysis pertaining to Sameer?

18 A Around the same time.

19 Q Was there one that you did first?

20 A I don't recall. 11:41:02

21 Q Are you familiar or do you recall when you

22 began doing the work pertaining to Anthony

23 Levandowski that begins at paragraph 12 of your

24 declaration? Was it around the same time or a

25 different time period? 11:41:22

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-5 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 6
Page 11

1 A A different time period.

2 Q When did you begin doing your work with

3 respect to Mr. Levandowski?

4 A Around March 2016.

5 Q So the information that is contained in the 11:41:37

6 paragraphs pertaining to Mr. Levandowski, let's say

7 paragraphs 12 through paragraphs 22 of your

8 declaration, that is information that you obtained

9 in approximately March of 2016?

10 MR. HOLMES: Objection to form. 11:41:58

11 THE WITNESS: Between March 2016 and

12 February 2017.

13 BY MR. GONZALEZ:

14 Q All right. So let's try it this way: Of

15 the information that is in your declaration in 11:42:21

16 paragraphs 12 through 23, what information did you

17 uncover, if you will, or learn about in March of

18 2016?

19 A Very little, if any.

20 Q What work did you do in March of 2016 11:42:58

21 pertaining to Mr. Levandowski?

22 A I received the laptop -- laptops I should

23 say.

24 Q The laptops that he was assigned at Google?

25 A Yes. 11:43:27

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-5 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 6
Page 22

1 Q What were you asked to do?

2 MR. HOLMES: Same caution.

3 THE WITNESS: Investigate a laptop.

4 BY MR. GONZALEZ:

5 Q For what? 11:55:59

6 MR. HOLMES: Same caution.

7 THE WITNESS: To determine what had

8 occurred on them.

9 BY MR. GONZALEZ:

10 Q Such as? 11:56:17

11 A Indications of policy violation.

12 Q Did you find any indication of policy

13 violation?

14 A I'm unsure.

15 Q Approximately how many hours did you spend 11:57:03

16 in March of 2016 working on this event pertaining to

17 Mr. Levandowski?

18 MR. HOLMES: Objection to form.

19 THE WITNESS: Zero hours.

20 BY MR. GONZALEZ: 11:57:28

21 Q When did you spend your first hour working

22 on anything pertaining to Mr. Levandowski?

23 A July or August, 2016.

24 Q If there is an indication of policy

25 violation, is it your practice to fill out a form 11:57:45

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 370-5 Filed 05/08/17 Page 6 of 6