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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER RE: UBER’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL

Dkt. No. 1435

Uber moves to compel responses to Request for Admission No. 40 and Interrogatory Nos. 

20, 24, and 29, and to require Waymo to unredact a document. (Dkt. No. 1435.)

1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 40 asks Waymo to admit “that after 

Anthony Levandowski signed his employment agreement with Uber in August 2016 

(UBER00017083), he did not download any files from Waymo or Google.” Waymo responded 

that it “lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny.” Uber insists that this response is not 

credible. Waymo counters that its answer is appropriate because “Waymo is not aware of any 

evidence that Levandowski downloaded files from Waymo or Google after Levandowski became 

an Uber employee, but that does not mean that Waymo knows that he did not, and Uber has not 

shown otherwise.” (Dkt. No. 1489 at 2.) Uber’s motion to compel is DENIED. All that Waymo 

could truthfully admit is that it does not have evidence that Mr. Levandowski downloaded 

documents after he became an Uber employee, but only Mr. Levandowski can admit or deny 

whether he did.

2. INTERROGATORIES 20 & 24 ask Waymo to describe efforts it has taken to 

prevent other companies’ confidential, proprietary or trade secret information from entering 
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Waymo, including any investigations or forensic analysis Waymo performed at any time, 

including in connection with M&A transactions and employee hires, and any instances in which 

such information entered Waymo. The Court previously ordered Waymo to provide responses 

related to its driverless car program. (Dkt. No. 1276.) In response to the Court’s Order, Waymo 

identified two investigations of current employees. Uber contends that this is “astonishing” and 

“Waymo should be ordered to amend its responses to state that neither it nor Alphabet/Google 

takes any measures during M&A transactions or when hiring employees to prevent the entrance of 

another companies’ confidential, proprietary or trade secret information.” (Dkt. No. 1434-4 at 3.) 

Likewise, in response to ROG 20, Uber argues that if Alphabet/Google has not performed forensic 

due diligence, in any context, then it should say so in its response. Further, to the extent that 

Waymo has conducted other investigations, Uber insists that Waymo should be required to set 

forth all of the steps it took in these investigations, whether the information it discovered was 

proprietary or trade secret, and what Waymo did with that information (i.e., whether it was 

retained, destroyed, or returned). Uber also maintains that these responses also should not be 

limited to Waymo and should be as to Alphabet/Google generally. 

Uber’ motion to compel is DENIED. Waymo answered the interrogatories as ordered by 

the Court. Uber is asking Waymo to make Uber’s arguments for it, but the interrogatories do not 

require it to do so. Interrogatories are admissible at trial and Uber can argue whatever inferences 

it deems appropriate from Waymo’s responses.

3. INTERROGATORY 29 asks Waymo to explain the basis for the denial of any 

RFAs. Uber contends Waymo’s response only covers one of the four denials. At a minimum, 

Uber seeks a response re: RFA 43 which asks Waymo to admit “that during it on-site inspections 

at Uber, Waymo found no evidence that Uber has misappropriated Google or Waymo trade 

secrets.” Waymo responds that the ROG is over the limit and there is no reason to extend the

interrogatory limit. 

Uber’s motion to compel a response as to RFA 43 is GRANTED. Waymo’s denial goes to 

the heart of its case. It is not unduly burdensome to require Waymo to explain its liability 
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

position; to the contrary, it is what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to uncover in 

advance of trial.

4. PRIVILEGE ISSUE: Uber challenges Waymo’s assertion of privilege over an 

email produced on August 23 that was sent to, among others, the distribution list 

industryinfo@google.com, which has more than 23,000 members and can be accessed by all fulltime employees of Waymo and Google/Alphabet. Uber insists that because Waymo has not 

disclosed the identities and job descriptions of the persons on the distribution list it has not shown 

that it is entitled to invoke privilege over this widely disseminated communication. Waymo argues 

that the document is clearly privileged because it was from an attorney providing legal advice to 

the recipients, all full-time employees of Waymo/Google/Alphabet who were “within the sphere 

of corporate privilege.” 

Waymo shall provide the Court with an unredacted copy of the email on or before 3:00 

p.m. on Tuesday, September 12, 2017 for the Court’s in camera review.

This Order disposes of Docket Number 1435.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge