1























































CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

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,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

PLAINTIFF WAYMO’S RESPONSE TO 

ORDER RE SCHEDULING 

DEPOSITIONS (DKT. 622)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 671 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 6
1























































-1- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

Pursuant to the Court’s June 14 Order Re Scheduling Depositions (Dkt. 622), counsel for 

Waymo met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel and Special Master Cooper on June 14 and 

June 16. At the Special Master’s request, the parties submitted lists of likely deponents to him on 

June 16. The parties submitted those lists ex parte. Counsel for Uber and Ottomotto, and counsel 

for Waymo subsequently exchanged proposals “to develop a schedule under which all depositions 

counsel wish to take will be completed before the fact discovery cutoff.” (Dkt. 622.) 

On June 20, Waymo suggested that the parties exchange their lists of likely deponents that 

day to facilitate discussions of the schedule. In particular, Waymo explained that knowing the 

likely deponents, even though it would not be a final list, will allow the parties to promptly begin 

checking witness schedules for availability. Counsel for Uber and Ottomotto refused to exchange 

of these preliminary lists, calling them “premature,” despite the Court’s Order. Counsel for Otto 

Trucking never responded to Waymo’s suggestion.

Below is Waymo’s current proposed schedule for completing depositions before the fact 

discovery cut-off, which Waymo provided to Defendants as part of the meet and confer 

process. Waymo makes this proposal without knowing who is on Defendants’ proposed deponent 

list. Waymo needs Defendants’ list in order to finalize its proposal, and so the proposal below is 

subject to change based upon Defendants’ list of deponents and when those lists are 

exchanged. Waymo remains willing to agree to a time for a mutual exchange of the parties’ likely 

deponent lists, subject to the caveat that it is without prejudice to making revisions to the lists 

based upon information learned in discovery or otherwise. For example, Waymo’s list of likely

deponents may also be impacted by Defendants’ supplemental initial disclosures, production of 

the due diligence report, production of some or all of the 3500+ documents currently withheld by 

Defendants as privileged, and information learned in discovery. Generally speaking, Waymo’s 

approach is to set out a schedule aimed at resolving discovery disputes that may impact 

depositions, such as those relating to document productions or disputes over who may be deposed, 

as possible so that depositions are not delayed as a result.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 671 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 6
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

01980-00104/9379364.4

-2- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

 The parties shall exchange the list of deponents they intend to depose (“likely deponent 

list”), subject to the assumptions regarding changes based on additional discovery by a 

date certain. In Waymo’s view, this should be done in the next week. For the deponents 

on that list, inclusion on that list shall constitute notice of deposition and there is no need 

for the party taking the deposition to serve a separate notice. The parties will meet and 

confer regarding the dates for those depositions. Upon receipt of these lists, the parties 

will promptly consult with party witnesses or witnesses under the parties’ control to 

determine if they have any blackout dates for depositions, such as planned vacations, and 

advise the other side of such conflicts within ten days of receipt of the likely deponent 

lists.1 

 If there are any disputes regarding deponents that are on the likely deponent lists (i.e. apex 

issues, issues relating to availability, etc.), the parties shall meet and confer and file any

motions to compel or for a protective order three days after the deadline by which the 

parties must advise the other side of schedule conflicts. Responses shall be due three days 

later. The parties will agree on page limits with the Special Master.2

 All productions of documents in response to document requests served to date and in 

response to which responses and objections are due by June 30 be complete by: July 7. 

o Per the parties’ prior discussions with the Special Master, if Waymo wishes to 

serve additional document requests, it must first obtain leave from Special Master 

 

1

 Defendants argue that it is unfair for them to have to provide their list of likely deponents 

because they have not received as much discovery from Waymo as Waymo has from Defendants. 

This is not unfair because it is consistent with the Court’s orders. Both parties have had expedited 

discovery as agreed. And the Court granted further expedited discovery to Waymo as provisional 

relief in its preliminary injunction order based on Defendants’ conduct detailed therein. Thus, it is 

no surprise that Waymo would have received more discovery from Defendants. Further, Waymo 

recognizes that both sides may need to and should be entitled to amend their lists of likely

deponents based upon additional discovery. Nevertheless, knowing who the potential deponents 

are now will facilitate early resolution of disputes.

2

 Since June 20 passed, the portions of this proposal relating to the exchange of likely

deponent lists, including motion practice relating to those deponents, will require updating if and 

when Defendants agree to share their lists of likely deponents.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 671 Filed 06/21/17 Page 3 of 6
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

01980-00104/9379364.4

-3- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

Cooper. Defendants must do the same to the extent they wish to serve more than 

265 document requests. If additional document requests are served, the 

productions do not need to be complete by July 7, but the parties will meet and 

confer regarding expediting response date.

o This deadline shall not apply to documents in response to document requests 

already served, but for which responses are not due on or before June 30 and will 

not be due prior to July 7. For those documents, the parties will expedite their 

production of documents and produce them as quickly as possible after the 

response date.

o This deadline shall not apply to documents subject to motions to compel. If such 

documents are compelled to be produced, they shall be produced as ordered by the 

Court.

 The parties shall endeavor to file any motions to compel based upon responses and/or 

objections to requests for production by July 7. Those will be briefed on an expedited 

basis following schedules agreed upon with the Special Master. This deadline shall not 

apply to document request responses to which are not due prior to June 30. If there are 

issues with respect to responses and/or objections to requests for production that are served 

after that date, the parties will expedite their efforts to meet and confer, and brief any

disputes on an expedited basis.

 The parties shall endeavor to file any motions to compel based on upon deficiencies in 

document productions by July 14. Those will be briefed on an expedited basis following 

schedules agreed upon with the Special Master. This deadline shall not apply to document 

productions that are not required to be complete by July 7. If there are issues with respect 

to such post-July 7 document productions, the parties will expedite their efforts to meet 

and confer, and brief disputes on an expedited basis.

 The parties shall serve all interrogatories, requests for admission and remaining requests 

for production no later than July 25 such that responses shall be due August 24. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 671 Filed 06/21/17 Page 4 of 6
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

01980-00104/9379364.4

-4- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

 The parties shall schedule depositions to occur before August 24. After the date that 

document productions are complete, the parties will aim to schedule at least five 

depositions per week, subject to the availability of third parties. There will likely be a 

need to schedule more than five depositions per week to cover all deponents and meet the 

targeted schedule below. Additionally, this does not preclude either party from taking any 

depositions before document productions are complete on June 7. Parties may take 

depositions/produce witnesses for deposition after August 24 for good cause shown or by 

agreement of the parties.

o For party witnesses, they will be made available within 7 days’ notice. A formal 

deposition notice is not required for party depositions.

o For non-party witnesses, they will be given reasonable notice.

o The parties will schedule depositions of witnesses likely to have information 

regarding Defendants’ use of Waymo’s trade secrets so that they are completed 

by July 31. This is to ensure that Waymo can take these depositions before the 

August 1 deadline to narrow the trade secrets for trial.

o The parties will schedule depositions of witnesses likely to have information 

regarding whether Waymo’s trade secrets are trade secrets (including regarding 

Waymo’s efforts to maintain their confidentiality) before July 31. This is to ensure 

that these depositions are taken before the August 1 deadline to narrow the trade 

secrets for trial.

o The above does not preclude either party from taking depositions on these issues 

after August 1. But each party will make a good faith effort to make their 

witnesses on those issues available for deposition before that date if that’s what the 

deposing party requests. The parties may schedule depositions on other issues in 

the case at any time before August 24, again aiming to have at least five per week.

o This schedule assumes the parties will notice a reasonable number of depositions 

proportional to the needs of the case within the scheduled time frame, and each side 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 671 Filed 06/21/17 Page 5 of 6
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

01980-00104/9379364.4

-5- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

RESPONSE TO ORDER RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS

reserves the right to seek relief should the other notice an unreasonably large 

number of depositions and/or depositions that are not material to this case.

DATED: June 21, 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 671 Filed 06/21/17 Page 6 of 6