Neel Chatterjee 

+1 650 752 3256 

NChatterjee@goodwinlaw.com 

Goodwin Procter LLP

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

goodwinlaw.com 

+1 650 752 3100 

1 

August 27, 2017

VIA ECF

The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

United States Magistrate Judge 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

Phillip Burton United States Courthouse 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

Courtroom F - 15th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, LLC, et al. (Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA) 

Dear Magistrate Judge Corley: 

Otto Trucking LLC submits this letter brief in opposition to plaintiff Waymo LLC’s Motion to Quash

Subpoena and Non-Party Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to 

Quash Subpoena. Waymo and Keker are attempting to re-litigate the Court’s August 18, 2017 Order 

granting Otto Trucking’s Motion to Compel Further Information Re Waymo’s Forensic Investigation

and the Court’s finding that Waymo waived privilege a work product protection regarding its 

investigation of former employees. This Court has already found Waymo waived subject matter 

privilege and work product protection as to the investigation of former employees, yet Waymo and 

Keker continue to selectively disclose materials. Waymo’s and Keker’s motions, which merely try to 

relitigate a question already resolved, should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Neel Chatterjee 

Neel Chatterjee 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Otto Trucking LLC 

cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF); Special Master Cooper 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 1 of 11
G GOODWIN Neel Chatterjee 

+1 650 752 3256 

NChatterjee@goodwinlaw.com 

Goodwin Procter LLP 

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

goodwinlaw.com 

+1 650 752 3100 

Waymo and its counsel Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP ("Keker") continue to stall Otto Trncking's 

("OT") effo1is to obtain evidence central to Waymo's investigation into Anthony Levandowski. The 

scope ofWaymo's waiver was clearly stated by the Comi: 

While the waiver of work product does not necessarily waive attorney-client 

privileged communications, here the waiver of work product over the 

investigation did waive the attorney-client privilege as to counsel communications 

with Mr. Brown and anyone else involved in the investigations at issue as in 

fairness such communications should be disclosed. 

Dkt. 1272 (Italics in original; bold italics added). Waymo and Keker did not object to this Order but now 

improperly seek to relitigate the scope of the Court's subject matter waiver finding. 

Waymo and Keker are merely stonewalling. Keker should have complied with those portions of 

the subpoena for which there was no dispute. Instead, they have produced nothing. Waymo has 

continued its selective disclosure by only providing heavily redacted documents in response to the 

Comi's order that still uses privilege as a sword and a shield. Their attempt to shut down 

discove1y for OT is pali and parcel of Waymo's continued stall tactics that have plagued this case. 

Both motions should be denied. As discove1y has afready closed and trial is imminent, OT requests that 

the Comi foreclose any entiy of the evidence related to this matter as set fo1ih in its original motion to 

compel. 

I. BACKGROUND FACTS 

As discussed in OT' s revious motion, Wa 

Declaration of 

Hayes Hyde ("Hyde Deel."), Ex. 2 at 36:9-16 (Q. Who told you that Mr. Levandowski had access to the 

server and downloaded 14,000 files? A. A lawyer. Q. Which lawyer? A. Tom Gorman. Q. And did you 

then seek to confom that by your analysis? A. Yes."). There is no dispute that attorneys directed the 

investigation into Mr. Levandowski's laptop and that, prior to the Court's order, Waymo had selectively 

waived privilege. For this reason, the Court found that Waymo had waived privilege as to that 

investigation. Dkt. 1272. 

This Comi issued its order finding a subject matter waiver on Friday, August 18, 2017. On Sunday, 

August 20, 2017, OT served a subpoena on Keker attaching the Order and "subpoenas addressed to Keker 

and Tom Go1man relating to their involvement in the investigation into the activities of Anthony 

Levandowski and other fonner Waymo employees." Chatte1jee Deel., ii 3, Ex. 1. Keker wrote back the 

following morning and agreed to accept service of the subpoena via e-mail. Chatte1jee Deel., ii 4, Ex. 2. 

I 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 2 of 11
OT's subpoena to Keker was tailored specifically to fo1mer employees and seeks testimony and 

documents pe1taining to four topics: 

These topics were squarely within the domain of the Comt's waiver findings. Neve1theless, Waymo and 

Keker contest the subpoena. Keker has produced absolutely nothing in response to the subpoena. 

Waymo has filed a motion for protective order. Keker has filed a motion for protective order and to 

quash. 

II. THE MOTION TO QUASH SHOULD BE DENIED 

A. Keker Directed The Forensic Investigation Into Anthony Levandowski And Other 

Employees. 

Waymo and Keker inconectly suggest that Keker was peripheral to the investigation. See Dkt. 1349 at 

1: 18-19 ("OT has served a Rule 45 subpoena on third-pa1ty law firm KVP - Google Inc.' s counsel in 

another matter .... "). To the contraiy , Keker was central in the investigation into Mr. Levandowski. 

What followed was a results-oriented exercise where Mr. Brown sought info1mation to conoborate Mr. 

- conclusion to the exclusion of other evidence. In October 2016, Mr. Brown viewed network 

traffic lo s. H deDecl. Ex. 2at31:21-32:11. 

. Hyde Deel., Ex. 3 at 48:25-49:19. 

He a so testl ie t at e i not review t e e av10r o o er m iv1 uals on the Chauffeur team or even 

Anthony Levandowski's activities on other devices before concluding that the alleged downloading was 

anomalous. See Hyde Deel., Ex. 3 at 262:18-264:21. Mr. Brown made cleai· that he did not consider 

anything that was not relevant to what he was "tiy ing to prove." Hyde Deel., Ex. 3 at 229: 19-230: 1. 

2 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 3 of 11
3 at 117:12-118:16. 

Other deposition testimony and documents produced by Waymo further reveal the level of involvement of 

Keker and its individual attorneys in this matter. 

1. Deposition Testimony of Google and Waymo Employees Suppo1is That Keker 

Was Directing the Investigation. 

Gaiy Brown testified at his deposition that Thomas Go1man of Keker instrncted him to seai·ch for 

evidence "con oborat(ing]" Gorman's suspicion that Mr. Levandowski took files: 

Q: Who told you that Mr. Levandowski had access to the server and downloaded 14,000 files? 

A: A lawyer. 

Q: Which lawyer? 

A: Tom Gonnan. 

Q: And did you then seek to confnm that by your analysis? 

A: Yes. 

Q: And did you confnm that in October of2016? 

A: I con oborated the download with network traffic. 

Q: So you looked at the network traffic to con oborate that 14,000 files were downloaded onto 

what device? 

A: Anthony Levandowski's work laptop. 

Hyde Deel., Ex. 2 at 36:9-23. 

Mr. Brown fmiher testified that Mr.-told him that Mr. Levandowski downloaded 14,000 files: 

!L.,!2id somebody tell you that Mr. Levandowski had downloaded files from the 

.. server in 2016? 

MR. BAKER: You can answer that yes or no. 

A: Yes. 

Q: Who told you that? 

MR. BAKER: You can give a name. 

A: 

Hyde Deel., Ex. 3 at 51:11-20. 

Mr. Brown also testified that Keker attorneys were given access to the Machine Forensic Record, which 

also reflected his and Mr. Gudjonsson's questions to Keker counsel: 

Q: I want to ask you one question about the document marked Exhibit 1312, 

which was the machine forensic record. Tmning to page 29454, under "legal 

questions and answers," there is one question I forgot to ask you. 

(Witness pernsing document.) 

3 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 4 of 11
Q. You said that the questions reflected here were questions from attorneys, 

COITect? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And the answers reflected here are your answers to those questions, coITect? 

A. Mine and Kristinn's, yes. 

Q. Did you and Kristinn communicate your answers to those questions to the 

attorneys? 

A. Yes. 

Q. How did you do that? 

A. Via e-mail. 

Q. Did you send this document via e-mail to the attorneys? 

A. I believe they had pennissions to access the document. 

Q. So when you say they had pennissions to access the document, do you mean 

they were able to access the document 

on Google Drive? 

A. Yes. 

Hyde Deel., Ex. 3 at 117:12-118:16. 

See also Hyde Deel., Ex. 13 at 167:10 - 168:16 (Hardware engineer Sasha Zbrozek deposition testifying 

about guidance from Keker lawyers) and Ex. 4 (Zbrozek coITespondence with Keker attorneys regarding 

IP tracing and log reviews). 

2. Documents Produced By Wavmo Show The Level Of Involvement the Keker 

Attorneys Had In The Investigation. 

Mr. Gonnan's Ms. Meny 's and Keker's deep involvement in the investigation is demonstrated by 

documents produced by Waymo for the first time last Friday. While the documents remain heavily 

redacted (improperly), they demonstrate that Thomas Go1man and Rachael Meny of Keker were defining 

and steering the investigation. 

CoITespondence and documents between the Keker lawyers and Google, as well as internal documents 

from the investigation, show that the investigation into Mr. Levandowski and other fo1mer employees was 

directed by Keker. As this investigation is central to Waymo's case, and Waymo has put it in issue, OT is 

entitled to finiher discove1y on the investigation and Keker's involvement. Samples of these documents 

include: 

• Hyde 

Deel., Ex. 4; 

• 

• 

• 

4 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 5 of 11
• 

• 

• 

• 

A. Otto Trucking's Discovery Requests To Waymo Do Not Preclude It From Seeking 

The Same Or Similar Documents From Keker. 

Keker should produce all waived work product or communications in its possession, custody, or control. 

There is no dispute that the Court's order requires the production of all communications between Waymo 

and its counsel relating to the forensics investigation. See Dkt. No. 1272 at 1 ("Counsel's 

communications to Mr. Brown regarding Mr. Brown's investigation fall within the subject matter of the 

disclosed investigation. In fairness these communications should be considered with the infonnation 

Waymo has disclosed."). Keker nevertheless moves to quash Otto Trncking's subpoena on grounds that 

any of the subpoenaed materials will ak eady be produced by Waymo. But Otto Trncking need not rely 

solely on Waymo to ensure that it has received all waived communications. Nor should it, given the 

circumstances of this case-Waymo has ah-eady indicated an unwillingness to verify in writing that it 

cannot or will not produce other relevant info1mation, see Dkt. No. 1317 (Otto Trncking's motion seeking 

a sworn statement as to Waymo's representations made in discove1y), and Waymo's most recent 

production akeady contains many inappropriate privilege redactions, despite the Comi 's finding of 

waiver. See Hyde Deel., Exs. 4-7. 

Contraiy to Keker's ai·gument, Otto Trncking is entitled to subpoena Keker to confom that all 

communications within the scope of the Comi 's order have been produced. See Saller v. QVC, Inc., No. 

CV 15-2279, 2016 WL 8716270, at *6 (E.D. Pa. June 24, 2016) ("Defendant is entitled to serve thirdpa1iy subpoenas 'to test the veracity of [the opposing paiiy's] asse1iion that they have produced all 

documents they were required to produce."') (citation omitted); Med. Tech., Inc. v. Breg, Inc. , No. 1 OMC-00100, 2010 WL 3734719, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2010) ("This Comi agrees that although 

[plaintiff] Bledsoe may have produced some documents, [defendant] Breg needs [non-paiiy] MedEast's 

responsive documents not only to supplement Bledsoe's production but also to test the veracity of 

Bledsoe's asse1iions that they have produced all the documents they ai·e required to produce."). Only then 

can Otto Trncking be assured that it has all materials related to the investigation that "ought in fairness to 

be considered together." Fed. R. Evid. 502(a). 

B. The Topic Areas are Appropriately Tailored. 

Each of the four topic areas in the subpoena at issue is squarely within the four comers of the Comi 's 

Order. 

5 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 6 of 11
6 

The first topic seeks documents and testimony pertaining to “any investigation of former Waymo 

employees, including, but not limited to Anthony Levandowski, Radu Raduta, and Sameer Kshrisagar.” 

It cannot be disputed that OT is entitled to discovery regarding the investigations of Messrs. 

Levandowski, Raduta and Kshrisagar, so neither Waymo nor Keker have any reason to object to that 

portion of the topic area. Waymo and Keker apparently object that the inquiry into other employees goes 

beyond the scope of the waiver. However, as also discussed supra, recently discovered evidence reveals 

that the scope of the investigation and Keker’s involvement therein went well beyond the three former 

employees and involved numerous other employees who left Waymo in 2016. OT is entitled to explore 

these investigations and whether they pertain to Keker’s and Waymo’s biased conclusions as to Mr. 

Levandowski. 

The second and third topics seek communications between Keker and Alphabet pertaining to the 

investigation of the three former Waymo employees. It is difficult to understand why Waymo and Keker 

object to this topic, as it falls squarely within the scope of the waiver and what the Court compelled 

produced. 

The fourth topic also falls within the scope of the waiver, as discussed supra. If Keker has information or 

documents pertaining its conclusions regarding the alleged downloading activity, OT is entitled to that 

discovery. Keker attorneys were part of the investigative “Team,” not mere outside counsel, and they 

have put their involvement in the investigation in issue, thus waiving privilege. See, e.g., United States v. 

Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975); Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577–78 (9th Cir. 1992); In re EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 448 F.3d 1294, 1302 

(Fed. Cir. 2006). 

C. The Subpoena to Keker is Appropriate. 

Keker argues that the Court’s Order compelled Waymo, not Keker, to produce documents relevant to the 

forensic investigation conducted by Gary Brown. The Court’s order does not absolve Keker of its 

obligation to comply with the subpoena. The Court found that Waymo had waived the “attorney-client 

privilege as to counsel communications with Mr. Brown and anyone else involved in the investigations at 

issue as in fairness such communications should be disclosure.” Dkt. 1272. The Court did not compel

Keker to produce documents or witnesses, because no subpoena was at issue for the motion to compel. 

However, Waymo’s belated waiver of privilege makes Keker’s communications with Waymo are 

discoverable and the appropriate subject of a subpoena. 

D. Keker’s Attempt to Relitigate and Narrow the Court’s Order Should be Rejected. 

Keker seeks to rewrite the Court’s order and argues that “[a]ny discovery from KVP should be limited to 

KVP’s communications with Mr. Brown and the in-house employees working with him on the forensic 

investigation of Levandowski, Raduta and Kshirsagar.” Dkt. 1349 at 11. The Court’s Order found 

privilege waived as to “counsel communications with Mr. Brown and anyone else involved in the 

investigation.” Dkt. 1272 (emphasis added). There is simply no reason why OT should be precluded 

from communications made by Keker to other employees pertaining directly to a matter that Waymo put 

squarely in issue in this case. 

Keker also incorrectly contends that OT seeks opinion work product that was not communicated to 

individuals involved in the investigation and therefore should not be produced here. Waymo has already 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 7 of 11
7 

conceded that it waived work product. Dkt. 1272 p. 2_4-5. As the Court has already found, fairness 

requires that it give a fulsome disclosure. 

As Keker attorneys were considered by Waymo to be on the investigative “Team,” OT is entitled to 

communications among Keker attorneys that pertain to the investigation. It was Keker’s insertion into the 

underlying facts of this matter that waived the privilege, and if Keker possesses relevant evidence 

suggesting that its investigation was unfair, OT is entitled to that material. Moreover, as Keker notes, 

there is a difference between “fact” work product and “opinion” work product, and Keker’s 

communications related to the underlying investigation should be considered “fact” work product. See, 

e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (holding that the 

defendant, “by electing to present the investigator as a witness, waived the [work-product] privilege with 

respect to matters covered in his testimony.”). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that where, as here, 

“mental impressions are at issue in a case and the need for the material is compelling and material [is] 

unavailable elsewhere” opinion work product may be discovered. Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577–78 (9th Cir. 1992); In re EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 448 F.3d 1294, 1302 

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“We recognize that the line between ‘factual’ work product and ‘opinion’ work product 

is not always distinct, especially when, as here, an attorney's opinion may itself be ‘factual’ work product. 

When faced with the distinction between where that line lies, however, a district court should balance the 

policies to prevent sword-and-shield litigation tactics with the policy to protect work product.”) It cannot 

be disputed that Keker was directing the investigation with the specific intent of finding that Mr. 

Levandowski committed wrongdoing, and its impressions and opinions of the results and methodology of 

the investigation are relevant to its evidentiary value against defendants. 

E. Keker Should Comply With The Portions Of The Subpoena That It Does Not 

Contend Are Privileged. 

Rather than attempt to comply with the subpoena, reserving objections for items that they deemed 

privileged, both Waymo and Keker are attempting to quash the subpoena entirely. There can be no 

dispute that this Court has held that a waiver of privilege has occurred, and its scope is clearly stated in 

the Order: “the waiver of work product over the investigation did waive the attorney-client privilege as to 

counsel communications with Mr. Brown and anyone else involved in the investigations at issue as in 

fairness such communications should be disclosed.” Dkt. 1272. Waymo and its counsel are engaging in 

gamesmanship by not making any effort to comply, and instead forcing the parties to resolve what should 

not have been a dispute. Waymo and Keker have no basis to quash OT’s subpoena. See e.g.,, Sotelo v. 

Old Republic Life Ins., No. C-05-02238 RS, 2006 WL 2632563, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2006) (“The 

remedy, however, is not to quash the subpoena, particularly where no showing has been made that 

privileged materials exist. Rather, Swiss Re must produce all non-privileged responsive documents and a 

privilege log with respect to any documents it withholds under a claim of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 

45(d)(2).”) 

F. The Motion For Protective Order Should Be Denied 

Keker next generally contends that it is entitled to a protective order. The only discussion of a protective 

order in the body of the moving papers suggest that the Court “should issue a protective order that 

narrowly tailors the subpoena to the precise scope of this Court’s August 18, 2017 Order, excludes all 

protectable information, and limits the time period for any deposition.” Dkt. 1349 at 1:22-24. Keker does 

not state specifically what the protective order should limit or how long a deposition should be. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 8 of 11
To obtain a protective order, the paiiy seeking it must show "good cause" for its issuance. Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 26(c)(l ); see, e.g., Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd. 30 F. 3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 1994) 30 F3d 

854, 858 (comt must find good cause even if pa1ties stipulate to protective order). The moving pa1iy must 

make a cleai· showing of a paiticulai· and specific need for the order. Blankensh;p v. Hearst Corp., 519 F. 

2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F. 3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) 

("broad allegations of haim , unsubstantiated by specific examples or aiticulated reasoning, do not satisfy 

the Rule 26(c) test" (internal quotes omitted).) 

Keker has not made even the barest showing of good cause, nor any paiticularized showing of what it 

seeks in its motion. 

III. OTTO TRUCKING IS ENTITLED TO INFORMATION RELATED TO ALL FORMER 

EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE INVESTIGATION 

Waymo has now admitted several times that it waived work-product protection with respect to Waymo's 

forensic investigation of Messers. Levandowski, Raduta and Krshigai·. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1227 at 1. 

While Waymo attempts to limit the scope of its waiver for the investigation to just those three individuals, 

it fails to acknowledge that the referenced forensic investigation was in fact quite broad and focused on 

other individuals as well. Mr. Brown admitted as much during his deposition: 

Q. Was Waymo's investigation into Mr. Levandowski pait of any broader 

investigation of other Chauffeur employees that included Mr. Radu Raduta and 

Mr. Sameer Kshirsagai·? ... 

A. Yes. 

Hyde Deel., Ex. 3 at 47:2-9. The Comt 's order found subject matter waiver as to "Fo1mer Employees" 

but not as to "other employees." Waymo merely seeks discove1y related to employees who have left 

Waymo that were pait of this investigation. 

1 This document was produced after the Comt 's rnling on subject matter waiver. 

8 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 9 of 11
Id. 

. Because Keker directed these investigations and 

they were part of a conce1ied investigation of fonner employees, Waymo 's redactions are inappropriate. 

Counsel's communications as to investigations of all of the fo1mer employees fall within the subject 

matter of the disclosed investigation, since it pe1iained to numerous employees, and not just Mr. 

Levandowski. 

Given this-and, thus, the broader scope ofWaymo's investigation waiver-Otto Trncking's subpoena 

properly seeks documents and communications relating to any former Waymo employees covered by the 

forensic investigation. The subpoena therefore should not be quashed on this ground. 

IV. WAYMO CONTINUES TO IMPROPERLY REDACT DOCUMENTS DESPITE THE 

COURT'S ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY 

After the Comi issued its August 18th Order granting OT's motion to compel, Waymo produced 

additional documents. However, Waymo continues to redact documents related to the investigation, 

which violates the Comi's Order. The Order specifically required Waymo to produce "communications 

regarding the investigation of the Fo1mer Employees." OT believes that Waymo's continued redaction of 

documents pe1iaining to the investigation is improper and consistent with the stall tactics it has employed 

throughout this case. In addition, it provides an even stronger basis for OT to seek the documents 

elsewhere, as OT does not know what Waymo is hy ing to hide. These documents will likely be the 

subject of a motion to compel, but a few examples are included with these opposition papers. See Hyde 

Deel., Exs. 4-11, 14. Given the sho1iness of time, OT requests that the Comi address these issues at the 

hearing tomonow. 

V. CONCLUSION 

OT has afready litigated the issues of waiver and its entitlement to discove1y as to communications 

between counsel and Waymo regarding the investigation at issue. It should not be required to do so 

again. OT issued a subpoena in accord with this Comi 's August 18th Order and the results of discove1y to 

date. Keker was an active paiiicipant in the investigation into Mr. Levandowski and numerous other 

employees at Waymo, and OT is entitled to discove1y on issues that go to the hea1i of Waymo's case 

against defendants. Waymo is using privilege as a sword and a shield, in conti·avention of this Comi's 

August 18th Order, and it continues to use stall tactics to thwaii proper discove1y. Neither Waymo nor 

Keker have any legal basis to quash the subpoena or obtain a protective order, and both motions should be 

denied. 

9 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 10 of 11
Neel Chatterjee 

+1 650 752 3256 

NChatterjee@goodwinlaw.com 

Goodwin Procter LLP

135 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

goodwinlaw.com 

+1 650 752 3100 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California by using the CM/ECF system on August 27, 

2017. I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service of the 

redacted version of this Response, including public and redacted attachments will be accomplished by the 

CM/ECF system. 

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of 

August 2017. 

/s/ Neel Chatterjee 

Neel Chatterjee 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1378 Filed 08/27/17 Page 11 of 11