sf-3771490 

Writer’s Direct Contact 

+1 (213) 892.5446 

WRay@mofo.com 

707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 

LOS ANGELES 

CALIFORNIA 90017-3543 

TELEPHONE: 213.892.5200 

FACSIMILE: 213.892.5454 

WWW.MOFO.COM 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

BEIJING , BERLIN , BRUSSELS , 

DENVER , HONG KONG , LONDON , 

LOS ANGELES , NEW YORK , 

NORTHERN VIRGINIA , PALO ALTO , 

SAN DIEGO , SAN FRANCISCO , SHANGHAI ,

SINGAPORE , TOKYO , WASHINGTON , D . C . 

May 24, 2017 

The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

USDC, Northern District of California 

San Francisco Courthouse 

Courtroom F - 15th Floor 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

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

Dear Judge Corley: 

We write at the Special Master’s request to confirm that third-party discovery is stayed 

pending the expedited discovery ordered by Judge Alsup. Uber’s position is that it is clear 

from the May 15, 2017 Order re Paragraph Six of District Court’s PI Order (Dkt. 441) that 

all third-party discovery but the Gorilla Circuits subpoena is stayed.1

 Nothing has happened 

that warrants a modification of the Order. 

In the briefing that preceded the May 15 Order, both parties addressed third party discovery. 

Waymo argued, “[W]ith respect to third party discovery, Waymo should not have to wait to 

take discovery because it often takes time and motion practice to obtain third party 

discovery.” (Dkt. 440 at 2.) Uber noted that it did not object to Waymo’s continued pursuit 

of the pending subpoena directed to Gorilla Circuits during the expedited discovery period, 

but that it believed that the Stroz Friedberg subpoena should be stayed pending the resolution 

of the motion to compel. (Dkt. 439 at 2.) 

The May 15 Order states, “[T]he Court rules that Waymo must first proceed with the 

expedited discovery ordered in the district court’s preliminary injunction order. Once 

Waymo exhausts the expedited discovery, it may continue discovery with the standard 

deadlines. . . . The third-party discovery as to Gorilla Circuits may proceed, as agreed to by 

Uber.” Neither the preliminary injunction Order nor the May 15 Order provide for thirdparty discovery during the expedited discovery phase. 

 

1

 Waymo may contend that Uber’s counsel said during a meet and confer that Waymo could take third party 

discovery during expedited discovery, but that is not correct. Uber’s counsel made no such statement. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 497 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 2
The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

May 24, 2017 

Page Two 

sf-3771490 

Waymo now seeks to make an end run around the Orders by arguing that it is permitted to 

pursue third party discovery as part of its allocation of RFPs and depositions. Specifically, 

Waymo has insisted that it is entitled to expedite certain RFPs directed to Stroz Friedberg. 

Not only is this contrary to the existing orders, but it is also a waste of judicial and party 

resources given the pending motion to compel. Accordingly, Uber requests that the Court 

confirm that third-party discovery is stayed pending the completion of expedited discovery. 

Should the Court be inclined to modify its Order and permit Waymo to use some of its RFPs 

and depositions for third-party discovery, then the subpoena served on Gorilla should also 

count towards the allowable expedited discovery. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Wendy J. Ray 

Wendy J. Ray 

Attorneys for Uber Technologies, Inc. 

and Ottomotto LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 497 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 2