REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 

sf-3813529 

Writer’s Direct Contact 

+1 (415) 268.7020 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

425 MARKET STREET 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 

TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000 

FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522 

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 . 

August 10, 2017 

Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 

United States Magistrate Judge 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

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

Dear Judge Corley: 

Uber submits this letter brief in opposition to Waymo’s motion to compel Uber to produce 

1) Travis Kalanick’s text messages and phone and 2) documents responsive to Waymo’s

Request for Production No. 256 (related to radar). 

Travis Kalanick’s Text Messages Have Been Produced 

Waymo’s motion to compel the production of Mr. Kalanick’s text messages is moot. As 

detailed in the letter brief filed by Mr. Kalanick today, all responsive text messages have 

been produced. 

Waymo’s claim that Uber hid text messages is meritless. The phone at issue is 

Mr. Kalanick’s personal device, not one owned by Uber. On May 19, 2017, Mr. Kalanick 

provided his phone to Uber’s vendor, which performed a standard extraction of text 

messages. (Ray Decl. ¶ 2.) Uber searched the results for all texts with Anthony 

Levandowski and provided the results to Waymo for inspection on June 6, 2017. (Id. ¶ 3.) 

When reviewing the text messages, Uber noticed that there were no sent messages. (Id. ¶ 4.) 

Uber’s counsel alerted Waymo’s counsel to this issue prior to the inspection and stated that 

Uber would follow up. (Id. ¶ 5.) Uber’s counsel noted that Mr. Kalanick was then on leave 

due to his mother’s recent death and his father’s hospitalization following a horrific boating 

accident and that Uber would not be able to obtain access to Mr. Kalanick’s personal phone 

until his return. (Id. ¶ 6.) Mr. Kalanick resigned as CEO before returning from his leave of 

absence. Within days of his resignation, he retained personal counsel at Orrick. Uber 

requested of Mr. Kalanick’s personal counsel that it be able to further investigate the phone. 

(Id. ¶ 7.) Because the phone is a personal device with private information, Orrick handled 

the forensic investigation. (Id.) Orrick investigated whether additional messages could be 

recovered, made extensive efforts to recover additional texts and produced those additional 

texts, as described in Orrick’s brief and accompanying expert declaration. Waymo’s 

complaints are baseless, and there is nothing more to compel. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1156 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 2
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley 

August 10, 2017 

Page Two 

 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

sf-3813529 

RFP No. 256: Waymo Continues to Fish for Non-LiDAR Discovery 

With two weeks to the close of fact discovery and opening expert reports, Waymo again 

attempts to expand its fishing expedition to non-LiDAR technology. Waymo’s RFP No. 256 

seeks the production of radar sensor schematics on the basis of its Trade Secret Nos. (“TS”) 

108 and 109 

 (TS 108) (TS 109)). As 

explained in detail in Uber’s fully-briefed motion currently pending before Judge Alsup, 

Waymo’s vague and overbroad TS 108 and TS 109 are insufficient disclosures under Cal. 

Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210 and therefore cannot justify discovery into non-LiDAR 

technology. (See Dkt. 1006-4 at 1-4; Dkt. 1015 (staying Dkt. 951).) This Court has 

previously ruled that the identification of schematics on a trade secrets list, described only as 

a “representation of [plaintiff’s] proprietary process and efficient solution,” was an 

insufficient disclosure under Section 2019.210 that merited dismissal of the trade secret 

claim. JobScience, Inc. v. CVPartners, Inc., No. C 12-04519-WHA, 2014 WL 1724763, at 

*2-3 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2014); see also Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1107,

1115-16 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (trade secrets list identification of “[a]ll information stored in 

Plaintiff’s Apple MacBook Air computer” or “[a]ll information stored in Plaintiff’s data 

accounts” were “so vague and unspecific as to constitute no disclosure at all” under 

Section 2019.210). Just as this Court dismissed the trade secret claims in Jobscience, the 

Court should deny discovery based on TS 108 and TS 109 here. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Arturo J. González 

Counsel for Uber Technologies, Inc. 

and Ottomotto LLC 

cc: All Counsel of Record 

Special Master John Cooper 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1156 Filed 08/11/17 Page 2 of 2