PADILLA DECL.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

 

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 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

DECLARATION OF ANGELA L. 

PADILLA 

Trial Date: October 10, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1082-1 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 6
PADILLA DECL.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 1

 

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 

I, Angela L. Padilla, declare as follows: 

1. I am the Associate General Counsel for Litigation & Employment for Uber 

Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”). I have served in this position since November 2015. I have 

personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify 

competently as to these facts. 

2. I understand that Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) is arguing that Uber has asserted but 

subsequently waived the attorney-client privilege over the content of a meeting that took place on 

March 29, 2017, during which Anthony Levandowski explained that he had downloaded files 

while at Google to be able to prove to Google he had done the work to earn his bonus. I attended 

that meeting—and others on the same day related to this litigation—and I set forth below my 

recollection of the purpose of those meetings and the subject matters discussed. 

3. On March 29, 2017, I attended several meetings related to the matters that are the 

subject of the litigation brought by Waymo against Uber. I recall that these meetings occurred on 

March 29 because, earlier that day, Uber’s counsel of record had appeared before Judge Alsup at 

a closed-door hearing attended by counsel for Waymo and counsel for Mr. Levandowski. Uber’s 

counsel of record had requested that hearing earlier in the week. At that hearing, counsel for Mr. 

Levandowski informed counsel for Waymo and Judge Alsup that Mr. Levandowski intended to 

invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in connection with this litigation. I 

recall that Judge Alsup indicated that the transcript of that proceeding would be made public as 

soon as possible. 

4. The first meeting I attended on March 29, 2017, that related to this matter was also 

attended by various Uber executives, including, to the best of my recollection, Travis Kalanick, 

Uber’s then-CEO; Rachel Whetstone, Uber’s then-Senior Vice President of Communications and 

Public Policy; Salle Yoo, Uber’s then General Counsel (and current Chief Legal Officer); and 

Liane Hornsey, Uber’s Chief Human Resources Officer. It is likely, but I do not recall for 

certain, that Chelsea Kohler, Senior Manager, Communications at Uber; and Matt Kallman, Head 

of Corporate Communications at Uber, were also present. Ms. Yoo attended by video conference 

as she was abroad at the time. I recall that Anthony Levandowski was not present when the 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1082-1 Filed 08/04/17 Page 2 of 6
PADILLA DECL.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 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 

meeting began but joined the meeting at some point after it started. This meeting took place at 

Uber’s headquarters at 1455 Market Street in San Francisco, California, in a conference room 

named “New York City.” 

5. I understood that the purpose of this meeting was to review the transcript of the 

proceedings earlier that day before Judge Alsup, as well as to discuss the implications of the 

release of the transcript and of Mr. Levandowski’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights. I 

participated in this meeting in order to provide legal advice on these issues, including by 

responding to questions about the legal significance of what was said during the proceedings 

before Judge Alsup. Therefore, I consider the communications that occurred during this meeting 

that were related to that advice to be subject to the attorney-client privilege. 

6. Following this discussion, I joined Mr. Kalanick and Mr. Levandowski at a 

separate meeting that took place in a nearby conference room named “Minneapolis.” No one else 

was present during this second meeting. In my view, the purpose of this meeting was for Mr. 

Kalanick to discuss with Mr. Levandowski Waymo’s allegations about improper downloading of 

information while Mr. Levandowski was employed at Google. During this meeting, I recall Mr. 

Kalanick pressing Mr. Levandowski about what happened. Mr. Levandowski responded to Mr. 

Kalanick that he was worried that Google was not going to pay him his bonus and he wanted to 

be able to demonstrate the work he had done in order to earn that bonus. I recall Mr. 

Levandowski also saying that he no longer had the files he had downloaded because he had 

deleted them. I recall that Mr. Kalanick responded by telling Mr. Levandowski in strong 

language that what he did was incredibly stupid and that he should just tell the Court what he did. 

I recall saying to Mr. Levandowski that while I could not provide him any legal advice, I agreed 

he should just tell the Court what he did. Mr. Levandowski responded that his lawyers had 

advised against testifying at all about these subjects. 

7. I do not consider every meeting that I attend or conversation that I have at Uber to 

be protected by the attorney-client privilege. I do not consider the discussion that occurred during 

this second meeting on the evening of March 29 to be privileged because it did not involve the 

provision of any legal advice to either Mr. Kalanick (on behalf of Uber) or Mr. Levandowski. At 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1082-1 Filed 08/04/17 Page 3 of 6
PADILLA DECL.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 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 

this time, Mr. Levandowski was represented by his personal counsel, Miles Erlich and Ismail 

Ramsey, and was not seeking any legal advice from me. (Mr. Levandowski’s personal counsel 

were not present for this meeting, so he was obviously not seeking legal advice from them.) I 

told Mr. Levandowski a few times that I was not giving him legal advice. I did not understand 

Mr. Kalanick’s questions to Mr. Levandowski as seeking any legal advice from me. And I did 

not provide any legal advice during that meeting. For these reasons, Uber has not asserted the 

attorney-client privilege over the discussions that occurred during this meeting, and therefore has 

never waived any such protections. 

8. A third meeting later that same evening began after Mr. Levandowski’s personal 

attorneys, Mr. Erlich and Mr. Ramsey, arrived at Uber. I do not recall who called Mr. Erlich and 

Mr. Ramsey to Uber, nor do I recall the reasons why Mr. Erlich and Mr. Ramsey were summoned 

to Uber. I believe, however, that this third meeting occurred because Mr. Kalanick and I wanted 

to convince Mr. Levandowski to testify about what he had told us, and Mr. Levandowski had said 

his lawyers advised him not to do so. Therefore, Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Erlich, Mr. Kalanick, Mr. 

Levandowski, and I all met in the New York City conference room. 

9. At the outset of this meeting, either Mr. Erlich or Mr. Ramsey (I don’t recall which 

one), asked for my oral agreement that this meeting was subject to a common interest agreement, 

which I provided. I treated that conversation as covered by a common interest agreement and I 

continue to treat the conversation as privileged and confidential. Because I believe I am obligated 

by the common interest agreement not to divulge the contents of that meeting, I cannot say what 

was discussed. I did not provide any legal advice during that meeting. 

10. I do not recall any other meetings taking place on the evening of March 29 that 

related to Mr. Levandowski’s bonus explanation or Fifth Amendment invocation. I do not recall 

anyone, other than as set forth in this declaration, who was present for any of the conversations 

and meetings taking place in the evening on March 29, 2017 as described above. 

11. I understand that Waymo believes the meetings to which Mr. Kalanick testified 

during his deposition occurred on March 26. This is incorrect. While there was a meeting on 

March 26, the purpose of that meeting was for Uber’s in-house and outside counsel in this 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1082-1 Filed 08/04/17 Page 4 of 6
PADILLA DECL.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 4

 

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 

litigation to update Mr. Kalanick on the status of the Waymo litigation, to discuss then-pertinent 

issues regarding the litigation, and to provide legal advice regarding those aspects of the 

litigation. One such issue discussed in this meeting was Mr. Levandowski’s plan to invoke the 

Fifth Amendment and the implications of that plan for Uber’s defense in this litigation. This 

meeting was attended by myself, Mr. Kalanick, Justin Suhr (in-house counsel), Nicole Bartow 

(in-house counsel), Salle Yoo, as well as outside counsel Karen Dunn, Hamish Hume, Arturo 

Gonzalez, Rudy Kim, Eric Tate, and Michael Jacobs. Mr. Levandowski was present at the 

beginning of the meeting, but left part of the way through the meeting. 

12. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 

that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4th day of August, 2017, in San Francisco, 

California. 

 /s/ Angela L. Padilla 

Angela L. Padilla 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1082-1 Filed 08/04/17 Page 5 of 6
PADILLA DECL.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 5

 

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 

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE 

 I, Karen L. Dunn, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Angela L. Padilla 

has concurred in this filing. 

Dated: August 4, 2017 /s/ Karen L. Dunn 

 Karen L. Dunn 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1082-1 Filed 08/04/17 Page 6 of 6