Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 281 Filed 04/26/17 Page 1 of 4
Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley 

April 24, 2017 

Page Two 

sf-3762168

Waymo to set up his own autonomous vehicle venture. We also believe that he knew that 

Mr. Levandowski was having conversations with Uber before the Uber deal was 

announced. Waymo does not deny that Mr. Page has such knowledge. 

Moreover, Mr. Page spoke with Uber’s CEO (Travis Kalanick) at the same time that Waymo 

discovered the alleged theft of 14,000 files. (Google is an investor in Uber; Mr. Page is on a 

first-name basis with Mr. Kalanick.) Yet, Mr. Page said nothing about these files and did not 

suggest that Mr. Levandowski had done anything wrong. If the files were so important, why 

did Mr. Page not advise Uber of the alleged theft, especially since he knew Mr. Levandowski 

had gone to Uber to work on its autonomous vehicle project? 

Such testimony will help rebut assertions made in Waymo’s reply brief filed Friday in 

support of a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 254). In the first paragraph, Waymo suggests 

wrongdoing and states in bold that Mr. Levandowski and Uber began discussing a potential 

acquisition “just two days after Levandowski left Waymo.” This places at issue Mr. Page’s 

knowledge of such discussions. Moreover, Google allows executives to work on side 

ventures, even if they compete with Google. Testimony from Mr. Page on this topic puts into 

context any meeting that may have occurred between Mr. Levandowski and Uber.

Mr. Page’s testimony is also relevant to Google’s assertions regarding its pre-lawsuit 

investigation. Because of the substantial bonus that Waymo paid Mr. Levandowski, and the 

importance of the autonomous driving project to Google, by at least March 2016, Google 

was already investigating Mr. Levandowski. Yet Waymo did not file its motion for 

preliminary injunction until a year later, in March 2017. Why was there such a lengthy 

delay? In its reply, Waymo finally admits that it learned of the alleged downloading of 

14,000 files in October. (Dkt. 254 at 14:4.) But it waited five months to file this 

motion. Why? Waymo contends that it did not sue Uber then because although it knew that 

the supposedly critical files had been stolen, it did not have evidence against Uber. (Id. at 

14:7.) But Waymo did sue Mr. Levandowski—twice, in two separate arbitrations filed at the 

end of October 2016. And it said nothing about the 14,000 files. Why not? If the files are so 

critical that now Uber’s autonomous business has to be shut down, why were they not 

mentioned in the arbitrations filed against the man who allegedly stole them? Mr. Page 

would have knowledge of this critical question, as no lawsuit could have been brought 

against a former top executive without his involvement and approval. 

Mr. Page’s testimony is also relevant to Waymo’s assertions regarding the common interest 

privilege. In the second paragraph of Waymo’s reply brief, it contends that Uber has used 

this privilege to “hide its unlawful conduct.” Indeed, Waymo has included Uber’s privilege 

logs as exhibits to its reply brief. To the extent that Waymo has asserted this privilege in 

similar circumstances, it will show that Waymo is being inconsistent on this issue and 

provide evidence that Uber’s assertion of the privilege is valid. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 281 Filed 04/26/17 Page 2 of 4
Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley 

April 24, 2017 

Page Three 

sf-3762168

Given these facts, Uber has shown that it has good cause to proceed with this deposition.2

Finally, we have agreed to limit this deposition to two hours (excluding breaks) and have told 

Waymo that we will be flexible regarding the date of the deposition. We encourage Your 

Honor to follow the Special Master’s recommendation (Ex. C) and to order Mr. Page to 

appear for this limited deposition.3

II. UNRIPE DISCOVERY ISSUES RAISED BY WAYMO 

We briefly address the three additional issues identified by the Special Master. 

A. The Kalanick Deposition: This weekend, in an obvious tit for tat maneuver, Waymo 

served a deposition notice for Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick. But there is an obvious 

procedural problem. Judge Alsup’s March 16 Order only allowed each side to depose each 

declarant, plus three other employees. And, the parties were given “a total of 18 hours” of 

deposition questioning. (Dkt. 61 at 2, ¶ 5.) Waymo has already exhausted its three additional 

depositions and it has used all of its allotted 18 hours. Thus, there is no basis for Waymo to 

question any other Uber employee under the strict ground rules laid out by Judge Alsup. 

(Uber, in contrast, has only used two of its three additional depositions and 10 of its 18 hours 

of deposition time.) 

B. The 22 Categories: In an effort to raise something—anything—with this Court, Waymo 

has been trying to manufacture a dispute that is not ripe. One issue is the “25 categories” 

issue. In an effort to follow Judge Alsup’s guidance that the parties “prioritize,” the Special 

Master made a good suggestion. He asked Waymo to identify 25 items that it needed for the 

preliminary injunction briefing. Waymo provided a list of 22 items on Friday, April 14. Six 

days later, Uber produced documents in response to each category, except for 3 for which no 

documents could be found. When we met with the Special Master on Thursday, Waymo 

2 Exhaustion of alternative sources is “a consideration, not a requirement.” In re Transpacific 

Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 939287, at *5. Here, given the time constraints 

imposed by Waymo’s insistence on an expedited schedule, there is no feasible alternative for getting 

the information sought from Mr. Page. Medimmune, LLC v. PDL Biopharma, Inc., No. C08-05590 JF 

(HRL), 2010 WL 2640473, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2010) (“there is insufficient time to hold off on 

[the executive’s deposition] until all other possible sources of relevant testimony have been 

exhausted”).

3 Waymo has made a procedural objection, suggesting that because the deposition was noticed the 

day before the reply brief was filed, it is not really seeking rebuttal testimony. As we have explained 

to Waymo and the Special Master, Judge Alsup ordered witnesses to appear on only five days’ notice. 

Because we understand that Mr. Page has a busy schedule, we chose to give him seven days’ notice. 

Judge Alsup will be the arbiter of whether the testimony we obtained is fair rebuttal to the reply brief. 

We are confident that it is, given the positions (cited above) taken by Waymo in its reply brief.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 281 Filed 04/26/17 Page 3 of 4
Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley 

April 24, 2017 

Page Four 

sf-3762168

could not identify any issues with Uber’s response. The Special Master suggested that if 

Waymo has any concern, it should confer with Uber about it. At 8:42 p.m. yesterday (Sunday 

night), Waymo sent a letter identifying four items that it had questions about. Uber promptly 

responded this afternoon to those concerns, explaining that materials were produced. (Ex. D.)

C. Uber’s Privilege Log: At a meeting with the Special Master two weeks ago, Waymo 

raised a variety of broad concerns with Uber’s privilege logs. The Special Master reminded 

Waymo of the need to prioritize and asked Waymo to provide Uber with some “categories” 

of concerns, including specific items from the log, so that Uber could review those and 

respond. Waymo later again identified broad concerns, but failed to provide us with specifics 

to facilitate our investigation of those concerns. Thus, when we met with the Special Master 

again on Thursday, Waymo was again instructed to provide Uber with “categories” of 

information supported by concrete examples. We finally received a letter yesterday with 

Waymo’s attempt to prioritize its concerns. We have reviewed that letter and are preparing a 

response, which we hope to send to Waymo tomorrow. If Waymo has any concerns about 

our response, we should briefly confer and (if necessary) raise any issue with the Special 

Master. 

In sum, as noted by the Special Master (Ex. C), the only issue that is ripe for consideration is 

the deposition of Mr. Page.

Sincerely,

Arturo J. González 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 281 Filed 04/26/17 Page 4 of 4