RIVERA DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION

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

la-1347767 

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 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, and OTTO TRUCKING LLC 

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 DC 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 SYLVIA RIVERA 

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS UBER 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC, AND OTTO 

TRUCKING LLC’S SUR-REPLY TO 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Date: May 3, 2017 

Time: 7:30 a.m. 

Ctrm: 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: The Honorable William Alsup 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 305 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 6
RIVERA DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION

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

la-1347767 

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, SYLVIA RIVERA, declare as follows: 

1. I am a partner of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel of record for 

defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC 

(“Defendants”).1 I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of California. I make 

this declaration based on personal knowledge in support of Defendants’ Sur-Reply to Plaintiff 

Waymo LLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

2. Defendants have worked diligently to comply with the expedited discovery 

schedule in this action. In our extensive search for documents, we have consulted with a number 

of Uber employees, including Anthony Levandowski, who have assisted us in locating responsive 

documents. Our search for documents has included searches of Mr. Levandowski’s records at 

Uber, including applying over 100 search terms (15 of which were provided by Waymo) to Mr. 

Levandowski’s records. Defendants’ efforts are described more fully below. 

Defendants Searched Extensively for the Alleged 14,000 Files 

3. In our search for the alleged 14,000 files and anything derived from them, we 

interviewed more than 85 Uber employees. 

4. We retained Stroz Friedberg LLC to investigate forensically whether any 

confidential material from Waymo exists on Uber’s network. Working closely with us and 

employees at Uber, Stroz Friedberg collected data from emails and Google Drive, imaged almost 

200 workstations, and collected data from LiDAR related servers. That massive collection effort 

included custodial files for over 100 Uber employees and involved hundreds of terabytes of data. 

5. The Declaration of Kevin Faulkner (Dkt. 175-1) and concurrently filed 

Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Faulkner describe the forensic work Stroz Friedberg 

performed on that data, including filename and MD5 hash value searching. 

6. Stroz Friedberg also processed and applied search terms to the data so that 

attorneys could review the documents that contain a search term hit and determine whether they 

 1

 Goodwin Procter LLP filed a substitution of counsel on April 24 noting that it has 

assumed the representation of Otto Trucking LLC, an entity that is not owned by Uber, but that 

document has not yet been signed by the Court. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 305 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 6
RIVERA DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 2

la-1347767 

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 

contain confidential Google material. We used more than 100 search terms, including 15 terms 

added by Waymo pursuant to the Court’s April 6, 2017 order.2

7. In order to review the substantial volume of documents that “hit” on one of the 

search terms, we assembled a team of more than 40 attorney reviewers. As of April 26, 2017, 

attorneys have spent over 5,000 hours, including weekends, reviewing more than 300,000 

documents for responsiveness to the Court’s order of March 16, 2017. 

8. As a result of Stroz Friedberg’s forensic searches and the manual review of 

documents with search term “hits” performed by attorneys, Defendants have produced 

approximately 9,000 documents from their files. With one exception, these documents were 

produced because of filename and MD5 hash matches, and not because a reviewer concluded they 

contained alleged trade secret information. Defendants produced only one email and a 2 page 

attachment from their files that reviewers concluded potentially referenced Google trade secrets. 

We asked Waymo to let us know if it believes the document refers to proprietary information and 

did not get a response to that question. There is no reference to that document in Waymo’s reply 

papers. Defendants also obtained permission to have Stroz Friedberg search the personal Gmail 

account for one Uber employee and produced two responsive documents from that account. 

9. Stroz Friedberg is still processing additional documents that hit on the search 

terms. We will continue to have a large team of attorneys review the documents with search term 

“hits,” likely through next week, but possibly beyond due to the large volume of data, as 

described in the Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Faulkner. 

Defendants Diligently Searched for and Produced Documents in Connection with 

Waymo’s Deposition Notices 

10. In its March 16, 2017 order, the Court allowed the parties to take the deposition of 

each declarant whose declaration was submitted in support of or opposition to the preliminary 

 2

 The Court’s April 6, 2017 order refers to Defendants’ 120 search terms. However, our 

search term list had just under 100 terms. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 305 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 6
RIVERA DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION

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

la-1347767 

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 

injunction motion. The Court permitted the parties to serve up to six “very narrowly drawn” 

document requests with each deposition notice. (Dkt. 61.) 

11. Deposition notices were due 120 hours before the scheduled start of the deposition, 

with the associated document production being due 24 hours before the deposition. That meant 

that in most instances, Defendants had only approximately 96 hours from the time they received 

the deposition notice to contact the deponent and clients and set-up a time to discuss the 

document requests, collect potentially responsive documents, review them for responsiveness and 

privilege, and have them processed for production. Defendants did this for eleven depositions in 

a 10-day period from April 9 through April 19. 

12. More than 14 Morrison & Foerster and Boies, Schiller, Flexner lawyers 

participated in the effort to identify, collect, review, and produce documents in response to 

Waymo’s document requests served with their deposition notices within the narrow four day 

window available for each deposition. 

13. On April 20, 2017, the parties met with Special Master John Cooper and 

discussed, among other things, Waymo’s objections to Defendants’ document production in 

connection with the depositions. The parties reached a compromise on five document requests 

Waymo served with its deposition notices, as reflected in Mr. Cooper’s email of the same date 

which was attached as Exhibit 113 to the Declaration of Jordan R. Jaffe (Dkt. 248.) Defendants 

agreed to search for and produce documents responsive to those requests. 

14. In response to document request no. 4 from the deposition notice for Scott 

Boehmke, Defendants had previously produced responsive documents from Mr. Boehmke’s files 

in advance of his deposition. On April 20, Defendants agreed to search beyond Mr. Boehmke’s 

files for documents regarding Mr. Levandowski’s LiDAR-related consulting work. Defendants 

produced additional responsive documents on April 25 and April 27, including documents from 

Anthony Levandowski’s files. 

15. In response to document request no. 6 from the deposition notice for Asheem 

Linaval, Defendants had previously produced responsive documents from Mr. Linaval’s files in 

advance of his deposition including emails from Mr. Levandowski to Mr. Linaval. At the April 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 305 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 6
RIVERA DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION

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

la-1347767 

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 

20 conference, Defendants agreed that Waymo could provide the names of two additional 

custodians for whom Defendants would search for responsive documents. At 8:42 p.m. on 

Sunday, April 23, Waymo identified Anthony Levandowski and Max Levandowski as the two 

additional custodians. Defendants then searched for, reviewed, and produced responsive 

documents on April 27, including documents from Anthony Levandowski’s files. 

16. At the April 20 conference, Defendants also agreed to search for additional 

documents in response to three other document requests. As of the date of this filing, that search 

is on-going. We have agreed to produce any additional responsive documents that we locate by 

tomorrow morning. 

The 22 Priority Document Requests 

17. On April 14, 2017, Waymo sent Defendants a list of 22 document requests that 

Waymo wanted Defendants to prioritize. A true and correct copy of Waymo’s Amended 

Document Requests to Help Determine Responsiveness in Conducting Search for 

Misappropriated Documents is attached as Exhibit 1. Defendants worked diligently to search for, 

identify, and produce responsive documents. By April 20, 2017, just six days later, Defendants 

completed their production of documents in response to those 22 priority requests. Defendants 

produced documents responsive to each of those requests, except for three requests for which no 

responsive documents were identified after a diligent search. 

18. Earlier this week, Waymo’s counsel made additional requests for more technical 

documentation regarding the Spider. We produced that additional documentation. 

Defendants Amended Their Privilege Logs 

19. Counsel for Defendants also spent over 500 hours reviewing and creating privilege 

logs for communications related to the investigation performed by Stroz Friedberg LLC in 

connection with Uber’s acquisition of Ottomotto. Waymo raised numerous concerns with the 

privilege logs and the parties conferred. In an effort to address Waymo’s concerns, Defendants 

amended their privilege logs and served the amended logs on April 27, 2017, and expect to serve 

another set on April 28 with amendments to address Waymo’s concerns. Defendants also agreed 

to undertake the laborious task of re-reviewing emails on the logs to ensure that all senders and 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 305 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 6
RIVERA DECL. ISO DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION

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

la-1347767 

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 

recipients are accounted for within an email string. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct 

copy of my email of April 27, 2017, to Waymo’s counsel at Quinn on this subject. 

20. In total, Defendants have devoted over 6,000 attorney hours to searching for and 

reviewing documents in connection with Waymo’s motion for preliminary injunction, including 

reviewing for the 14,000 allegedly misappropriated files, documents responsive to requests 

appended to deposition notices, documents responsive to Waymo’s 22 priority requests served on 

April 14, 2017, and documents to be placed on a privilege log. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that 

the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 28th day of April, 2017, in Los Angeles, 

California. 

 /s/ Sylvia Rivera 

Sylvia Rivera 

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE 

I, Arturo J. González, 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 Esther Kim Chang 

has concurred in this filing. 

Dated: April 28, 2017 /s/ Arturo J. González 

Arturo J. González 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 305 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 6