pa-1795257 

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 . 

July 19, 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: 

In a letter to the Court this morning (Dkt. 950), counsel for Waymo implies that 

Mr. Kalanick intentionally deleted text messages from his cell phone reflecting 

communications between himself and Mr. Levandowski. Waymo’s representation is false 

and not at all consistent with the facts. 

Mr. Kalanick’s cell phone was very recently analyzed by forensic experts retained on his 

behalf. These forensic experts located text messages between Mr. Kalanick and Mr. 

Levandowski on the cell phone image—both Mr. Kalanick’s messages to Mr. Levandowski, 

and Mr. Levandowski’s messages to Mr. Kalanick. There is no evidence that Mr. Kalanick 

intentionally deleted text messages. 

Stroz Friedberg produced a report containing texts from Mr. Levandowski to Mr. Kalanick, 

but not containing the companion texts from Mr. Kalanick to Mr. Levandowski. Mr. 

Kalanick then retained the forensic experts to do additional analysis. They identified an 

issue—Mr. Kalanick’s cell phone did not associate outgoing messages with recipients—for 

all recipients, not just Mr. Levandowski. The outgoing messages were therefore not as easily 

compiled, but are in fact located within the cell phone image. There is no evidence 

whatsoever that Mr. Kalanick intentionally deleted any text messages with Mr. Levandowski 

or anyone else. 

In its letter brief, Waymo accuses Uber of refusing to produce what it calls the Kalanick 

letter. This accusation is also false. Uber told Waymo that its search for the letter was 

ongoing, but Waymo chose to file this motion even though Uber told Waymo that the motion 

was premature. Perhaps Waymo did so out of a desire to say something sensational about 

Uber’s former CEO. 

This afternoon, Uber’s counsel obtained a copy of the letter at issue. The letter is completely 

irrelevant to the issue in this case—whether Uber misappropriated trade secrets or violated 
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley 

July 19, 2017 

Page Two 

pa-1795257 

one patent. Mr. Kalanick is willing to submit the letter to the Court for in camera inspection 

so that the Court can see that the letter is not relevant to these issues. Indeed, the letter 

contains only a passing reference to this litigation—nothing more, and says nothing about 

patents or the alleged misappropriation. And, although admittedly only a tentative opinion, 

Judge Alsup has recognized that unrelated accusations directed at Uber will not be part of 

this trial. (See Dkt. 775 at 4:8 [“We’re not going to tell the jury that Uber is plagued with all 

of these problems that it has”].) If the Court believes that a formal motion for protective 

order is necessary, we would request leave of Court to file such a motion. We believe the 

Court will agree upon reviewing the letter in camera that such a motion is unnecessary. 

The rest of Waymo’s letter consists of false statements that are irrelevant to Waymo’s 

motion. Waymo apparently included these statements because it wishes to disseminate 

misinformation to the public through a court filing. These false statements include: 

 A false statement that Uber said it’s looking for “Waymo’s stolen files.” Uber is 

looking for documents that Waymo has identified, with no evidence they are 

“Waymo’s stolen files.” More importantly, as Waymo well knows, none of these 

files have been found at Uber. 

 A false statement that Uber “conscientiously avoided” places it knew files would be 

found. The truth is the opposite of Waymo’s statement. Uber looked everywhere for 

the requested files. Inevitably some things were overlooked because of the pace of 

the search. When they were located, Uber immediately disclosed them. 

 Most outrageously, as noted above, Waymo falsely states that “Uber has informed 

Waymo that Mr. Kalanick . . . deleted from his phone all text messages he sent to Mr. 

Levandowki (sic) at any time.” That statement is a fabrication. It is not true that 

Mr. Kalanick deleted text messages, and it is not true that Uber informed Waymo that 

Mr. Kalanick deleted messages. The emails which Waymo cites for this false 

statement demonstrate its falsity. Waymo first cites an email from Wendy Ray 

(Dkt. 950-6), an attorney for Uber; she says, “We re–checked Travis Kalanick’s 

phone and did not recover any additional messages. We are continuing to investigate 

whether additional recovery is possible.” Nowhere in this email does Ms. Ray say 

that Mr. Kalanick deleted all text messages he sent to Mr. Levandowski. Next, 

Waymo cites an email (Dkt. 950-7) from Andrea Roberts, an attorney from Quinn 

Emanuel, purporting to memorialize a telephonic conferral with counsel for Uber, 

Esther Chang: “Ms. Chang said that the vendor did not think that this was a collection 

issue—meaning that any text messages sent by Travis Kalanick to Anthony 

Levandowski are no longer on Mr. Kalanick’s phone. But, the vendor was going to 

check this again when it could get access to Mr. Kalanick’s phone.” Ms. Chang did 

not say that Mr. Kalanick deleted all text messages he sent to Mr. Levandowski. 
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley 

July 19, 2017 

Page Three 

pa-1795257 

Knowing that there was no actual support for its statement, Waymo made it anyway, 

again, perhaps out of a desire to say something sensational about Uber’s former CEO. 

This is a clear Rule 11 violation, made worse by the incendiary nature of the 

allegations. 

Waymo’s motion should be denied because it is unrelated to the issues in this case and 

implicates Mr. Kalanick’s privacy rights. Alternatively, if the Court would like to review the 

letter at issue, we would be willing to submit it to the Court for in camera inspection. 

Further, Waymo and its counsel should be directed to withdraw or correct the false 

statements that they have made to the Court regarding the alleged deletion of text messages. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Arturo J. González 

Counsel for Uber Technologies, Inc. 

and Ottomotto LLC 

cc: All Counsel of Record 

Special Master John Cooper