1























































01980-00104/9537876.2

WAYMO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com

 Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649)

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887)

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886)

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-4788

Telephone: (415) 875-6600

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S MOTION IN 

LIMINE 15

Date: September 27, 2017

Time: 8:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 8, 19th Floor

Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup

Trial Date: October 10, 2017 
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

01980-00104/9537876.2

-1-

WAYMO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15

The Court should preclude Defendants from presenting argument about Waymo’s purported 

motivations for filing this lawsuit against Defendants. Specifically, the Court should prohibit any 

evidence, argument, or assertion that this lawsuit is an attempt by Waymo to slow down a competitor, 

or that Waymo should have included Anthony Levandowski as a defendant. Defendants are faced 

with the reality that they have no substantive response on the merits of Waymo’s trade secret 

misappropriation claims, and are resorting to impugning Waymo’s motives for seeking to protect its

intellectual property. However, Defendants have never asserted an unfair competition claim and have 

obtained no evidence of any motive other than Waymo’s claims having merit. To the extent that 

Waymo’s motive has any relevance at all, its desire to exercise and protect its rights under federal and 

state trade secret law is the only motive on which evidence exists. Setting aside Defendants’ lack of a 

basis to present such an argument, Waymo’s motivation is simply not relevant to its misappropriation 

claims, and any arguments to the contrary would be nothing more than a confusing side show that 

would be unduly prejudicial to Waymo’s rightful vindication of its trade secret claims by the jury. 

With respect to the first issue, Defendants are not now asserting, nor have they ever asserted,

any unfair competition claims or defenses as part of this case. Nevertheless, Defendants have

repeatedly asserted to the press various iterations of a refrain that this lawsuit is a “baseless attempt” 

by Waymo to slowdown a competitor.

1

 Defendants have repeatedly attempted to develop this 

narrative throughout discovery but to no avail. For example, at the start of discovery, Defendants 

questioned a Waymo witness about whether slowing Uber down through litigation would be 

“beneficial to Waymo.” Ex. 1 at 11:8-12:7. The witness' response, however, was that Waymo’s 

 

1

 E.g. https://www.recode.net/2017/2/23/14717432/waymo-otto-uber-anthony-levandowskilawsuit (“We have reviewed Waymo's claims and determined them to be a baseless attempt to 

slow down a competitor and we look forward to vigorously defending against them in court.”); 

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/uber-waymo-lawsuit-injunction/ (“Uber calls the suit ‘a baseless 

attempt to slow down a competitor.’”); https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/uber-on-alphabetlawsuit-a-baseless-attempt-to-slow-down-a-competitor.html (“Uber on Alphabet lawsuit: ‘A 

baseless attempt to slow down a competitor’”); 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/the-fight-between-waymo-and-uberintensifies/519285/ (“An Uber spokesperson on Friday reduced Waymo’s claims to a ‘baseless 

attempt to slow down a competitor,’ in the ridesharing giant’s strongest public response yet to a 

federal lawsuit filed in February.”)
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

01980-00104/9537876.2

-2-

WAYMO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15

interest isin maintaining protection over its technology. Id. Defendants have also recently questioned 

Waymo’s witnesses about whether its forensic investigation was driven by the closing of Uber’s 

acquisition of Ottomotto. See Ex. 2. However, Waymo’s forensic investigation was for the simple 

purpose of determining whether and to what extent Mr. Levandowski had stolen Waymo’s trade 

secrets and was intending to use that information at Otto/Uber. Id. 

). In sum, there is no evidence that Waymo brought its claims here for any other 

purpose than because they have merit.

Even if Defendants had a valid basis for presenting to the jury its theories on Waymo’s 

motivations in bringing this suit (it does not), Waymo’s purported motivations for bringing this 

lawsuit bears no relevance and offers no probative value at trial. See Haught v. U.S. Eng'g 

Contractors Corp., No. 07-80436-CIV, 2009 WL 36591, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2009) (holding the 

nature of plaintiff's motivation for filing action was irrelevant); Square D Co. v. Breakers Unlimited, 

Inc., No. 1:07-CV-806-WTL-JMS, 2009 WL 1625505, at *1 (S.D. Ind. June 4, 2009) (granting motion 

in limine on grounds that motive for bringing the lawsuit was irrelevant); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nassiri, 

No. 2:08-CV-369 JCM GWF, 2013 WL 2394116, at *5 (D. Nev. May 30, 2013) (same); Wright v. 

BNSF Ry. Co., No. 4:13-CV-24-JED-FHM, 2016 WL 1637276, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 25, 2016)

(references to a plaintiff’s motivation for bringing suit “are unduly prejudicial and will not be allowed 

at trial”). Indeed, as shown above Defendants can point to no claim or defense in this case that would 

require an inquiry into Waymo’s motivation or state of mind. Because Waymo’s motivation for filing 

this lawsuit is irrelevant and lacks any probative value, pursuant to FRE 402 and 403, Waymo 

requests that the Court preclude any argument or evidence related to the same.

As to the second issue, the Court has already found that Waymo’s “decision to bring separate

claims against defendants in court was not only reasonable but also the only course available, since 

Waymo had no arbitration agreement with defendants.” Dkt. 425 at 9; see also 4-27 Hrg. Tr. at 34:23-

25 (“So everything they’ve done right is perfectly above-board. And you’re trying to make it sound 

like they are trying to game the system, but that's just not true.”). Any argument to the contrary would 

be wrong, would confuse the issues, and would cause prejudice to Waymo. 
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

01980-00104/9537876.2

-3-

WAYMO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15

There is no evidence that Waymo brought this case for any reason other than because Waymo's 

claims have merits. That said, Waymo’s motivations for bringing this lawsuit against the named 

Defendants (as opposed to any individuals) are irrelevant to Waymo’s claims of Uber’s 

misappropriation and ongoing use of Waymo’s trade secrets. Arguments on these subjects are likely 

to cause unfair prejudice and confusion. Any argument, or any attempt to elicit evidence from 

Waymo by Defendants, concerning Waymo’s motivations should be prohibited. Motion in Limine 

No. 15 should be granted.

DATED: August 7, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP

By /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven

Charles K. Verhoeven

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC