EXHIBIT 11

   

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 689 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 4
1

From: Gonzalez, Arturo J.

Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:47 AM

To: 'Felipe Corredor'; Yang, Michelle C.Y.; QE-Waymo

Cc: 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com'; UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; 'DGGPOttoTruckingWaymo@goodwinlaw.com'; John Cooper (JCooper@fbm.com); MCate@fbm.com; nbartow@uber.com; 

Aaron Bergstrom (abergstrom@uber.com)

Subject: Waymo v. Uber - Defendant Uber's First Set of Interrogatories

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Felipe,

This email is an attempt to confer regarding the remaining deficiencies in these interrogatory responses.  These

interrogatories were carefully drafted to get the information that we need to address your alleged trade secret claims at

trial.  We need more complete responses to avoid surprise and to properly prepare for trial.   

John, we request that we have a call with you on Monday evening to discuss these issues if we are not able to resolve

them before then.  I understand you will be in Pittsburg.  Perhaps we can discuss these matters at 7:00 p.m. PST on

Monday.  Let us know if that would work for you.

Our concerns with these responses are as follows:

First, there is no verification.  We reserve all rights but please send us a verification for these responses or explain why

you have not done so.

Rog 1:  You  address only 21 of the more than 100 alleged trade secrets.  We assume your “less than 10” will be selected

from this group and will move in limine to exclude any evidence of the others at trial.

Rog 2:  You make repeated allegations on “information and belief.”  What is your factual basis for believing those

individuals have information regarding use of the alleged trade secrets?  The interrogatories must be answered

“fully.”  Have you fully provided each factual basis in support of your “information and belief” allegations?   

Rog 3:  You do not include a number of the alleged trade secrets.  We assume this is an admission that the excluded

trade secrets do not have independent economic value and will move in limine at trial to exclude any such evidence.   

Rog 4:  You have not separately identified which documents you contend reflect development for each of your alleged

trade secrets.  We ask that you do so so that we can confirm that you in fact developed  each of the purported trade

secrets.   

Rog 5:  This response has the same problem.  We need to know, separately for each alleged trade secret, who you claim

developed that trade secret so that we can question that person(s) about the alleged development.  You have given us a

list of names without identifying who allegedly developed what.   

Rog 6:  Again, there is no effort to identify for each secret, how long it took and how much it cost to develop that

purported secret.  Waymo chose to allege over 100 trade secrets.  We are entitled to independent discovery pertaining

to each one.  Otherwise, we cannot adequately analyze whether Waymo in fact developed each of the alleged secrets

and how valuable they are.

Rog 7:  You have not provided us with ANY fact that Waymo took specific efforts to protect any of the specific alleged

trade secrets.  For example, there is no reference to any document advising employees that any specific alleged trade

secret is a secret or should otherwise be kept confidential.  If there were any specific efforts or communications directed

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 689 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 4
2

at the trade secrets at issue, they should be identified in this response.  Please confirm in your response that there were

no specific communications pertaining to any of the alleged trade secrets.  If there were such specific communications,

identify them.

Rog 10: We have multiple concerns regarding this response.  First, you identify only a fraction of the alleged trade

secrets.  We assume that the remaining alleged secrets are not referenced in the misappropriated files and will move to

exclude any such evidence at trial.  Second, many of the files that you reference do not have Bates numbers, which

makes it very difficult if not impossible for us to address.  Please add Bates numbers where there are none.  Third, you

have not identified “how” the documents you cite identify the alleged trade secret.  This is especially important since

your response states that the documents referenced disclose at least “part” of a trade secret.  We need to know which

part and how you are connecting the document to that part.   

We are available to confer this weekend on any of these issues.  Please let me know what time works for you.   

Arturo

From: Felipe Corredor [mailto:felipecorredor@quinnemanuel.com] 

Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 11:18 PM 

To: Yang, Michelle C.Y.; QE-Waymo 

Cc: 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com'; UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; 'DGGPOttoTruckingWaymo@goodwinlaw.com' 

Subject: RE: Waymo v. Uber - Defendant Uber's First Set of Interrogatories 

- External Email -

Counsel,

Please find attached Waymo’s responses and objections to Uber Technologies, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1‐

11).  Please note that these have been marked as Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the Protective Order.

Regards,

Felipe

Felipe Corredor

Associate,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

415-875-6448 Direct 

415.875.6600 Main Office Number 

415.875.6700 FAX 

felipecorredor@quinnemanuel.com

www.quinnemanuel.com

NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message 

may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended 

recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any 

review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately 

by e-mail, and delete the original message. 

From: Yang, Michelle C.Y. [mailto:MYang@mofo.com]  

Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:04 PM

To: QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>

Cc: 'BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com' <BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>;

UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; 'NChatterjee@goodwinlaw.com'

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 689 Filed 06/21/17 Page 3 of 4
3

<NChatterjee@goodwinlaw.com>; 'BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com' <BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com>;

'SBrun@goodwinlaw.com' <SBrun@goodwinlaw.com>; 'RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com' <RWalsh@goodwinlaw.com>

Subject: Waymo v. Uber ‐ Defendant Uber's First Set of Interrogatories

Counsel,

Attached please find Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1‐11).  The interrogatories do

not contain Uber confidential or AEO information.

Best regards,

Michelle                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                            

Michelle Yang 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20006-1888 

P: +1 (202) 887.1537 | F: +1 (202) 785.7580 | C: +1 (415) 866.7219 

MYang@mofo.com | www.mofo.com

============================================================================ 

This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee 

is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 689 Filed 06/21/17 Page 4 of 4