DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY COURT’S MAY 19 ORDER (DKT. 471)

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

dc-884140

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

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

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426)

RudyKim@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000

Facsimile: 415.268.7522

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

DEFENDANTS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC. AND OTTOMOTTO LLC’S PARTIAL 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO MODIFY THE COURT’S 

MAY 19 ORDER (DKT. 471)

Judge: The Honorable William Alsup

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 494 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 3
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY COURT’S MAY 19 ORDER (DKT. 471)

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

dc-884140

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

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

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

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

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC (collectively, “Uber”) do not 

oppose reinstatement of the May 31 deadline for Uber to comply with Item #2 of the Court’s 

Preliminary Injunction Order (Dkt. 433 at 23) with respect to “all other officers, directors, 

employees, and agents of defendants” apart from Anthony Levandowski and Stroz Friedberg. 

The Court’s extended deadline of June 23 should be retained for Uber’s compliance with Item #2 

relating to Mr. Levandowski and Stroz Friedberg.

With respect to Mr. Levandowski: Waymo does not challenge the extended June 23 

deadline for portions of Item #2 “addressing Defendants’ potential discipline of 

Mr. Levandowski.” (Dkt. 485 at 2-3.) Mr. Levandowski has moved to intervene to seek 

modification of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order on the basis of his asserted Fifth 

Amendment privilege. (Dkt. 466.) Waymo argues that Mr. Levandowski’s motion pertains only 

to subsection (b) of Item #2 (concerning the return of downloaded materials) and not to 

subsection (a) (concerning the prevention of use of downloaded materials). (Dkt. 485 at 1-2.) In 

fact, Mr. Levandowski’s motion addresses the entirety of Item #2, as it asks the Court to 

withdraw the complete preamble of Item #2 as it pertains to Mr. Levandowski. (Dkt. 466 at 9.) 

Further, Waymo concedes that the deadline is properly extended as to “subsection (b) addressing 

Defendants’ potential discipline of Mr. Levandowski should he fail to provide relevant materials 

and information.” (Dkt. 452 at 2-3.) Accordingly, the Court’s extended deadline of June 23 

should continue to apply to all of Item #2 as it pertains to Mr. Levandowski, to “permit full 

briefing and hearing on Levandowski’s motion.” (Dkt. 471.) 

With respect to Stroz Friedberg: Waymo contends that the May 31 compliance deadline 

should be reinstated for Item #2 as it pertains to Stroz and the Stroz Due Diligence Report. 

However, as Waymo knows, Uber has asserted attorney-client privilege and work product 

protection over the Stroz Due Diligence Report and its exhibits, and Waymo’s motion to compel 

production of that report is scheduled for hearing in front of Magistrate Judge Corley on 

May 25, 2017. Mr. Levandowski has also intervened to assert privilege protection over the Stroz 

Due Diligence Report and exhibits. (Dkt. 371, 379.) The extended compliance deadline of 

June 23 should be retained for Item #2 as it pertains to Stroz to allow time for the Magistrate 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 494 Filed 05/23/17 Page 2 of 3
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY COURT’S MAY 19 ORDER (DKT. 471)

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

dc-884140

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

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

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

Judge to rule on Waymo’s motion to compel and for any subsequent appeal to the district court or 

Federal Circuit.

Dated: May 23, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ

Attorneys for Defendants

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

and OTTOMOTTO LLC

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 494 Filed 05/23/17 Page 3 of 3