Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 1125

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 1083 Waymo's Motion for Relief Regarding the Depositions of Soren Juelsgaard, Nina Qi, Cameron Poetzscher, Colin Sebern, and Don Burnette. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WAYMO LLC, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC) v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER RE: WAYMO'S MOTION FOR RELIEF REGARDING CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS Re: Dkt. No. 1083 12 13 Fact discovery closes August 24, 2017. However, the Federal Circuit is not holding oral 14 argument on Anthony Levandowski’s appeal of the Court’s order compelling disclosure of the 15 Stroz Report until August 11, 2017. To complete all depositions by the discovery cut off, certain 16 depositions must be taken before the Federal Circuit’s ruling. Waymo thus asks that it be allowed 17 to take the depositions of Soren Juelsgaard, Nina Qi, Cameron Poetzscher, Colin Sebern and Don 18 Burnette in two steps. First, that it begin each deposition before the Federal Circuit ruling, and 19 second, that it complete the deposition after the ruling and, if the ruling is affirmed, Uber’s 20 production of the Stroz Report and related documents. Waymo does not ask for extra time, only 21 that its time be divided over two sessions. 22 Uber agrees that if the Federal Circuit affirms the Court’s ruling, Waymo should be 23 allowed to reopen the depositions to question the witnesses regarding matters raised by the newly- 24 disclosed documents. However, it disputes that Waymo should be allowed to continue the 25 depositions regardless of the Federal Circuit ruling; that is, if the Federal Circuit ruling does not 26 lead to the disclosure of any new documents then it insists that the witnesses should not be put to 27 the burden of a further deposition. 28 In the unique circumstances of this case the Court finds that these witnesses’ depositions 1 should be split into two sessions: one before the Federal Circuit ruling and one after. These are 2 critical witnesses and thus Waymo needs to triage how to allocate its seven-hours of deposition 3 time per witness. Requiring Waymo to make that decision without knowing what documents will 4 be available and what they might say is not consistent with the goals of civil discovery of avoiding 5 trial by surprise. Given that moving the discovery deadline is not an option, splitting the 6 depositions into two sessions is the next best option. 7 Doing so will not place an undue burden on these Uber witnesses as they agreed to sit for a 8 further deposition session if the Court’s ruling is affirmed and the withheld documents produced. 9 Further, Waymo is not getting any extra time for their depositions so the amount of time in deposition does not change. Finally, Uber’s suggestion that Waymo’s questions be limited to areas 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 raised by newly-disclosed documents will merely result in further disputes as to whether the 12 questions are within the scope of the continued deposition. Accordingly, Waymo’s motion is 13 GRANTED. 14 This Order disposes of Docket No. 1083. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 8, 2017 17 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?