Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 1263

ORDER DENYING #932 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM #881 JUDGE CORLEY'S NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2017)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1263 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

WAYMO LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 17-00939 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGE
CORLEY’S NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER RE
MOTION TO COMPEL

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO
TRUCKING LLC,
Defendants.
/

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION
The magistrate judge overseeing discovery in this action granted in part and denied in

18

part plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff moves for relief from that order pursuant to Civil

19

Local Rule 72. The motion is DENIED.

20

STATEMENT

21

Plaintiff Waymo LLC moved to compel defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto

22

LLC (collectively, “Uber”), and Otto Trucking LLC to produce certain documents and respond

23

to certain interrogatories (Dkt. No. 682). In an order dated July 12, per the discovery referral in

24

this action, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley granted in part and denied in part Waymo’s

25

motion (Dkt. Nos. 881). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72, Waymo filed a motion for relief from

26

the July 12 order (Dkt. No. 932). A prior order deferred ruling on the motion pending a hearing

27

on a related matter (Dkt. No. 1188 at 3). This order now denies the motion.

28

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1263 Filed 08/18/17 Page 2 of 3

1

ANALYSIS

2

1.

STANDARD OF REVIEW.

3

Under FRCP 72, a district judge considering timely objections to a magistrate judge’s

4

nondispositive order must defer to the order unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

5

Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). “The reviewing

6

court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Ibid. (citing United

7

States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)).

8

2.

9

Judge Corley rejected Waymo’s argument that Anthony Levandowski “knows where the

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

material he downloaded from Waymo is located, and therefore Otto Trucking must know,”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

noting that “Levandowski has refused to cooperate with any discovery in this matter on Fifth

12

Amendment grounds” (Dkt. No. 881 at 3). Waymo objects that “a corporation has no Fifth

13

Amendment privileges and may not withhold documents on that basis” (Dkt. No. 932 at 1).

14

This objection is frivolous. Judge Corley’s order clearly referred to Levandowski’s personal

15

Fifth Amendment privilege, not to any Fifth Amendment privilege asserted by Otto Trucking.

16

Waymo also objects that, under Judge Corley’s reasoning, “any corporate entity could avoid

17

compliance with discovery simply [by] stating that whoever is in charge would not ‘allow’ it to

18

comply” (ibid.). Wrong again. The issue here is not that Levandowski simply will not “allow”

19

Otto Trucking to comply with discovery but that Waymo asked Judge Corley to impute

20

Levandowski’s personal knowledge to Otto Trucking notwithstanding his assertion of Fifth

21

Amendment privilege. Finally, Waymo agrees with Judge Corley that, “[t]o the extent [it]

22

contends that Otto Trucking has not done enough to coerce Mr. Levandowski to speak, that is a

23

matter that it has raised with the District Judge” (Dkt. No. 881 at 3). Waymo nevertheless

24

objects that the mere fact “that Otto Trucking may likely violate the order should the Court

25

grant Waymo’s motion to compel cannot be the basis to deny Waymo’s motion” (Dkt. No. 932

26

at 1). Judge Corley, however, did not deny Waymo’s motion on that basis. In short, Waymo

27

has not shown that Judge Corley’s July 12 order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

28
2

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1263 Filed 08/18/17 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for relief from Judge Corley’s July 12 order
is DENIED. All stated objections thereto are OVERRULED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: August 18, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3