Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
Filing
1410
ORDER DENYING #1289 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM #1276 JUDGE CORLEY'S NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2017)
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1410 Filed 08/29/17 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 defendants’ motion to compel. Plaintiff moves for relief from that order pursuant to Civil
19
Local Rule 72. The motion is DENIED.
20
STATEMENT
21
Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC (collectively, “Uber”) moved
22
to compel plaintiff Waymo LLC to, among other things, respond to certain interrogatories and
23
produce certain documents (Dkt. No. 1215). In an order dated August 19, per the discovery
24
referral in this action, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley granted in part and denied in part
25
Uber’s motion (Dkt. No. 1276). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72, Waymo filed a motion for
26
relief from the August 19 order (Dkt. No. 1289). This order follows full briefing.
27
28
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1410 Filed 08/29/17 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
Waymo’s “objections” regarding interrogatory number 25 and request for production
WAYMO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.
number 166 (see Dkt. Nos. 1289 at 1–3; 1362 at 1–3, 5) are really just requests for clarification
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
of Judge Corley’s August 19 order. As such, they have been mooted by Judge Corley’s
12
clarifications on the record during a more recent hearing on August 28. Waymo’s sole
13
remaining objection is that Judge Corley erred in ordering discovery into seven of its own
14
transactions (see Dkt. Nos. 1289 at 3–4; 1362 at 3–5). Judge Corley reasoned “that Waymo
15
intends to ask the jury to draw negative inferences against Uber based on how Uber conducted
16
the acquisition of Ottomotto,” so “how Waymo conducts its own acquisitions is relevant to the
17
claims and defenses in this action.” Additionally, the transactions in question are “relevant to
18
Waymo’s efforts to keep its self-described proprietary information secret” (Dkt. No. 1276 at
19
1–2). Waymo has not shown that these rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
20
First, Waymo complains that Uber has not shown “any aspects of those deals that
21
parallel the aspects of its acquisition of Otto, such as forensic due diligence or indemnity for
22
confessed acts of trade secret misappropriation or other malfeasance” (Dkt. Nos. 1289 at 3–4;
23
1362 at 4). But the point of the ordered discovery is so Uber can find out if any such parallels
24
exist. The showing Waymo demands would be an unreasonable prerequisite to that discovery.
25
Second, Waymo suggests its transactions are not discoverable because it “has no
26
intention of relying on [its] own acquisitions to argue that Uber’s deal was unusual” (Dkt. Nos.
27
1289 at 4; 1362 at 5). This argument misses the point. Uber remains entitled to discover
28
evidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this action even if Waymo will not use the same
2
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1410 Filed 08/29/17 Page 3 of 3
1
evidence. Waymo’s related argument that Uber cannot discover relevant evidence merely
2
because there is other evidence on the same issue (Dkt. No. 1362 at 3) is similarly unpersuasive.
3
Third, Waymo contends its “own efforts to keep its transactions confidential” are
4
irrelevant because it “does not challenge Uber’s actions to keep its deal confidential,” and its
5
“efforts to keep transactions confidential are unrelated to [its] efforts to keep its trade-secret
6
development away from outside prying eyes” and thus “do not inform whether [it] takes
7
reasonable measures to protect its trade secrets” (Dkt. No. 1289 at 4). As Uber pointed out in
8
its motion to compel before Judge Corley, however, Waymo has put at issue the question of
9
whether efforts to keep an acquisition shrouded in secrecy — as Uber did with the Otto
acquisition — suggest a cover-up of some underlying misconduct (see Dkt. No. 1215 at 2).
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
This alone shows that Judge Corley’s ruling was not clearly erroneous.
12
13
14
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for relief from Judge Corley’s August 19
order is DENIED. All stated objections thereto are OVERRULED.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: August 29, 2017.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?