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