Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
Filing
1507
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part and denying in part #1435 Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s and Ottomotto, LLC's Motion to Compel Waymo to Supplement RFA & Interrogatory Responses and to Produce an Unredacted Document (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2017) Modified on 9/11/2017 (ahm, COURT STAFF).
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1507 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
WAYMO LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER RE: UBER’S MOTION TO
COMPEL
v.
9
10
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Dkt. No. 1435
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)
12
13
14
Uber moves to compel responses to Request for Admission No. 40 and Interrogatory Nos.
20, 24, and 29, and to require Waymo to unredact a document. (Dkt. No. 1435.)
1.
15
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 40 asks Waymo to admit “that after
16
Anthony Levandowski signed his employment agreement with Uber in August 2016
17
(UBER00017083), he did not download any files from Waymo or Google.” Waymo responded
18
that it “lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny.” Uber insists that this response is not
19
credible. Waymo counters that its answer is appropriate because “Waymo is not aware of any
20
evidence that Levandowski downloaded files from Waymo or Google after Levandowski became
21
an Uber employee, but that does not mean that Waymo knows that he did not, and Uber has not
22
shown otherwise.” (Dkt. No. 1489 at 2.) Uber’s motion to compel is DENIED. All that Waymo
23
could truthfully admit is that it does not have evidence that Mr. Levandowski downloaded
24
documents after he became an Uber employee, but only Mr. Levandowski can admit or deny
25
whether he did.
26
27
28
2.
INTERROGATORIES 20 & 24 ask Waymo to describe efforts it has taken to
prevent other companies’ confidential, proprietary or trade secret information from entering
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1507 Filed 09/11/17 Page 2 of 3
1
Waymo, including any investigations or forensic analysis Waymo performed at any time,
2
including in connection with M&A transactions and employee hires, and any instances in which
3
such information entered Waymo. The Court previously ordered Waymo to provide responses
4
related to its driverless car program. (Dkt. No. 1276.) In response to the Court’s Order, Waymo
5
identified two investigations of current employees. Uber contends that this is “astonishing” and
6
“Waymo should be ordered to amend its responses to state that neither it nor Alphabet/Google
7
takes any measures during M&A transactions or when hiring employees to prevent the entrance of
8
another companies’ confidential, proprietary or trade secret information.” (Dkt. No. 1434-4 at 3.)
9
Likewise, in response to ROG 20, Uber argues that if Alphabet/Google has not performed forensic
due diligence, in any context, then it should say so in its response. Further, to the extent that
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Waymo has conducted other investigations, Uber insists that Waymo should be required to set
12
forth all of the steps it took in these investigations, whether the information it discovered was
13
proprietary or trade secret, and what Waymo did with that information (i.e., whether it was
14
retained, destroyed, or returned). Uber also maintains that these responses also should not be
15
limited to Waymo and should be as to Alphabet/Google generally.
16
Uber’ motion to compel is DENIED. Waymo answered the interrogatories as ordered by
17
the Court. Uber is asking Waymo to make Uber’s arguments for it, but the interrogatories do not
18
require it to do so. Interrogatories are admissible at trial and Uber can argue whatever inferences
19
it deems appropriate from Waymo’s responses.
20
3.
INTERROGATORY 29 asks Waymo to explain the basis for the denial of any
21
RFAs. Uber contends Waymo’s response only covers one of the four denials. At a minimum,
22
Uber seeks a response re: RFA 43 which asks Waymo to admit “that during it on-site inspections
23
at Uber, Waymo found no evidence that Uber has misappropriated Google or Waymo trade
24
secrets.” Waymo responds that the ROG is over the limit and there is no reason to extend the
25
interrogatory limit.
26
27
Uber’s motion to compel a response as to RFA 43 is GRANTED. Waymo’s denial goes to
the heart of its case. It is not unduly burdensome to require Waymo to explain its liability
28
2
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1507 Filed 09/11/17 Page 3 of 3
1
position; to the contrary, it is what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to uncover in
2
advance of trial.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
4.
PRIVILEGE ISSUE: Uber challenges Waymo’s assertion of privilege over an
email produced on August 23 that was sent to, among others, the distribution list
industryinfo@google.com, which has more than 23,000 members and can be accessed by all fulltime employees of Waymo and Google/Alphabet. Uber insists that because Waymo has not
disclosed the identities and job descriptions of the persons on the distribution list it has not shown
that it is entitled to invoke privilege over this widely disseminated communication. Waymo argues
that the document is clearly privileged because it was from an attorney providing legal advice to
the recipients, all full-time employees of Waymo/Google/Alphabet who were “within the sphere
of corporate privilege.”
Waymo shall provide the Court with an unredacted copy of the email on or before 3:00
p.m. on Tuesday, September 12, 2017 for the Court’s in camera review.
This Order disposes of Docket Number 1435.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2017
18
19
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
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?