Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 1892

ORDER RE: WAYMO'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS AND INTERROGATORIES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 9/29/2017. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WAYMO LLC, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC) ORDER RE: WAYMO'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS AND INTERROGATORIES Dkt. No. 1790 12 13 1. Waymo’s motion to depose Uber attorneys Andrew Glickman and Christian Lymn, 14 Ottomotto’s prior attorney Eric Amdursky, and Lior Ron’s prior attorney Alissa Baker is 15 DENIED. Its claim that these attorneys involvement in the Stroz due diligence process was 16 concealed until Uber’s recent productions that followed the Federal Circuit ruling is meritless. 17 Uber’s supplemental initial disclosures of June 21, 2017—two months before the close of fact 18 discovery—explicitly identified Amdursky, Glickman and Baker as having knowledge of the 19 Stroz due diligence for the Ottomotto acquisition. (Dkt. No. 1832-16 at 17, 33.) While Lymn was 20 not identified in the initial disclosures, Waymo has not demonstrated that Lymn has any non- 21 cumulative, let alone significant, knowledge. 22 2. The Court has already ordered the deposition of Uber Chief Legal Officer Sallie 23 Yoo to proceed, for not more than four hours. Waymo has shown good cause based on newly 24 disclosed documents. 25 3. Waymo’s motion to require Uber to designate a 30(b)(6) designee on Topic No. 3 26 is DENIED. The newly-disclosed documents do not justify Waymo’s request as Waymo’s lawsuit 27 was initiated based on the premise that Anthony Levandowski had downloaded Waymo 28 proprietary information to his devices. 1 2 3 4. Waymo’s request for additional interrogatories is DENIED. Waymo does not even identify the interrogatories, let alone show good cause. 5. Waymo may depose Asheem Linaval, Dan Gruver, Max Levandowski, and Dan 4 Ratner for no more than two hours each. While Waymo certainly had notice of their involvement 5 in LiDAR, newly-disclosed documents reveal their purported involvement in the invention of 6 specific concepts that Waymo could not have reasonably anticipated. These depositions shall 7 occur on or before October 6, 2017. 8 9 6. Any objections to this Order shall be filed with the district court on or before noon on Monday, October 2, 2017. This Order disposes of Docket No. 1790. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: September 29, 2017 13 14 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 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?