Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 471

ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE AND SETTING HEARING ON #466 MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MODIFY PROVISIONAL RELIEF. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/19/2017. Responses due by 5/26/2017. Replies due by 5/30/2017. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2017 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2017)

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

No. C 17-00939 WHA

Plaintiff,

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

ORDER CONTINUING
DEADLINE AND SETTING
HEARING ON MOTION TO
INTERVENE AND MODIFY
PROVISIONAL RELIEF

v.

Non-party Anthony Levandowski has filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose

16

of requesting modification of the provisional relief order dated May 11, 2017. Levandowski

17

seeks to modify the relief granted therein to the extent it “seek[s] to compel Mr. Levandowski to

18

waive his Fifth Amendment, attorney-client privilege, work product protection, and common

19

interest privilege” (Dkt. No. 466).

20
21
22
23
24
25

The second item of provisional relief in that order states (Dkt. No. 433 at 23):
2.
Defendants must immediately and in writing exercise the
full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other
authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other
officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from
consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials;
and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all
copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court)
by MAY 31 AT NOON.

26

To permit full briefing and hearing on Levandowski’s motion, this order continues the

27

deadline for defendants to comply with the foregoing item from May 31 to JUNE 23 AT NOON.

28

The parties shall respond to Levandowski’s motion by MAY 26 AT NOON. Levandowski
may reply by MAY 30 AT NOON. A hearing on the motion is set for JUNE 7 AT 10:00 A.M.

1
2
3

In addition to anything else they want to argue, counsel for both sides shall please
address the following questions on the Fifth Amendment issues raised by Levandowski:
1.

When an employee steals and retains a competitor’s trade
secrets, may the employer, upon learning of the theft, direct
the employee to make it right with the competitor and to
return all copies of the trade secrets to the competitor on
pain of adverse employment action, up to and including
termination? Does the Fifth Amendment prevent such
private action?

2.

In such circumstances, may a court order the employer to
exercise the full scope of its private authority over the
employee to cause the employee to return all copies of the
stolen trade secrets? Does the Fifth Amendment bar such
an order?

3.

Where an employer learns that its employee has stolen
trade secrets from a competitor and fails to, on its own
initiative, use the full scope of its private authority over the
employee to return all copies of the trade secrets to their
rightful owner, may the Court instruct the jury that it may
consider such failure as a ratification by the employer of
the theft?

4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: May 19, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2