Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 686

ORDER DENYING #575 REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF #566 JUDGE CORLEY'S ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on 6/21/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2017)

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

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR CLARIFICATION OF
JUDGE CORLEY’S ORDER

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

14
15

No. C 17-00939 WHA

Incidental to their motion for relief from Judge Corley’s order granting plaintiff Waymo

16

LLC’s motion to compel, defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC asked for

17

clarification that, while Judge Corley’s order requires production of Stroz Friedberg’s due

18

diligence report at this time, its rationale as to the “common interest” or “joint defense”

19

exception is not necessarily dispositive of privilege assertions over other communications,

20

separate and apart from the due diligence report, that occurred after April 11, 2016 (see Dkt.

21

No. 575 at 5). This request does not bear on production of the due diligence report and should

22

be directed first to Judge Corley, who remains in the best position to evaluate it, per her recent

23

instructions regarding Uber’s privilege log (see Dkt. No. 670 at 7–8). This order therefore

24

DENIES the request without prejudice to its renewal before Judge Corley.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: June 21, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE