Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 923

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting #867 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part #868 Defendants Uber Technologies Inc.'s and Ottomotto LLC's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2017)

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 923 Filed 07/17/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

WAYMO LLC,
Plaintiff,

8

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 867 & 868

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE: UBER’S MOTION TO
COMPEL WAYMO

v.

9
10

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

12
Now pending before the Court is Uber’s motion to compel documents from Waymo. (Dkt.

13

14

No. 868.)

15

A.

16

Waymo Trade Secret Safeguards
1.

RFP 119: Uber’s request for any confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements is

17

GRANTED. Waymo’s assertion that it would never disclose trade secrets to its vendors without

18

such an agreement is not evidence that it in fact did so. If it did so it must produce the agreements.

19

It can redact any third party confidential information in the agreements as such information is not

20

relevant. The request is proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

21

2.

RFP 46: Uber’s request for Waymo’s “collection, analysis, review, or findings

22

related to computers” of departed employees is GRANTED IN PART. Waymo shall respond with

23

respect to any self-driving vehicle employees who departed Waymo or its predecessor from

24

October 2015 through December 2016, and the request is limited to documents reflecting a

25

review for misappropriation of trade secrets.

26

3.

RFP Nos. 63, 66, 121, 122:

27

Uber’s motion to compel responses to request no. 63 is DENIED.

28

Uber’s motion to compel responses to request no. 66 is GRANTED.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 923 Filed 07/17/17 Page 2 of 2

Uber’s motion to compel responses to request no. 121 is GRANTED in part. Waymo shall

1
2

produce any such analysis for the year preceding Mr. Levandowski’s departure from Waymo.

3

Waymo may not refuse to produce the responsive analysis merely because it encompasses a longer

4

period of time.
Uber’s motion to compel further responses to request no. 122 is DENIED. Uber does not

5
6

even acknowledge the affected employees’ privacy interest in their personnel files and has not

7

demonstrated any relevance of the files, especially in light of its other requests.

8

B.

Levandowski Investigation
Uber’s request no. 53 seeks all documents relating to “when” Waymo began investigating

9

Levandowski’s potential trade secret misappropriation. Uber claims that responsive documents

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

would include “non-privileged documents communications discussing why Waymo did not

12

investigate Levandowski.” (Dkt. No. 868 at 4 (emphasis added).) But that is not the request that

13

Uber made. Uber’s request is DENIED.

14

C.

15

Exclusion of Google and Alphabet
Uber’s objection is overruled without prejudice to Uber first meeting and conferring with

16

Waymo and then, after exhausting efforts through the Special Master, addressing specific

17

document requests and why Uber’s search was not sufficient for a particular request and Uber’s

18

reasonable proposal. For example, it would not be reasonable for Uber to insist that Waymo

19

conduct a search involving every single Google engineer for the past seven years.
CONCLUSION

20
21
22

Waymo shall produce documents in accordance with this Order on or before July 21, 2017.
Uber’s administrative motion to seal (Dkt. no. 867) is GRANTED.

23

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 867 and 868.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: July 17, 2017

26
27
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2