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)

Download PDF
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

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?