WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

No. C 17-00939 WHA.

WAYMO LLC, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1338
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1338 Patent Infringement
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Waymo LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Kramer Verhoeven , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

Waymo LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Andrew Perlson , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Felipe Corredor , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, Grant Nicholas Margeson , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, James Dubois Judah , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John M. Neukom , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jordan Ross Jaffe , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Melissa J. Baily , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arturo J. Gonzalez , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Daniel Pierre Muino , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Eric Akira Tate , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Matthew Ian Kreeger , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michael A. Jacobs , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Rudolph Kim , Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy Joy Ray , Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Otto Trucking LLC, Defendant, represented by Arturo J. Gonzalez , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Daniel Pierre Muino , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Eric Akira Tate , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Matthew Ian Kreeger , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michael A. Jacobs , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Rudolph Kim , Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy Joy Ray , Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Ottomotto LLC, Defendant, represented by Arturo J. Gonzalez , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Daniel Pierre Muino , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Eric Akira Tate , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Matthew Ian Kreeger , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michael A. Jacobs , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Rudolph Kim , Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy Joy Ray , Morrison & Foerster LLP.


TENTATIVE ORDER RE ACCESS TO UNDER-SEAL MATERIAL

(To Be Discussed at the Conference on March 16)

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

Plaintiff Waymo LLC seeks sweeping provisional relief to enjoin defendants from exploiting trade secrets and patent rights allegedly stolen from plaintiff. Many passages in the moving papers have been filed under seal by plaintiff, who allegedly refuses to provide the under-seal material to defense counsel unless defense counsel agrees not to disclose the information to their clients, even in-house counsel.

This is an unreasonable condition, if true, imposed by plaintiff. First, if the allegations in the complaint are true, then defendants already know the sensitive information. Second, if a preliminary injunction is granted in this case it will have to specify the sensitive information that can no longer be used and in-house counsel will need to know what is verboten in order to enforce it faithfully. Union Pac. R.R. v. Mower, 219 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000); Patriot Homes, Inc. v. Forest River Hous., Inc., 512 F.3d 412, 414-15 (7th Cir. 2008); Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476-77 (1974). Third, at all events defendants need this information shared with in-house counsel to prepare their defense.

Defense counsel shall be allowed to share under-seal information with one in-house counsel, once vetted and approved by the Court, who must subscribe faithfully in advance to this district's standard protective order. We will vet the proposed in-house counsel tomorrow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases