WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

No. C 17-00939 WHA.

WAYMO LLC, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 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

John Lee Cooper, Special Master, represented by John L. Cooper , Farella Braun & Martel LLP.

Waymo LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Kramer Verhoeven , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Andrea Pallios Roberts , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, Andrew Michael Holmes , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, David Michael Cooper , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, David Eiseman, IV , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, David Andrew Perlson , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Felipe Corredor , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Grant Nicholas Margeson , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, James E. Baker , Quinn Emanuel, pro hac vice, James Dubois Judah , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jared Weston Newton , Jeffrey William Nardinelli , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, John William McCauley, IV , QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, John M. Neukom , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jordan Ross Jaffe , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joshua Lee Sohn , Quinn Emmanuel Urqhart Oliver Hedges, Kevin Alexander Smith , Quinn Emmanuel et al, Laurentia McKessar , pro hac vice, Leo Patrick Cunningham , Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Lindsay Cooper , Quinn Emanuel, Lindsey Keenan , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, Melissa J. Baily , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Patrick Daniel Curran , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Patrick Thomas Schmidt , Quinn Emanuel, LLP & Rachel Elizabeth Epstein , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron James Bergstrom , Uber Technologies, Inc., Arturo J. Gonzalez , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Angela Lucia Padilla , VMware, Inc., Daniel Pierre Muino , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Edward Takashima , Boies, Schiller, and Flexner LLP, Eric Akira Tate , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Esther Kim Chang , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Hamish Hume , Boies Schiller Flexner, Jessica E. Phillips , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Joshua Nathanial Friedman , Boies Schiller Flexner, pro hac vice, Karen Leah Dunn , Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, Kathleen R. Hartnett , Boies Schiller & Flexner, Kyle N. Smith , Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, Martha Lea Goodman , Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, Matthew Ian Kreeger , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Maxwell Vaughn Pritt , Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, Melissa B. Felder , Melissa Brook Felder Zappala , pro hac vice, Meredith Richardson Dearborn , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Michael A. Brille , Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Michael A. Jacobs , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michael Darron Jay , Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Michelle Ching Youn Yang , Morrison Foerster LLP, Nicole Townsend Bartow , Uber Technologies, Inc., Rudolph Kim , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Scott Frederick Llewellyn , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Sylvia Rivera , Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy Joy Ray , Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Otto Trucking LLC, Defendant, represented by David Shane Brun , Goodwin Procter LLP, Arturo J. Gonzalez , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Brett Michael Schuman , Goodwin Procter LLP, Hayes Phillips Hyde , Goodwin Procter LLP, Hong-An Vu , Goodwin Procter LLP, Indra Neel Chatterjee , Goodwin Procter LLP, James Lin , Goodwin Procter LLP, Phong T. Dinh , Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & Rachel Melissa Walsh , Goodwin Procter LLP.

Ottomotto LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron James Bergstrom , Uber Technologies, Inc., Arturo J. Gonzalez , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Daniel Pierre Muino , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Eric Akira Tate , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Esther Kim Chang , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Hamish Hume , Boies Schiller Flexner, Michael A. Jacobs , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Rudolph Kim , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Angela Lucia Padilla , VMware, Inc., Edward Takashima , Boies, Schiller, and Flexner LLP, Joshua Nathanial Friedman , Boies Schiller Flexner, Karen Leah Dunn , Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, Kathleen R. Hartnett , Boies Schiller & Flexner, Martha Lea Goodman , Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, Maxwell Vaughn Pritt , Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, Melissa B. Felder , Melissa Brook Felder Zappala , pro hac vice, Michael A. Brille , Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Nicole Townsend Bartow , Uber Technologies, Inc., Scott Frederick Llewellyn , Morrison & Foerster LLP, Sylvia Rivera , Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy Joy Ray , Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Stroz Friedberg, LLC, Respondent, represented by Melanie Marilyn Blunschi , Latham & Watkins LLP, Robert Burkart Ellis , Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Kevin K. Chang & Whitney Weber , Latham and Watkins LLP.

Anthony Levandowski, Intervenor Dft, represented by Amy E. Craig , Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP, Ismail Jomo Ramsey , Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP & Miles F. Ehrlich , Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP.

Lyft, Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke , Munger, Tolles Olson LLP.

Morrison & Foerster LLP, Miscellaneous, represented by Eric Akira Tate , Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Sandstone Group, LLC, Miscellaneous, represented by Adrian James Sawyer , Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Tyto LiDAR, LLC, Miscellaneous, represented by Adrian James Sawyer , Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Ognen Stojanovski, Miscellaneous, represented by Adrian James Sawyer , Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Lior Ron, Intervenor, represented by Jonathan Alan Patchen , Taylor & Patchen, LLP.


ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGE CORLEY'S NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER RE LYFT-RELATED DOCUMENTS

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The magistrate judge overseeing discovery in this action granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents relating to its collaboration deal with a non-party. Both plaintiff and the non-party move for relief from that order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72. The motions are DENIED.

STATEMENT

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC (collectively, "Uber") served subpoenas for a deposition and document production on non-party Lyft, Inc., after Lyft reached a collaboration deal with plaintiff Waymo LLC. Lyft moved to quash the subpoenas (Dkt. No. 646) while Uber moved to compel Waymo to respond to interrogatories and produce documents relating to the deal (Dkt. No. 687). On July 7, per the discovery referral in this action, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley granted Lyft's motion to quash and granted in part and denied in part Uber's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 832). Waymo and Lyft move for relief from that order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72 (Dkt. Nos. 876-77). This order follows full briefing.

ANALYSIS

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

Under FRCP 72, a district judge considering timely objections to a magistrate judge's nondispositive order must defer to the order unless it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). "The reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court." Ibid. (citing United States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)).

2. WAYMO'S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

Waymo objects that Judge Corley took "inconsistent positions with respect to Waymo and Lyft's production of documents" because she granted Lyft's motion to quash based in part on "confidentiality concerns" but ordered Waymo to "produce the very documents that Lyft argued should not be produced" (see Dkt. Nos. 876 at 1-2, 952 at 1). Not so. Judge Corley found that Waymo, a party to this action, may have to produce certain "commercially sensitive" documents, but that a different legal standard applied "[t]o the extent Defendants seek additional documents from Lyft," a non-party. Under that standard, Judge Corley then found that "[d]efendants [did] not adequately explain how they have a substantial need for the requested information (that is not otherwise being produced by Plaintiff) that outweighs the confidential and commercial nature of the information" (Dkt. No. 832 at 3-6 (emphasis added)). These findings were neither inconsistent nor clearly erroneous.

Waymo also objects that it "already agreed to produce documents directed at the issues Uber claims the Lyft documents are relevant to," so "Uber does not need the additional Lyft documents" (see Dkt. Nos. 876 at 2-3, 952 at 2-3). But Waymo does not get to decide which responsive documents Uber is entitled to discover, and its disagreement with Judge Corley on this point is not reason to disturb her decision.

3. LYFT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

Uber argued before Judge Corley that the requested documents were "fundamental to [its] defenses" and "[necessary] to proceed with depositions" (Dkt. No. 687 at 1). Judge Corley granted Uber's motion to compel in part after finding that the requested documents related to Waymo's claims for damages and injunctive relief, noting that Uber was entitled to develop its defense against said claims, rejecting Waymo's arguments to the contrary, and requiring that the documents "be produced on an outside attorneys' eyes only basis" (Dkt. No. 832 at 3). Yet, Lyft — which never submitted a brief in opposition to Uber's motion — now objects to Judge Corley's ruling against Waymo on the basis that her order did not explicitly state whether the documents in question were both relevant and necessary to Uber's case, "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative," or available through less intrusive means (Dkt. No. 877 at 2-5).

By finding that Uber was entitled to the requested documents to develop its defense against Waymo's claims for damages and injunctive relief, Judge Corley indicated the necessity of said documents to Uber's case. By rejecting Waymo's argument that Uber does not "need" the requested documents because Waymo's production of other documents on the same issues rendered the Lyft deal "irrelevant" (see Dkt. Nos. 746 at 5, 832 at 3), Judge Corley indicated that the requested documents were not "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative." And by requiring that the requested documents "be produced on an outside attorneys' eyes only basis," Judge Corley indicated that, in her judgment and after balancing the parties' competing interests, no "less intrusive means" were available. Aside from essentially complaining that Judge Corley did not offer more targeted responses to arguments it never raised before her, Lyft has not shown any reason to disturb her judgment on these discovery disputes.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, both motions for relief from Judge Corley's July 7 order are DENIED. All stated objections thereto are OVERRULED. Waymo shall fully comply with the order by AUGUST 11 AT NOON.

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