WAYMO LLC v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES
No. C 17-00939 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018)

Case Summary: Levandowski, who was previously an engineer in charge of Waymo’s self-
driving car project, built his own company Ottomotto. He appropriated Waymo’s “LiDAR
technology” and even hired Waymo’s previous employees who also secured Waymo’s other
sensitive or confidential information. Ottomotto was later acquired by Uber. But prior
appropriation, Uber and Ottomotto’s counsel hired Stroz to investigate about Levandowski and
the other previous employees of Waymo. The finding was called the “Stroz Report”. Waymo
filed a lawsuit for patent infringement and violation of trade secret laws against Levandowski
and Uber and were asked to produce the “Stroz Report”. Levandowski claims that the “Stroz
Report” cannot be used against him since it is covered by the attorney work-product protection.
The Court held that “The work-product doctrine protects from discovery documents, tangible
things, or compilations of materials that were prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or
its representative”. In this case, it is Uber and Ottomotto’s counsel (not Levandowski’s own
counsel) who hired Stroz as its representative. Thus, only Uber can assert attorney work-product
protection over “Stroz Report” and not Levandowski.

Facts:
In January 2016, Anthony Levandowski, an engineer in charge of Waymo’s self-driving car
project, resigned from Waymo and formed his own autonomous vehicle start-up called
Ottomotto.

In May 2016, Uber acquired Levandowski’s start-up for $680 and as part of the deal, he took
over as chief of Uber’s autonomous vehicle program. But prior the closing of acquisition, Uber
and Ottoman’s counsel (not Levandowski’s own counsel) retained Stroz Friedberg to investigate
Ottomotto employees who were previously employed by Waymo, including Levandowski. The
resulting report was called the “Stroz Report”.

Waymo became aware that Levandowski may have taken its proprietary “LiDAR” technology.
This LiDar (known as “light detection and raging” technology) allows self-driving vehicles to
detect pedestrians, traffic, and the other obstacles that autonomous vehicles must see to drive
safely. Waymo found that the Uber circuit board closely resembled Waymo’s circuit board. It
further discovered evidence that Levandowski downloaded thousands of documents from
Waymo’s database few months before he left Waymo. Other employees who followed
Levandowski in his own company, Ottomotto, also downloaded several sensitive information
from Waymo’s systems such as manufacturing details and other confidential information.

Waymo filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in California with claims of patent infringement and
violations of federal and state trade secret laws. In addition, it filed a motion to compel Uber to
produce the “Stroz Report”.

In its defense, Uber alleged that LiDar was not really a trade secret since this technology was
generally known or perceptible by its on engineers. It also moved to quash the subpoena by
Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies
No. C 17-00939 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018)

arguing that the “Stroz Report” is subject to attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product
protection.

Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the Uber can assert attorney work-product protection over the Stroz
Report
2. Whether or not the Common Interest Doctrine applies to Levandowki

Resolution:

1. Whether or not the Uber can assert attorney work-product protection over the Stroz
Report

Yes, Uber can assert attorney work-product protection over Stroz Report but not Levandowski

The work-product doctrine protects from discovery documents, tangible things, or compilations
of materials that were prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or its representative.

In this case, it is Uber and Ottoman’s counsel who hired Stroz as its representative and not
Levandowski. Whether Uber can assert work-product protection over the Stroz Report does not
benefit Levandowski. Work-product protection covers documents prepared by a party or its
representative. Furthermore, Levandowski also concedes that he did not hire Stroz as his
representative

2. Whether or not the Common Interest Doctrine applies to Levandowki

No, the common interest doctrine does not apply.

Common interest doctrine provides an exception to ordinary waiver rules and allow
representatives and third parties to communicate in pursuit of common legal strategy.

Uber and Levandowski had adverse rather than common interests in connection with the “Stroz
Report”. Even if Levandowski was entitled to assert work-product protection, he waived that
protection by disclosing the information for the benefit of adverse party which is Uber.

The common interest doctrine does not apply and, therefore, cannot save Levandowski's waiver
of the work-product protection.