WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., C 17-00939 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170705l38
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2017
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Stroz Friedberg and Morrison and Foerster, having appeared in this civil action as a third party and counsel, respectively, are ordered to SHOW CAUSE why they are not in violation of orders herein and should not be ordered to turn over all originals and copies of any files in their possession that originated from Waymo to either Waymo or the Court (after which litigation counsel herein may make exact copies for use in this litigation, s
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Stroz Friedberg and Morrison and Foerster, having appeared in this civil action as a third party and counsel, respectively, are ordered to SHOW CAUSE why they are not in violation of orders herein and should not be ordered to turn over all originals and copies of any files in their possession that originated from Waymo to either Waymo or the Court (after which litigation counsel herein may make exact copies for use in this litigation, su..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Stroz Friedberg and Morrison and Foerster, having appeared in this civil action as a third party and counsel, respectively, are ordered to SHOW CAUSE why they are not in violation of orders herein and should not be ordered to turn over all originals and copies of any files in their possession that originated from Waymo to either Waymo or the Court (after which litigation counsel herein may make exact copies for use in this litigation, subject to our protective order). The showing must be made under oath and filed by JULY 12 AT NOON, and explain what controlling authority allows someone to knowingly receive and keep suspected stolen property despite a demand or order that it be returned to its rightful owner. Waymo may respond by JULY 17 AT NOON. This matter will be heard on JULY 26 AT 8:00 A.M. This is without prejudice to Waymo's argument that defendants are in contempt for failing to require their agents to return the property at issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
