WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC). (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170615a33
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF LEVANDOWSKI STROZ AGREEMENTS Re: Dkt. Nos. 546, 577 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Waymo moves to compel production of Anthony Levandowski's March 14, 2016 and March 21, 2016 letter agreements with Uber's third party forensic expert Stroz Friedman. (Dkt. No. 546). The Court reviewed the agreements in camera in connection with Waymo's motion to compel production of the Stroz Report. After Waymo filed Docket No. 546, the Court ordered Uber to pro
Summary: ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF LEVANDOWSKI STROZ AGREEMENTS Re: Dkt. Nos. 546, 577 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Waymo moves to compel production of Anthony Levandowski's March 14, 2016 and March 21, 2016 letter agreements with Uber's third party forensic expert Stroz Friedman. (Dkt. No. 546). The Court reviewed the agreements in camera in connection with Waymo's motion to compel production of the Stroz Report. After Waymo filed Docket No. 546, the Court ordered Uber to prod..
More
ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF LEVANDOWSKI STROZ AGREEMENTS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 546, 577
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.
Waymo moves to compel production of Anthony Levandowski's March 14, 2016 and March 21, 2016 letter agreements with Uber's third party forensic expert Stroz Friedman. (Dkt. No. 546). The Court reviewed the agreements in camera in connection with Waymo's motion to compel production of the Stroz Report. After Waymo filed Docket No. 546, the Court ordered Uber to produce the Stroz Report, including the Levandowski agreements. (Dkt. Nos. 549.) Uber's objections to that Order are currently pending with the district court.
For the reasons stated in its Order granting the motion to compel, the Court GRANTS Waymo's motion to compel Uber to produce the Levandowski agreements with Stroz. It should be noted, however, that whereas on the motion to compel the Stroz Report Uber asserted that the agreements are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product privilege, Uber has now abandoned its attorney-client privilege objection to production of the agreements. (Dkt. No. 577 ("Uber continues to assert attorney-work product protections over the two letter agreements attached as exhibits to the Due Diligence Report.").)
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 546 and 577.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
