Enlarge \/ An Uber driverless Ford Fusion drives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. <\/p>\n
Photo by Jeff Swensen\/Getty Images <\/p>\n
SAN FRANCISCODuring a heated court hearing here today, Waymo lawyersaccused Uber's law firm, Morrison Foerster, of violating a court order by not handing over documentsthat Waymo says were illegally downloaded from Google. <\/p>\n
Waymo filed a lawsuit in February, claiming that theformer head of Uber's self-driving car project, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded more than 14,000 Google documents that contain trade secrets about self-driving cars,shortly before he left his job at the company. Levandowskithen created a startup called Otto, which he sold to Uber for $680 million. Waymo has saidthat Uberhasused thosetrade secrets, which were brought over by Levandowski. <\/p>\n
Uber deniesthat any trade secrets were on Uber servers and says it built its own technology from the ground up. Levandowski, who is not a defendant in the case, hasn't denied downloading filesinstead, he has pled his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to talk. Uber fired him in May for refusing to cooperate with court orders. <\/p>\n
\"Weve been trying to get these documents since the outset of this case, and we still dont have them,\" Waymo lawyer Charles Verhoeven told US District Judge William Alsup. <\/p>\n
Uberattorney Arturo Gonzalez protested that Waymo'sexplanation wasmisleading. It's true thata digital forensics firm, Stroz Friedberg, imaged Levandowski's devices as part of Uber's acquisition. But onlya \"tiny sliver\" of thoseimages came into Morrison Foerster's offices, where they were reviewed by a single associate. <\/p>\n
The material came in at a time whenMorrison Foerster, often called MoFo for short, was representing Levandowski in an arbitration over his departure from Google.Gonzalez said he \"pulled the plug\" on the documents being reviewed once he saw that a conflict was developing between Uber and Levandowski. <\/p>\n
He alsopointed out that it's Levandowski who is arguing that the documents are protected by a joint defense privilege. It's Levandowski's lawyers, not Uber, who have appealed the issue to the USCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which still hasnot ruled on the matter. <\/p>\n
\"Once the FederalCircuit rules, this will be reviewed under whatever protocol we agree to, and produced,\"said Gonzalez. <\/p>\n
\"We have repeatedly asked, specifically, for the Google documents,\" said Verhoeven. He continued: <\/p>\n
Upuntil June, theysaid they didn'thave it. That MoFodidn'thave it. Thatwas false. Thatis not protected by the FifthAmendment.Theydidnt tell us, intentionallyuntil they were forced to, when we finally battered them down after a dozen motions. <\/p>\n
Alsup generally seemed sympathetic to Verhoeven, although he said he would wait for the Federal Circuit ruling. When he pondered a solution to the matter, he said he was inclined to tell the jury exactly what happened. <\/p>\n
\"I am concerned thatMr. Gonzalezfailed to disclose that he had the documents,\" Alsup said. \"He took a long time to come clean. Maybe he can get on the stand and explain it away. Iam inclinedto tell the jury exactly this scenariothat he was ordered to come clean and did not come clean. Then finally in June and July, he comes clean.\" <\/p>\n
\"You've bought into a completely false narrative,\" Gonzalez said. \"We'renot trying to hide anything. Thistrial is against Uber. Uberdidn't even know MoFohad these documents. Thedownloadedmaterials are not at MoFo, and Uberdidn't even know we had these materials.\" <\/p>\n
The arguments over Levandowski's documents were part of a series of three motions that will lay the groundwork for an October trial,now less than 60 days away. <\/p>\n
In addition to hearing arguments overLevandowski's imaged devices, Alsup heard two other motions filed by Uber: one attacking Waymo's damages case and another attempting to limit the trade secrets that Waymo can present at trial. <\/p>\n
\"Uber does not have [damage] calculations, the basis for them, the theoriesand methodology that they're going to rely on,\" said Uber lawyer Karen Dunn. \"It may be time to face up to the fact they want an injunction. They don'thave a damages case at allit's a non-commercialized market.\" <\/p>\n
A Waymo attorney countered that the companyhad provided a 26-page narrative outlining its damages theories. <\/p>\n
\"We just got Uber'sside of the ledger yesterday,\" said Waymo attorney Melissa Baily. \"So nowwe have ninedays [before the end of discovery] to take that into account. We cant do a complete analysis without that information.\" <\/p>\n
Alsup didn't rule on the damages matter, saying that he needs to see where thetwo sides come out on the matter. <\/p>\n
\"Thenit will be clearer how fair or unfair the process has been,\" he said. \"This piece of the controversy will be held in abeyance for a while.\" <\/p>\n
A final motion, over limiting Waymo's alleged trade secrets, was held in closed session. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Original post:<\/p>\n
Lawyers clash over an imaged hard drive as Waymo v. Uber hurtles toward trial - Ars Technica<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Enlarge \/ An Uber driverless Ford Fusion drives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Photo by Jeff Swensen\/Getty Images SAN FRANCISCODuring a heated court hearing here today, Waymo lawyersaccused Uber's law firm, Morrison Foerster, of violating a court order by not handing over documentsthat Waymo says were illegally downloaded from Google. Waymo filed a lawsuit in February, claiming that theformer head of Uber's self-driving car project, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded more than 14,000 Google documents that contain trade secrets about self-driving cars,shortly before he left his job at the company Continue reading