Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

June 7, 2017

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

          CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR MEDIATION/ SETTLEMENT, AND FURTHER REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY SUPERVISION

          WILLIAM ALSUP United State District Judge

         After a case management conference, the Court enters the following order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

1. All initial disclosures under FRCP 26 must be completed by June 21, 2017, on pain of preclusion, including full and faithful compliance with FRCP 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).
2. Leave to add any new parties or amend pleadings must be sought by June 22, 2017.
3. The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be August 24, 2017.
4. The deadline for waiving privilege has already passed.
5. Subject to the exception in the next paragraph, the last date for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of full expert reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof (“opening reports”) shall be August 24, 2017. Within fourteen calendar days of said deadline, all other parties must disclose any expert reports on the same issue (“opposition reports”). Within seven calendar DAYS thereafter, the party with the burden of proof must disclose any reply reports rebutting specific material in opposition reports. Reply reports must be limited to true rebuttal and should be very brief. They should not add new material that should have been placed in the opening report and the reply material will ordinarily be reserved for the rebuttal or sur-rebuttal phase of the trial. If the party with the burden of proof neglects to make a timely disclosure, the other side, if it wishes to put in expert evidence on the same issue anyway, must disclose its expert report within the fourteen-day period. In that event, the party with the burden of proof on the issue may then file a reply expert report within the seven-day period, subject to possible exclusion for “sandbagging” and, at all events, any such reply material may be presented at trial only after, if at all, the other side actually presents expert testimony to which the reply is responsive. The cutoff for all expert discovery shall be FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS after the deadline for reply reports. In aid of preparing an opposition or reply report, a responding party may depose the adverse expert sufficiently before the deadline for the opposition or reply report so as to use the testimony in preparing the response. Experts must make themselves readily available for such depositions. Alternatively, the responding party can elect to depose the expert later in the expert-discovery period. An expert, however, may be deposed only once unless the expert is used for different opening and/or opposition reports, in which case the expert may be deposed independently on the subject matter of each report. At least 21 CALENDAR DAYS before the due date for opening reports, each party shall serve a list of issues on which it will offer any expert testimony in its case-in-chief (including from non-retained experts). This is so that all parties will be timely able to obtain counter-experts on the listed issues and to facilitate the timely completeness of all expert reports. Failure to so disclose may result in preclusion.
6. As to damages studies, the cut-off date for past damages will be as of the expert report (or such earlier date as the expert may select). In addition, the experts may try to project future damages (i.e., after the cut-off date) if the substantive standards for future damages can be met. With timely leave of Court or by written stipulation, the experts may update their reports (with supplemental reports) to a date closer to the time of trial.
7. At trial, the direct testimony of experts will be limited to the matters disclosed in their reports. Omitted material may not ordinarily be added on direct examination.
This means the reports must be complete and sufficiently detailed. Illustrative animations, diagrams, charts and models may be used on direct examination only if they were part of the expert's report, with the exception of simple drawings and tabulations that plainly illustrate what is already in the report, which can be drawn by the witness at trial or otherwise shown to the jury. If cross-examination fairly opens the door, however, an expert may go beyond the written report on cross-examination and/or redirect examination. By written stipulation, of course, all sides may relax these requirements. For trial, an expert must learn and testify to the full amount of billing and unbilled time by him or his firm on the engagement.
8. To head off a recurring problem, experts lacking percipient knowledge should avoid vouching for the credibility of witnesses, i.e., whose version of the facts in dispute is correct. This means that they may not, for example, testify that based upon a review of fact depositions and other material supplied by counsel, a police officer did (or did not) violate standards. Rather, the expert should be asked for his or her opinion based - explicitly - upon an assumed fact scenario. This will make clear that the witness is not attempting to make credibility and fact findings and thereby to invade the province of the jury. Of course, a qualified expert can testify to relevant customs, usages, practices, recognized standards of conduct, and other specialized matters beyond the ken of a lay jury. This subject is addressed further in the trial guidelines referenced in paragraph 19 below.
9. No summary judgment or further Rule 12 motion may be filed without advance Court approval. Such approval may be sought by a three-page précis letter explaining the basis and need for the motion.
10. The parties shall please meet and confer and agree on a deadline by which plaintiff must make a final determination regarding the exact number and lineup of trade secrets to be tried. The final lineup should consist of less than ten trade secrets, and the deadline should fall on a date in August 2017 that will permit sufficient preparation time for opening expert reports. The parties shall please file a statement with a jointly proposed date for this deadline by June 16, 2017.
11. The final pretrial conference shall be on September 27, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Although the Court encourages argument and participation by younger attorneys, lead trial counsel must attend the final pretrial conference. For the form of submissions for the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.