Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 725 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

WAYMO LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 17-00939 WHA

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

15
16

ORDER SETTING
DEPOSITIONS

To keep this case on track for the agreed-upon trial date, an earlier order requested that

17

counsel meet with the special master and agree upon a series of dates for all remaining

18

depositions that need to be taken. Counsel failed to do so. As a result, to keep this case on

19

track, the Court now resorts to setting a schedule and ORDERS that the following depositions go

20

forward on the following dates, all commencing at 8:00 a.m. and lasting up to seven hours:

21
NAME

DEPOSITION DATE

Pierre-Yves Droz

Monday, July 10

Bryan Salesky (by defendants)

Tuesday, July 11

24

William McCann

Wednesday, July 12

25

Drew Ulrich

Thursday, July 13

26

Larry Page

Monday, July 17

27

Max Levandowski

Tuesday, July 18

Eric Meyhofer

Wednesday, July 19

Ognen Stojanovski

Thursday, July 20

Bryan Salesky (by Waymo)

Monday, July 24

22
23

28

 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 725 Filed 06/23/17 Page 2 of 2

1

Adam Bentley

Tuesday, July 25

2

Zachary Morris

Wednesday, July 26

3

Travis Kalanick

Thursday, July 27

4

Emil Michael

Monday, July 31

5

Brian McClendon

Tuesday, August 1

John Krafcik

Wednesday, August 2

Eric Tate

Thursday, August 3

Sebastian Thrun

Monday, August 7

Sam Lenius

Tuesday, August 8

Chris Urmson

Wednesday, August 9

Anthony Levandowski

Thursday, August 10

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The foregoing schedule may be modified upon written agreement in advance by all

12

parties. This schedule is without prejudice to any motion, made promptly and in good faith

13

before Judge Corley, for a protective order. Any unilateral motion to change a date on the

14

schedule, however, must (1) show compelling reasons — not merely good cause — for the

15

requested change and (2) offer an alternative date reasonably close to the assigned date.

16

Otherwise, unavailability of deponents is no excuse. They must make themselves

17

available. If documents reasonably called for before a deposition are produced after the

18

deposition, the party making the late production of documents shall pay for all expenses,

19

including attorney’s fees, associated with re-opening the deposition to allow further

20

examination with respect to the subject matter of the belatedly-produced documents. This order

21

is not a substitute for subpoenas, which must still be served on non-party deponents. This

22

schedule is without prejudice to counsel noticing other depositions before the discovery cut-off,

23

subject to the overall deposition limit. More than one deposition may be scheduled for the same

24

day. In no event may depositions be taken after the discovery cut-off.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: June 23, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2