United States District Court For the Northern District of 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 example, “TJI#2,”meaning “TentativeJuryInstruction No.2.” confusion, coverbothfederal andstatelawwithout meet andconfertoironoutdifferences andtostipulatethattheinstructionsshall, toavoidjury double spacingexceptblockquotationsmay besingle-spaced.Counselareinvitedtoplease Opportunity willbeallowedlatertomake allotherobjections.Usenormal font(12)andonly attachments), limits intendedtoencourageconcentrationontheitems ofmost concern. critique shallbelimited totenpages(noattachments) andthecountercritiquetofivepages(no within thequote.Quoteonlyauthoritythatremains goodlaw (pleasedoublecheck).The contradicts eachtentativeinstructionorverdictquestionandhighlightthekeylanguagefrom critique.” Pleasequotethe any proposedadditions.By misappropriation issue.By OTTO TRUCKINGLLC, OTTOMOTTO, LLC,and TECHNOLOGIESINC., v. LLC, Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page1of13 Please findbelowtentativejuryinstructionsandaspecialverdictform onthe Defendants. Plaintiff, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT entire NOON ON ON NOON NOON ON ON NOON paragraphofanyauthorityyoucontendsupportsor / O O CTOBER CTOBER 24 27 distinction.Refertothe proposalsas,for , counselshallpleasesubmit acritique plus , eachsideshallpleasesubmit a“counter MISAPPROPRIATION ON TRADESECRET INSTRUCTIONS TENTATIVE JURY No. C17-00939WHA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 misappropriation. Todoso,Waymo must proveallofthefollowing: that eachAllegedTradeSecretqualifiedasanen these elements ofproofinmore detail. proof aresatisfied astothatdefendant andastothatAllegedTradeSecret.Iwillnowexplain No defendantmay beheldliableastoanyAllegedTradeSecretunlessalloftheseelements of Waymo must proveallofthefollowing: which aredescribedinTX_____. Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page2of13 Iwillnowexplainthese factors inmore detail. misappropriation tokeeptheAllegedTradeSecret. independent economic valueatthattime becauseitwassecret;and Turning tothefirstelement ofproofforamisappropriation claim, Waymo must prove enriching thedefendant. Alleged TradeSecret; To succeedonitsclaim thatadefendantmisappropriated oneormore tradesecrets, This trialconcernsAllegedTradeSecretsNumbers 2,7,9,13,14,25,90,96and111, .ThatWaymo made reasonable effortsuptothealleged 4. ThattheAllegedTradeSecrethadactual orpotential ThattheAllegedTradeSecretwassecretatthattime; 3. ThatWaymo ownedtheAllegedTradeSecret; 2. 1. That suchuseordisclosurewasasubstantialfactorinunjustly Thatdefendantwastherebyunjustlyenriched;and 4. 3. Thatdefendantimproperly acquired,thenusedordisclosedthe 2. That theAllegedTradeSecretqualifiedasanenforcibletrade 1. secret atthetime itwasallegedlymisappropriated; II. III. I. 2 forcible tradesecretatthetime of alleged United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 skilled inatradecannotbeclaimed astradesecrets. trade secret.Mattersofgeneralknowledgeinaorspecialpersonswhoare public ortopeoplewhocouldhaveobtainedvaluefrom knowingit. if theywereobligatedtokeepitsecret.However,must nothavebeengenerallyknowntothe were instructedtokeeptheinformation secret.Itmay alsohavebeendisclosedtononemployees have beendisclosedtoemployees involvedintheowner’suseoftradesecretaslongthey absolute secrecyinthesensethatnooneelseworldpossessedinformation. Itmay that theinformation isreadilyascertainable bypropermeans. obtain, andthemore time andresourcesthatmust beexpendedingatheringit,thelesslikelyitis reference books,orpublishedmaterials. Ontheotherhand,more difficultinformation isto expense. Forexample, information isreadilyascertainableif itisavailableintrade journals, if itcanbeobtained,discovered,developed,orco what is“readilyascertainablebypropermeans.” Ingeneral,information isreadilyascertainable misappropriation cannotqualifyasatradesecret.Thereisnofixedstandardfordetermining consider thefollowing: information hadactualorpotentialindependent economic valuebecauseitwassecret,youmay have obtainedeconomic valuefrom itsdisclosureoruse. Indetermining whetherthe or potentialbusinessadvantageoverotherswho did notknowtheinformation andwhocould Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page3of13 Generalized knowledgeandskillthatanemployee learnsonthejobcannotqualifyasa The secrecyrequiredtoprovethatsomething isatradesecretdoesnothavetobe Information thatisreadilyascertainable bypropermeans atthetime ofthealleged economic valuefrom theinformation inkeepingitsecret; A tradesecrethasindependenteconomic valueifitwouldhave giventheowneranactual .Theextenttowhichtheowner obtainedorcouldhave 1. VII. 3 IV. VI. V. mpiled withoutsignificantdifficulty, effort,or United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 secret, thefollowingfactorsshouldbeconsidered,among anyotherfactorspertinenttotheissue: This requirement appliesseparatelytoeachitem thatclaimed tobeatradesecret. as theallegedowner,exercisingduecaretoprotectimportant information ofthesame kind. made byareasonablebusinessinthesame situationwiththesame knowledgeandresources determinative. Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page4of13 the information to sign confidentialityornondisclosureagreements; secured area; persons whohadabusinessreasontoknowtheinformation; unsure of whatgenuinelyneededconfidentiality; confidential, evenpubliclyknowninformation, suchthatemployees might be information asconfidential; containing theinformation weremarked withconfidentiality warnings; In determining whetherornottheownermade reasonableeffortstokeeptheinformation Reasonable effortstokeeptheinformation secretaretheeffortsthatwouldhavebeen The presenceorabsenceofanyonemore ofthesefactorsisnotnecessarily using theinformation. developing theinformation; and from theinformation if itwerenotsecret; .Whether theowner requiredemployees orotherswithaccessto 6. Whether theowner kepttheinformation inarestrictedor 5. Whether theowner restrictedaccesstotheinformation to 4. Whether theownerunreasonablyover-classifiedinformation as 3. Whether theownerinstructeditsemployees totreatthe 2. Whether products,hardware,documents orcomputer files 1. Theamount oftime, money, orlaborthatdefendantsavedby 4. Theamount oftime, money, orlaborthattheownerexpendedin 3. Theextenttowhichotherscouldhaveobtainedeconomic value 2. VIII. 4 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 determinative. by anyofthefollowing: secrecy. Itisnotimproper, however,toacquireatradesecretorknowledgeofthe not limited to,theft,misrepresentation, breach orinducingabreachofdutytomaintain persons whohadacquireditbyimproper means. time ofuse,kneworhadreasontoknowthatitsknowledgethetrade secretcame through owner’s consentandeitheracquiredknowledgeofthetradesecretbyimproper means oratthe misappropriates anAllegedTradeSecretifthatdefendantuseditordisclosedwithoutthe Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page5of13 The presenceorabsenceofanyonemore ofthesefactorsisnotnecessarily owner thatitdidnottake. would preventtheunauthorizeddisclosureofinformation; and business information orassets; information, orwhetheritreliedongeneralmeasures takentoprotect its sources. trade journals,reference books,theInternet,orotherpubliclyavailable determine howitworksbyapersonwhohasrighttopossesstheproduct; Improper means ofacquiringatradesecretorknowledgeinclude,butare .Whether therewereotherreasonablemeasures availabletothe 9. Theextenttowhichanygeneralmeasures takenbytheowner 8. Whether theowner tookanyactiontoprotectthespecific 7. .Obtainingtheinformation from publishedliterature, such as Observingtheinformation inpublicuseoron display;or 4. 3. Reverseengineering;thatis,examining ortestingaproductto Independenteffortstoinventordiscovertheinformation; 2. 1. Turning tothethirdelement ofproofforamisappropriation claim, adefendant 5 IX. X. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 of theaccusedwouldinevitablyhaveusedclaimed tradesecretintheirwork. causing unjustenrichment ifthesame enrichment wouldhave occurredwithoutthatconduct. trivial factor.Itdoesnot havetobetheonlycause.Conductisnotasubstantial factorin would considertohavecontributedtheunjust enrichment. Itmust bemore thanaremote or enrichment doesnotoccur,however,wherethebenefitwouldhavebeenrealized anyway. development timeline bytakingimproper advantageofsomeone else’stradesecrets.Unjust occurs wheneveradefendantreapsanundeservedbenefitsuchasacceleratingitsown trade secretofaprioremployer. their newjobs.Doingsoislawfulaslongtheydon’trevealoruseinformation qualifyingasa Waymo. Employees havetherighttochangeemployers andtoapplytheirtalentsskillsin for adefendantdoesnotmean thattheyusedWaymo’s tradesecretsaftertheyleftGoogleor worked forGoogleand/orWaymo. Themere factthatemployees left orWaymo towork not todisclosethetradesecretthatdefendant. having beenacquiredbythatdefendantunlessitisprovensuchfirm wasunderanobligation acquired suchatradesecretasanagentofdefendant,thenyoumust treatthattradesecretas acquisition ofOttomotto LLC.Underthelaw,if analytics firm ofStrozFriedbergLLCreceivedAllegedTradeSecretsinconnectionwithUber’s Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page6of13 Misappropriation byuserequiresactualuse.Itisnotenoughtospeculatethatemployees A substantialfactorincausingunjustenrichment means afactorthatreasonableperson Turning tothefourthelement ofproof You haveheardtestimony thatemployees ofUber,Ottomotto, andOttoTruckingonce You haveheardevidencethatthelawfirm ofMorrison&Foersterand/ortheforensic XIV. XIII. XV. XII. XI. 6 amisappropriation claim, unjustenrichment Waymo provesthatoneorbothofthesefirms United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ae: coe 7 07 D Dated: October17,2017. two times theamount awardedastheunjustenrichment. misappropriation oftradesecrets.Youmay determine anamount ofexemplary damages upto defendant. Exemplary damages areintendedtopunishthedefendantanddeter you must determine whatamount ofexemplary damages Waymo shouldrecoverfrom that must decidewhetherthatdefendant’sconductwaswillfulandmalicious. Ifyousofind,then has, thetimeline wasshortened. misappropriation, thenpleasedetermine thenumber ofdaysbywhichWaymo hasproven,ifit decide thatdefendantwasabletoshortenitsdevelopment timeline byreasonofthe defendant. must decidewhetherWaymo hasprovenadollarvaluefortheunjustenrichment bythat Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page7of13 IT ISSOORDERED. If youfindanydefendantmisappropriated one If youfindanydefendantmisappropriated one Measure ofrecovery(counseltosupply). If youfindanydefendantmisappropriated one XVIII. XVII. XIX. XVI. 7 U W ormore AllegedTradeSecretsandyou NITED or more AllegedTradeSecrets,thenyou or more AllegedTradeSecrets,thenyou ILLIAM S RAFT TATES A LSUP

D ISTRICT J UDGE United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 defendant. defendant, pleasespecifywhichAllegedTrade Answerseparatelyastoeachdefendant.Ifyouanswer“Yes”belowany Trade Secrets? questions. numbers asassignedinTrialExhibit_____.Your OTTO TRUCKING,LLC, OTTOMOTTO, LLC,and UBER TECHNOLOGIESINC., v. WAYMO LLC, Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page8of13 .HasWaymo provendefendantsimproperly 1. In answeringthisspecialverdictform,please __ N _____ Y _____ Defendants. Plaintiff, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA ______FOLLOWING IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT O ES , NOTPROVENASTO ,

U BER U T BER A ECHNOLOGIES LLEGED / T ______ECHNOLOGIES T Secret(s) bynumber were misappropriated bythat U RADE ______. 8 BER , answersmustbeunanimoustoallapplicable

I NC S T refer totheAllegedTradeSecretsbytheir ECRET ECHNOLOGIES ., MISAPPROPRIATION CLAIMS) VERDICT FORM(ON TENTATIVE SPECIAL No. C17-00939WHA ACQUIREDIMPROPERLYTHE ,

I NC acquired oneormore oftheAlleged ( S . ):

______,

I NC .

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 that anysuchdefendantusedordisclosed Secret(s)youlistedbesidetheirname(s), hasWaymoand onlyastotheAllegedTrade proven some defendants,thenyoushouldignorethosedefendantsfortherestofform. th the SpecialVerdictForm.Otherwise,goto defendant(s). as toanydefendant(s),pleaseidentifywhichAllegedTradeSecret(s)sousedordisclosedbythat Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page9of13 .With respecttoanydefendantforwhom 2. If youanswer“No”astoalldefendants, __ N ______N _____ Y _____ Y _____ N _____ Y ______FOLLOWING ______A FOLLOWING FOLLOWING LLEGED O ES O ES O ES , , , NOTPROVENASTO NOTPROVENASTO NOTPROVENASTO , , ,

O U O TTOMOTTO BER TTO ______. T U RADE T T BER A A O RUCKING ECHNOLOGIES LLEGED LLEGED TTO O T TTOMOTTO S , ECHNOLOGIES ECRET LLC T RUCKING , T T , LLC ACQUIREDIMPROPERLYTHE FOLLOWING RADE O O U RADE e nextquestion.Ifyouanswer“No”astoonly Alleged Trade Secret(s)? Trade Alleged ( 9 you aredone—gototheendandsigndate TTO TTOMOTTO BER S ): , ,

ACQUIREDIMPROPERLYTHE I

, ______NC LLC S S T T , ECRET ECRET LLC RUCKING ECHNOLOGIES youanswered“Yes”inthepriorquestion ., USEDORDISCLOSEDTHE ,

I NC , ( LLC ( S . S ): ): ,

LLC ______. ______, .

I NC ______. . Ifyouanswer“Yes” ______. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page10of13 secrets? Waymo proventhat,atthetime oftheallegedmisappropriation, theyqualifiedasenforcibletrade has defendant(s) inanswertothepriorquestionandonlyasthose(leaveothersblank), and datetheSpecialVerdictForm. .Asto eachAllegedTradeSecretyoufindwasusedordisclosedbyany 3. If youanswered“No”foralldefendants, . A A A A A A A A A LLEGED LLEGED LLEGED LLEGED LLEGED LLEGED LLEGED LLEGED LLEGED __ N ______N ______Y _____ Y _____ T T T T T T T T T RADE RADE RADE RADE RADE RADE RADE RADE RADE ______A FOLLOWING LLEGED O ES O ES S S S S S S S S S , , NOTPROVENASTO NOTPROVENASTO ECRET ECRET ECRET ECRET ECRET ECRET ECRET ECRET ECRET , ,

O O ______. TTO TTOMOTTO T N N N N N N N N N RADE T A O O O O O O O O O

O RUCKING Otherwise, gotothenextquestion...... LLEGED TTO

O 1 ______111 ______96 ______90 ______25 ______14 ______13 ______9 7 2 TTOMOTTO S , ECRET LLC T RUCKING , T LLC , USEDORDISCLOSEDTHEFOLLOWING O O RADE ( 10 TTO TTOMOTTO S you aredoneandshouldgototheendsign ): , USEDORDISCLOSEDTHE

, ______LLC S T

, ECRET LLC RUCKING

Y SES , ( LLC ______S ): ,

LLC ______. . N O United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page11of13 substantial factorinunjustlyenrichingthatdefendant. that suchmisappropriation unjustlyenrichedthat Alleged TradeSecretsdisclosedorusedbythat Secret(s) fortherestofthisform. Trade Alleged “No” astoonlysomeAllegedTradeSecret(s), those thenyoushouldignore and signdatetheSpecialVerdict misappropriation ofenforcibletradesecrets. defe which Waymo such any hasproventhat the endandsigndateSpecialVerdictForm.Otherwise,gotonextquestion. .Astoanydefendantmarked “Yes”inthe 4. If youanswer“No”astoallAllegedTrade .Astoanydefendantmarked “Yes”inQuestionNo.4,statethedollaramount by 5. If youanswered“No”toallapplicablede O O O U O U TTO TTOMOTTO BER TTO TTOMOTTO BER T T T T RUCKING ECHNOLOGIES RUCKING ECHNOLOGIES , , LLC LLC , , LLC LLC , ,

I I Form. Otherwise,gotothenextquestion.Ifyouanswer NC NC ______. $______.

defendant,statewhetherWaymo hasprovenboth 11 ndant wasunjustlyenrichedbyreasonofits defendantandthatitsmisappropriation wasa fendants, thenyouaredoneandshouldgoto Secrets, thenyouaredone—gototheend

$______$______previous answerandastoallenforcible Y SES N O United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page12of13 Secret(s)? If“Yes,”statethedollaramountSecret(s)? ofanyexemplary damages youaward. defendant(s) actedwillfully andmaliciously inmisappropriating anyenforcible AllegedTrade enforcible tradesecrets. defendantbyreasonofitsmisappropriation of bysuch saved initsdevelopment timeline .Astoanydefendantmarked “Yes”in 7. Astoanydefendantmarked in “Yes” 6. O O U TTO TTOMOTTO BER T T BY REASONOFASHORTENEDPATHDEVELOPMENT SHUTDOWN IN ORDER TO TAKE AWAYANYUNJUSTENRICHMENT LENGTHOFTHE INFORM USASTOTHEAPPROXIMATE INJUNCTION ISWARRANTED [N O O U WORK ON FACILITATE ANINJUNCTION SHUTTING DOWNTO QUESTION IS ECHNOLOGIES RUCKING TTO TTOMOTTO BER OTE TO COUNSEL OTE TO , LLC T T RUCKING ECHNOLOGIES , LLC U , BER LLC ,

I NC , ’ LLC S ______$______. L , I :

______$______$______DAR I

NC Y T SES ______. HE PURPOSEOFTHISTENTATIVE DEVELOPMENTINTHEEVENTAN .

12 T HE JURY Question No.4,hasWaymo proventhatsaid ______N Question No.4,statethenumber ofdays Question UMBER OF N O ’ S ANSWERCOULD D AYS .] A MOUNT United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHADocument2010Filed10/17/17Page13of ae: Dated: Your answertoalloftheforegoingquestionsmustbeunanimous. 13 F OREPERSON