{"id":337,"date":"2017-09-13T07:15:00","date_gmt":"2017-09-13T11:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=337"},"modified":"2017-10-02T07:18:08","modified_gmt":"2017-10-02T11:18:08","slug":"subject-of-internal-investigation-could-not-block-disclosure-of-report-to-third-party","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=337","title":{"rendered":"Subject of Internal Investigation Could not Block Disclosure of Report to Third Party"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.<\/a>, [2017-2235, 2017-2253] (September\u00a013, 2017), the Federal Circuit denied intervenor\u00a0 Levandowski’s petition for a writ of mandamus.\u00a0 Waymo alleges\u00a0that its former employee, Levandowski, improperly\u00a0 downloaded thousands of documents related to Waymo\u2019s\u00a0driverless vehicle technology and then left Waymo to\u00a0found Ottomotto, which Uber subsequently acquired. \u00a0Before the acquisition closed, counsel for Ottomotto and\u00a0Uber (but not counsel for Mr. Levandowski) jointly retained\u00a0a law firm to investigate\u00a0Ottomotto employees previously employed by Waymo,\u00a0including Mr. Levandowski.\u00a0 Waymo sought to obtain the report, which the court permitted, and Levandowski unsuccessfully attempted to block with a write of mandamus.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that a petitioner has to show three things to be entitled to the writ:<\/p>\n

First, the party seeking issuance of the writ must\u00a0have no other adequate means to attain the relief\u00a0he desires\u2014a condition designed to ensure that\u00a0the writ will not be used as a substitute for the\u00a0regular appeals process. Second, the petitioner\u00a0must satisfy the burden of showing that his right\u00a0to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.\u00a0Third, even if the first two prerequisites have\u00a0been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its\u00a0discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate
\nunder the circumstances.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Federal Circuit found that\u00a0Levandowski failed the first test — establishing he had no other adequate remedy.\u00a0 While\u00a0Levandowski argued that an appeal after the disclosure was in effect no remedy, the Federal Circuit\u00a0concluded that a post-judgment appeal by\u00a0either Uber or Levandowski would suffice to protect\u00a0the rights of Levandowski and ensure the vitality of\u00a0attorney-client privilege.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit went on to find that\u00a0Levandowski failed to show that his right to\u00a0issuance of the writ was clear and indisputable.\u00a0 Finally, the Federal Circuit said that\u00a0 Levandowski had not persuaded it to\u00a0exercise its discretion here and overrule the District\u00a0Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., [2017-2235, 2017-2253] (September\u00a013, 2017), the Federal Circuit denied intervenor\u00a0 Levandowski’s petition for a writ of mandamus.\u00a0 Waymo alleges\u00a0that its former employee, Levandowski, improperly\u00a0 downloaded thousands of documents related to Waymo\u2019s\u00a0driverless vehicle technology and … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-attorney-client-privilege"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=337"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":338,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337\/revisions\/338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}