After receiving a report with a trove of details critical to their case, Waymo lawyers have asked to delay their impending trial against Uber.

The motion (PDF), filed Saturday afternoon, says that Waymo lawyers need more time to sift through the "due diligence" report and the related communications and documents, which are only now being produced.

"With so much material only now seeing the light of day, Waymo would be unfairly prejudiced if the trial proceeds as initially scheduled on October 10 without additional time to pursue this mountain of new evidence," Waymo attorneys write in the motion. "The evidence Uber and Ottomotto attempted to shield from discovery goes to the heart of the case."

The Waymo v. Uber lawsuit began in February, when Waymo, Google's self-driving car division, accused Uber of using its trade secrets in its self-driving car technology. Waymo lawyers say that Anthony Levandowski, who was head of Uber's self-driving car project, illegally downloaded more than 14,000 files just before he left his job at Google. After leaving Google, Levandowski founded his own startup, Otto. He sold that company to Uber in mid-2016 for $680 million.

Levandowski, who is not a defendant in the case, has asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answer questions about the alleged downloads. Uber doesn't deny that Levandowski took the documents, but the company says none of the files ever made it to Uber servers and that Uber's technology was built from the ground up. Levandowski was fired by Uber when he wouldn't cooperate with court orders regarding document production.

The key evidence in this matter is a due diligence report by an outside firm, Stroz Friedberg, on Uber's acquisition of Levandowski's startup. Uber and Levandowski objected to its being produced in the case, but the federal judge overseeing the case ruled that it must be produced. Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed.

So what has Waymo learned from this report, and related materials, so far? The motion does seem to get into the details, but the public version is heavily redacted and offers few clues. But part of it (see pages 4-5) seems to directly attack Uber's contention that "there is no evidence that anybody at Uber knew anything about these 14,000 files before this lawsuit was filed."

The amount of discovery Waymo still has to take is daunting, and they make that clear in their motion. In addition to the report, Stroz has told Waymo it will be producing some 5,000 internal documents about its investigation. Ottomotto has produced 1,000 previously withheld documents. Stroz also says it will make available some 150 devices that it possesses, including approximately 100 from Levandowski. And 12 depositions were delayed pending resolution of the recent appeal over the Stroz report, including the deposition of former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick.

The report doesn't suggest how much additional time might be needed before trial.

"In addition to the Stroz Report, thousands of new documents and hundreds of previously unexamined devices are now being turned over to Waymo, adding to the direct evidence we've already found of trade secret misappropriation," a Waymo spokesperson told Ars via e-mail.

Uber declined to comment on the matter.

Update 9/18: Uber is opposing Waymo's motion to delay the trial, saying that Waymo is seeking a delay "so it can shore up its shaky case." In opposition papers (PDF) filed today, Uber accuses Waymo of asking "for a do-over after it knowingly made the informed decision... to proceed with expedited discovery and a trial in October 2017, despite not having the Stroz report."