undefined | Better HN

0 pointsABCLAW8y ago0 comments

Judge Alsup's comments on pages 14 and 15 of the transcript mirror the statement you're attempting to discredit. Perhaps it is a bit more concerning when the argument is made by the trier-of-fact himself.

0 comments

themgt8y ago

Yeah, reading through pages 14 -> 20 Uber sounds like they're in some shit. Essentially Levandowski wants to keep his criminal 5th amendment protections at the same time Uber is keeping him as head of the division and the judge thinks it already looks likely he stole 14,000 documents. Uber's almost trying to launder his criminal protections into their civil case while he's still running the department they accused him of stealing the IP for?

IANAL but this does not sound good:

Judge: "And if [Levandowski] doesn't testify to that at the deposition, well, I guess Uber -- you know, Uber is -- if you think this is going to help you, my preliminary view of it is it's not going to help you; and that if there's not a clear-cut path to showing that those 14,000 documents weren't used, then you're looking at a preliminary injunction."

bonzini8y ago

> launder his criminal protections into their civil case

Which they just can't do right? Fifth amendment can be used against you in civil cases.

ABCLAWOP8y ago

Uber isn't claiming the fifth amendment. A senior executive of theirs is. Their argument is that his choices aren't theirs.

Judge Alsup doesn't seem very sympathetic to that line of reasoning.

He did not, however, decide upon that point at this stage, given that these matters were not properly in front of the court.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse