3 ms·
"that contains the implicit assumption that Uber really does have the documents and is actively committing crimes in discovery to prevent the discovery from wor
by bradleyjg 10y ago
"that contains the implicit assumption that Uber really does have the documents and is actively committing crimes in discovery to prevent the discovery from working"
I don't think the paragraph implies that at all. Rather it says that Uber has not threatened Levandowski with employment sanctions in order to get him to cooperate with its discovery obligations. Uber could do so without running afoul of the 5th amendment as that only binds the government.
Google's lawyer is arguing that the court ought to treat that as constructive non-compliance. There's no implied allegation of perjury or other criminal behavior.
- Natsu 10y agoHe invoked the fifth. Uber could fire him, but I don't seriously expect them to be able to get more out of him than the court itself can. Would you rather lose your job or go to prison isn't a hard question to answer, after all.
- kmonsen 10y agoAlso, if you already have virtually unlimited money loosing the job doesn't seem so bad.
- bradleyjg 10y agoIf this case goes very badly for Uber they may well decide to turn around and sue Levandowski. He may not have virtually unlimited money after that.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- vkou 10y agoIf Uber fires him, they run the risk of him throwing them under the bus, in exchange for legal leniency. That's a problem with criminal conspiracies - you either have to stand by your partners, or hold a threat worse then jail time over their heads. Easy for a mob boss, less easy for a unicorn.
- dullgiulio 10y agoThat's true. But at the same time, it seems to me, Uber lawyers are arguing that Uber is not responsible for Lewandowski's defence strategy even when that hurts Uber. If an employee works against his company, he is usually fired. Uber his looking bad either way here.