3 ms·

Didn't the judge order last week that Levandowski couldn't invoke the Fifth Amendment for that very reason? Or rather that it couldn't protect him? Source: htt

Didn't the judge order last week that Levandowski couldn't invoke the Fifth Amendment for that very reason? Or rather that it couldn't protect him? Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-exec-anthony-levandowski-denied-fifth-amendment-bid-in-waymo-case-2017-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-exec-anthony-levandowski...

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Yes. If Levandowski is not just playing games, that decision is not going to decrease his fear of prison...
valuearb 9y ago
Not a lawyer, but it's my understanding there is no 5th amendment protections in a civil suit/trial. But Googles complaint frames Levandowski's behavior as criminal, so doesn't that create a reasonable fear of prosecution, and open the door to letting Levandowski use the 5th? I don't know. But it's an interesting case.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > Not a lawyer, but it's my understanding there is no 5th amendment protections in a civil suit/trial. It was weirder than that. Levandowski was claiming that Uber couldn't turn information over to Google because it might incriminate Levandowski, when Levandowski wasn't one of the parties in the lawsuit. Unsurprisingly, that didn't fly.
- siegel 9y ago
  You can assert the 5th amendment in a civil suit, if you fear potential criminal prosecution. If you couldn't, then the 5th amendment protections would essentially disappear in many cases. Many criminal offenses also give rise to civil liability. So, all that would have to happen is for the victim to sue the criminal defendant, notice his/her deposition in the civil case, and compel the criminal defendant to speak that way. Then you would suddenly have the defendant being forced to testify under oath, despite the fear of criminal prosecution.
dlgeek 9y ago
So, Levandowski was trying to use the 5th Amendment to prevent Uber from disclosing, during discovery, the author of a report (in Uber's possession, not Levandowski) that Uber was claiming was privileged. There are a few issues here: 1.) 5A protections don't generally cover the production of existing documents, only testimony (statements, answering questions). 2.) 5A doesn't protect corporations, only individuals. 3.) It's (apparently, per the discussions in the various court filings on this issue) incredibly rare to try to prevent the disclosure of the metadata on a privilege log. (Basically, during discovery, if you find a document that's responsive to the discovery, but think it's privilege from being turned over, you have to provide a report of what the document is, who has it, who has ever seen it, etc. to prove that it remains privileged.). 4.) For someone who isn't a party to the lawsuit to try to assert this is incredibly unusual. The judge basically called the whole argument bullshit. But it was all related to the document stuff, not Levandowski's testimony/deposition.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Yes. If Levandowski is not just playing games, that decision is not going to decrease his fear of prison...

valuearb 9y ago

Not a lawyer, but it's my understanding there is no 5th amendment protections in a civil suit/trial. But Googles complaint frames Levandowski's behavior as criminal, so doesn't that create a reasonable fear of prosecution, and open the door to letting Levandowski use the 5th? I don't know. But it's an interesting case.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> Not a lawyer, but it's my understanding there is no 5th amendment protections in a civil suit/trial. It was weirder than that. Levandowski was claiming that Uber couldn't turn information over to Google because it might incriminate Levandowski, when Levandowski wasn't one of the parties in the lawsuit. Unsurprisingly, that didn't fly.
siegel 9y ago
You can assert the 5th amendment in a civil suit, if you fear potential criminal prosecution. If you couldn't, then the 5th amendment protections would essentially disappear in many cases. Many criminal offenses also give rise to civil liability. So, all that would have to happen is for the victim to sue the criminal defendant, notice his/her deposition in the civil case, and compel the criminal defendant to speak that way. Then you would suddenly have the defendant being forced to testify under oath, despite the fear of criminal prosecution.

dlgeek 9y ago

So, Levandowski was trying to use the 5th Amendment to prevent Uber from disclosing, during discovery, the author of a report (in Uber's possession, not Levandowski) that Uber was claiming was privileged. There are a few issues here: 1.) 5A protections don't generally cover the production of existing documents, only testimony (statements, answering questions). 2.) 5A doesn't protect corporations, only individuals. 3.) It's (apparently, per the discussions in the various court filings on this issue) incredibly rare to try to prevent the disclosure of the metadata on a privilege log. (Basically, during discovery, if you find a document that's responsive to the discovery, but think it's privilege from being turned over, you have to provide a report of what the document is, who has it, who has ever seen it, etc. to prove that it remains privileged.). 4.) For someone who isn't a party to the lawsuit to try to assert this is incredibly unusual. The judge basically called the whole argument bullshit. But it was all related to the document stuff, not Levandowski's testimony/deposition.