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 Levando

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.