3 ms·

I think his point is: isn't that a bogus thing for Uber to claim? That it can't release documents because of someone else's fifth amendment privilege? It's not

I think his point is: isn't that a bogus thing for Uber to claim? That it can't release documents because of someone else's fifth amendment privilege? It's not like Uber is married to Levandowski and has spousal privilege against testifying against him (although Uber sure is acting like they're married!). Can't they simply release the documents because they choose to? I don't see how Uber choosing to release documents that they have access to (which is not even testifying, by the way - it's just complying with discovery) can possibly violate someone else's fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. Perhaps a lawyer could speculate on whether a claim like this can have any merit.

celticninja 9y ago
Yeah I think that what uber has is called evidence.
mdasen 9y ago
IANAL, but it does seem like a claim that won't hold up in court. I thought I remembered one item that had Judge Alsup noting that Uber could require Levandowski to testify as a condition of employment. If Levandowski refuses to testify, it is then up to Uber to fire him. Uber doesn't get a 5th amendment protection. If one of Uber's employees refuses to comply in a civil suit against Uber, Uber then has the choice of not complying with the court or firing the employee and telling the court that it no longer controls the employee. The employee likewise has the option to testify or be terminated. Ultimately, Uber would prefer to keep the documents secret. As a legal strategy, it makes sense to try anything that might keep the documents secret. If your back is against the wall, you push on any avenue that might get a judge to decide that you don't need to show something damaging - even if it's a long shot. There is something unnerving about being required to incriminate yourself OR go bankrupt. Let's say that Google had sued Levandowski rather than Uber and Levandowski had to either 1) produce the documents that would incriminate him or 2) let Google win a billion dollar lawsuit against him without contesting it. At that point, is there really a meaningful 5th amendment protection if an opponent can just sue you in court and win either by forcing you to waive it or by default?
- mbreese 9y ago
  At that point, is there really a meaningful 5th amendment protection if an opponent can just sue you in court and win either by forcing you to waive it or by default? But the 5th amendment isn't meant to protect a person in a civil case. It's all about what the government can do in a criminal case. So in your example, there aren't just two options (incriminate yourself OR go bankrupt). There is the potential for a third option: go to prison. Most would say that avoiding the third option is the main goal here. So if you go bankrupt during a civil case because you don't want to self-incriminate, then that's the cost for asserting your 5th amendment rights. The 5th amendment isn't about your protecting assets.
DannyBee 9y ago
"I think his point is: isn't that a bogus thing for Uber to claim? That it can't release documents because of someone else's fifth amendment privilege? " This is generally correct. The privilege is personal, you cannot assert it on behalf of other people. (not to mention you can't assert it to prevent someone else from incriminating you. IE you can't assert it to prevent your friend from giving evidence against you, even about something you said :P)

celticninja 9y ago

Yeah I think that what uber has is called evidence.

mdasen 9y ago

IANAL, but it does seem like a claim that won't hold up in court. I thought I remembered one item that had Judge Alsup noting that Uber could require Levandowski to testify as a condition of employment. If Levandowski refuses to testify, it is then up to Uber to fire him. Uber doesn't get a 5th amendment protection. If one of Uber's employees refuses to comply in a civil suit against Uber, Uber then has the choice of not complying with the court or firing the employee and telling the court that it no longer controls the employee. The employee likewise has the option to testify or be terminated. Ultimately, Uber would prefer to keep the documents secret. As a legal strategy, it makes sense to try anything that might keep the documents secret. If your back is against the wall, you push on any avenue that might get a judge to decide that you don't need to show something damaging - even if it's a long shot. There is something unnerving about being required to incriminate yourself OR go bankrupt. Let's say that Google had sued Levandowski rather than Uber and Levandowski had to either 1) produce the documents that would incriminate him or 2) let Google win a billion dollar lawsuit against him without contesting it. At that point, is there really a meaningful 5th amendment protection if an opponent can just sue you in court and win either by forcing you to waive it or by default?

mbreese 9y ago
At that point, is there really a meaningful 5th amendment protection if an opponent can just sue you in court and win either by forcing you to waive it or by default? But the 5th amendment isn't meant to protect a person in a civil case. It's all about what the government can do in a criminal case. So in your example, there aren't just two options (incriminate yourself OR go bankrupt). There is the potential for a third option: go to prison. Most would say that avoiding the third option is the main goal here. So if you go bankrupt during a civil case because you don't want to self-incriminate, then that's the cost for asserting your 5th amendment rights. The 5th amendment isn't about your protecting assets.

DannyBee 9y ago

"I think his point is: isn't that a bogus thing for Uber to claim? That it can't release documents because of someone else's fifth amendment privilege? " This is generally correct. The privilege is personal, you cannot assert it on behalf of other people. (not to mention you can't assert it to prevent someone else from incriminating you. IE you can't assert it to prevent your friend from giving evidence against you, even about something you said :P)