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 Levandows

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?