You are right. That is not how the Fifth Amendment works. You can only assert your Fifth Amendment rights on your own behalf, not on someone else's behalf. And

You are right. That is not how the Fifth Amendment works. You can only assert your Fifth Amendment rights on your own behalf, not on someone else's behalf. And you can only assert your rights to prevent yourself from incriminating you, not to prevent someone else from incriminating you. (The lawcomic previously linked to has a section on that at http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2545 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2545) And even though that is rudimentary Fifth Amendment law, that is nevertheless the argument Levandowski's lawyers made. If you ask me, Levandowski's lawyers really screwed up here. He's not a party to the case, but on April 4 they filed that motion, saying UBER couldn't disclose facts because they could later be used to convict HIM. It's a stupid argument, and they spent 15 pages on it, alternating between the trite and the absurd. That's a good way to piss off a smart judge. The argument was so incoherent, it was hard for the judge to even figure out what they were asking. Another way to piss off a smart judge. And the argument was disingenuous at best, or deceitful at worst, as it flatly mis-stated the holding of the main case it relied on, which actually said this specific argument is wrong. Amazing way to piss off a judge. Their argument boiled down to "Uber and Levandowski have a joint defense agreement, so Uber's lawyers can't disclose what Levandowski's lawyers can't disclose." That's not how a JDL works. All a JDL does is let co-defendants' lawyers share info without popping the attorney-client privilege. It has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment. And it doesn't make Uber's lawyers Levandowski's. Stupid. But as you read that argument, what they're REALLY saying is "Uber and Levandowski colluded ahead of time, with the awareness that this was some shady shit, to make sure none of this evidence gets disclosed to the court." Or put another way, "Dear Judge: We have an agreement to defraud the court. If we did what you ask, we'd be violating an agreement!" The judge got that message loud and clear. And the very first words of that motion? That the judge had to read over and over again because it was so hard to understand? They practically INVITE a criminal investigation of Levandowski. So, after ruling against them on April 10 (https://www.courttrax.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/USDC-CA-N-3-17cv00939-Notice-of-Appeal-sub-229.pdf https://www.courttrax.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/USDC-CA...), and STILL getting nowhere with Uber and Levandowski, the judge has now very politely obliged.