3 ms·

I think that information is the attorney-client privileged stuff; the 5th Amendment information is held by Levandowski (in my interpretation).

• AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  So Uber is saying, "We don't have any of the stolen documents; talk to Levandowski to get those"? And Levandowski is saying "I won't say anything about the stolen documents; Fifth Amendment"? That sounds reasonable... ... right up until Levandowski and/or Uber tried to use that approach to block disclosure of the name of the company that did the due diligence investigation. That bit of insane over-reach ruins my ability to see this as anything reasonable.
  • linkregister 9y ago
    I agree with you. If they're attempting to use the 5th Amendment to conceal that information, I assume it's only a matter of time before Judge Alsop compels Uber anyway. What duty does Uber, a separate entity, have to protect Levandowski if it retains a copy of the report?
    • AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      > I assume it's only a matter of time before Judge Alsop compels Uber anyway. For that information, he already has.
  • dilemma 9y ago
    But Levandowski is Uber.
    • AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      Well, Uber has some kind of agreement to defend Levandowski. And he's an employee. But no, Uber doesn't want Levandowski to be Uber. That would make Uber responsible for the theft of documents from Waymo, and fully in possession of the contents. That is not a position that Uber wants to be in...