3 ms·
That's patent nonsense. It is extremely uncommon for someone to take the 5th Amendment in a civil dispute. It, justifiably, raises a ton of red flags that some
by CPLX 9y ago
That's patent nonsense.
It is extremely uncommon for someone to take the 5th Amendment in a civil dispute. It, justifiably, raises a ton of red flags that something very serious is going on.
When people sue each other they don't get to remain silent, they're subject to depositions, discovery, being put on the stand, and having to explain themselves. Your comment applies to criminal matters, it's not comparable at all.
- stouset 9y agoThe current case between Waymo and Uber is a civil dispute, but there is absolutely the possibility here of criminal charges being filed against Levandowski. It's already been referred to a federal prosecutor.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoMore: to take the 5th in a civil dispute that they aren't even a party to. That's extremely unusual - and in this case, it didn't fly.
- dllthomas 9y agoWell, I mean, it did fly, in that he was not compelled (... directly?) by the court to testify. Which isn't to say it didn't have other consequences...
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoBut Levandowski tried to get the court to not allow Waymo to discover who wrote the due diligence report. (Not just block Waymo from seeing the report - he tried to block Waymo from even learning who wrote it.) He did this by claiming the 5th. On a court case that he wasn't a party to. And the judge didn't buy it (rightly, IMHO).
- dllthomas 9y agoAh, yeah.
- dllthomas 9y ago> It is extremely uncommon for someone to take the 5th Amendment in a civil dispute. It, justifiably, raises a ton of red flags that something very serious is going on. Except in this case, we already know that "something very serious is going on" - there are obvious, substantial criminal implications to what Google is alleging. "Don't say anything that might increase the chance of you going to trial" starts sounding quite a bit more reasonable, there, even if Levandowski is innocent.