4 ms·

Uber isn't trying to pin thinks on Levandowski. They've actually been very courteous of him. The deal is: Levandowski pled the 5th and refused to produce a l

Uber isn't trying to pin thinks on Levandowski. They've actually been very courteous of him. The deal is: Levandowski pled the 5th and refused to produce a lot of documents that he was ordered to by the court. Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted (EDIT: dragonwriter points out that non-natural persons can plead the 5th. For various reasons, Uber isn't asserting 5th Amendment protections, and the details of why it isn't aren't wildly important here. I regret the error). Judge Alsup basically said, "You can't, like, inherit Levandowski's protections. You have to do everything possible to you in order to produce the documents that I've ordered you to produce. That means getting your employee to cooperate, or firing him." Uber asked Levandowksi to cooperate, and then when he didn't, they fired him. It was very much on Alsup's order.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted. Uber can plead the fifth [EDIT: no, it can't, see note at end] (it applies not just to natural persons, and corporations are subject to criminal process as well), but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them, and if you take the fifth you can't do it selectively, any issue you take the fifth on you can't offer any testimony relating to. Taking the Fifth would be essentially waiving a defense on key points, and civil suits have a preponderance of the evidence standard, not the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt standard, so it would be fairly easy for Waymo to prove points against Uber where Uber essentially surrendered the ability to defend. EDIT: while the discussion of the effects of taking the Fifth in a civil case of this type are something I stand behind, the basic premise (that Uber could take the Fifth) is incorrect; the self-incrimination protection of the Fifth is an exceptional provision of the Bill of Rights in that it has been held to apply only to individuals, not corporations and other similar entities, under the "collective entity rule."
- sharkweek 9y ago
  Funny anecdote - my friend is a county prosecutor, and occasionally gets "pro se" defendants, trying to do it themselves. He had one such gentleman on trial, representing himself. He was called to testify, and decided he was going to plead the fifth on specific questions he didn't want to answer while on the stand, which isn't how it works. The judge had to explain to him that he had already waived his right to plead the fifth, and was going to have to answer honestly under oath, not a good look in front of a jury.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  Corporations cannot plead the fifth--because you can't call corporation to testify (you call agents of the corporation instead), and you can only plead the fifth on behalf of yourself. While it is the case that employees can plead the fifth if it would personally incriminate themselves, withholding documents is only protected if the existence, custody, or authenticity of the documents themselves was not priorly known to the government.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  > but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them Isn't that untrue in California?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Isn't that untrue in California? IIRC, you are correct in suits under California law, but this has no effect in suits under federal law that happen to be heard in California. How that applies to this case may be complicated because it involves both state and federal law claims in federal court.
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      Interesting!

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted. Uber can plead the fifth [EDIT: no, it can't, see note at end] (it applies not just to natural persons, and corporations are subject to criminal process as well), but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them, and if you take the fifth you can't do it selectively, any issue you take the fifth on you can't offer any testimony relating to. Taking the Fifth would be essentially waiving a defense on key points, and civil suits have a preponderance of the evidence standard, not the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt standard, so it would be fairly easy for Waymo to prove points against Uber where Uber essentially surrendered the ability to defend. EDIT: while the discussion of the effects of taking the Fifth in a civil case of this type are something I stand behind, the basic premise (that Uber could take the Fifth) is incorrect; the self-incrimination protection of the Fifth is an exceptional provision of the Bill of Rights in that it has been held to apply only to individuals, not corporations and other similar entities, under the "collective entity rule."

sharkweek 9y ago
Funny anecdote - my friend is a county prosecutor, and occasionally gets "pro se" defendants, trying to do it themselves. He had one such gentleman on trial, representing himself. He was called to testify, and decided he was going to plead the fifth on specific questions he didn't want to answer while on the stand, which isn't how it works. The judge had to explain to him that he had already waived his right to plead the fifth, and was going to have to answer honestly under oath, not a good look in front of a jury.
jcranmer 9y ago
Corporations cannot plead the fifth--because you can't call corporation to testify (you call agents of the corporation instead), and you can only plead the fifth on behalf of yourself. While it is the case that employees can plead the fifth if it would personally incriminate themselves, withholding documents is only protected if the existence, custody, or authenticity of the documents themselves was not priorly known to the government.
dllthomas 9y ago
> but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them Isn't that untrue in California?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Isn't that untrue in California? IIRC, you are correct in suits under California law, but this has no effect in suits under federal law that happen to be heard in California. How that applies to this case may be complicated because it involves both state and federal law claims in federal court.
  - dllthomas 9y ago
    Interesting!