From the Judge Alsup's write up: > Having made and benefitted from its strategic choice to not name Levandowski as a defendant, Waymo may not renege and sugges

From the Judge Alsup's write up: > Having made and benefitted from its strategic choice to not name Levandowski as a defendant, Waymo may not renege and suggest that Otto Trucking—or any other defendant—is somehow a stand-in for Levandowski, or that misappropriation by Levandowski is somehow automatically transmogrified into misrepresentation by Otto Trucking—or any other defendant—such that Waymo need not separately prove the latter. So, the issue in question is not naming Levandowski as a defendant. Any ideas on why would Waymo's lawyers do this?