Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday April 16 2017, @12:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the guilty-as-sin dept.

An Uber engineer accused of data theft against Google must privately explain the circumstances behind invoking his Fifth Amendment right to the judge in the case:

During a Wednesday court hearing, a federal judge said that if an Uber engineer accused of a massive data theft from his former employer is going to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to protect against self-incrimination and not hand over materials demanded as part of a recent subpoena and upcoming deposition, then he must at least explain himself privately to the judge.

"What I've told you is that you can submit the privilege log to me, in camera, without giving it to anyone else and I can evaluate it, which aspects, if any would be incriminating," US District Judge William Alsup said, addressing a lawyer representing the engineer, Anthony Levandowski, during the hearing. "I'm not ruling against the ultimate assertion of the privilege, but you've got to do more than just say in court, Fifth Amendment—you have to do a privilege log and go through the process."

The case pits Waymo against Uber, which in turn is in a tense situation with one of its own employees, Levandowski, the head of its self-driving division. Levandowski is now set to be deposed by Waymo lawyers this Friday at their San Francisco offices. He must also respond to a subpoena by handing over materials that he is accused of stealing— thousands of secret documents from his time with Waymo parent company, Google. On Wednesday, Judge Alsup quashed four of the six distinct items requested in the subpoena, but allowed first the most substantive, the allegedly "misappropriated materials," to stand. (The third item, "All communications between You and Uber between January 2015 and August 2016," will also remain.)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tekk on Sunday April 16 2017, @01:29PM

    by tekk (5704) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 16 2017, @01:29PM (#494794)
    My interpretation from the article is basically leaning on the wording of the amendment. The guy isn't allowed to self incriminate but the judge believes that the information is relevant to the case, so the guy has to talk ab it, but what he says can't be used against him? It could also be what the other guy said, where he doesn't need to talk about the self-incriminating evidence, but he has to explain why he believes the evidence to be self-incriminating. Then the judge can make a call about whether it falls under the 5th amendment or not.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2