SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.)
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 16 2017, @11:12PM
No, but the admission that he has these documents, knows where they are, or acknowledging he's in a position to hand them over could be counted as testimony for this purpose...
IANAL, but IIUC, a subpoena, like a search warrant, assuming such subpoenas aren't quashed or covered under a protective order [lawgives.com] have the force of the courts behind them.
One may not be forced to testify against oneself, however (as has been seen innumberable times) a subpoena (again, unless quashed or otherwise rescinded) or a search warrant are not optional things.
That's where privilege logs come in. Even though a person or entity is responsive to a subpoena, there are certain items (e.g., privileged communications, attorney work product, etc.) which can be excluded from the discovery process. In order to do so, a "privilege log" is created and is routinely reviewed by the bench to determine the validity of the privilege claims.
As such, Tony [theguardian.com] must still turn over documents considered responsive to the the subpoena.
How that relates to a claim that there is potential for "self-incrimination" is unclear (to me, at least). If I didn't despise popcorn, I'd be making lots, then sitting back to enjoy the show. So I'll just sit back instead.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr