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: 3, Insightful) by tonyPick on Sunday April 16 2017, @03:50PM
Actually I don't believe that Uber and Levandowski are running a joint defence agreement, at least not officially - He appears to have his own attorney, and him pleading the 5th isn't necessarily that good for Uber depending on how the injunction pans out.
Also a further complication is that this is a civil case, not a criminal one, and the rules are slightly different there; the US constitution mentions Criminal Cases specifically in the context, and even though the absolute right to refusing to testify carries over to civil cases the Judge can look into why the plea is made and assess the grounds the defendant is providing for making it - however that's a can of worms involving State vs Federal law amongst other things. And we're talking about a preliminary injunction, not even the full trial, which might complicate things even further.
A few URL's for the curious/insomniac crowd
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/28/what-happens-if-you-take-the-fifth-in-a-civil-case/ [washingtonpost.com]
https://judgebonniesudderth.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/use-of-the-fifth-amendment-privilege-in-a-civil-case/ [wordpress.com]
https://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt00may-shield.html [americanbar.org]