
Judge orders Uber to hand over to Waymo unredacted term sheet with Otto - icinnamon
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/25/judge-orders-uber-to-hand-over-unredacted-term-sheet-with-otto-to-waymo/
======
redm
I'm not sure there's much in the way of news here and I doubt there will be a
bombshell in the term sheet. If there is, the real news will come when the
terms are actually disclosed.

~~~
draw_down
Yeah, I can't imagine what would be there of interest, except what would
typically be interesting about such a document.

------
linkregister
_" Last week, Uber notified Levandowski that he either needs to deny that he
downloaded and took any documents from Google, or to hand over the documents
to Google. Otherwise, he would be at risk of getting fired from Uber. Uber has
already removed Levandowski from working on any projects related to LiDAR
technology._

 _Levandowski’s lawyers argued that the court’s order to Uber, as well as
Uber’s threat to Levandowski, would violate his constitutional right to avoid
self-incrimination. "_

This is the actually interesting part of the article. Judge Alsop directly
addressed the Constitutionality of compelling Uber to use any means necessary,
including termination. I doubt that Levandowski's attorneys will prevail.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That fifth amendment claim always seemed _really_ bogus to me. Levanowski, who
is not one of the parties of the suit, wants to prohibit Uber from turning
over information to Waymo, because the information may incriminate
Levandowski. Um, so? Why is that a reason for the court not to allow it? I
don't have a fifth amendment right to keep _others_ from incriminating me!

~~~
adjkant
Uber is claiming that it doesn't have the information, so only Levandowski can
turn over the info according to them. Therefore it is still self-
incrimination.

~~~
linkregister
I think that information is the attorney-client privileged stuff; the 5th
Amendment information is held by Levandowski (in my interpretation).

~~~
AnimalMuppet
So Uber is saying, "We don't have any of the stolen documents; talk to
Levandowski to get those"? And Levandowski is saying "I won't say anything
about the stolen documents; Fifth Amendment"? That sounds reasonable...

... right up until Levandowski and/or Uber tried to use that approach to block
disclosure of _the name of the company_ that did the due diligence
investigation. That bit of insane over-reach ruins my ability to see this as
anything reasonable.

~~~
linkregister
I agree with you.

If they're attempting to use the 5th Amendment to conceal that information, I
assume it's only a matter of time before Judge Alsop compels Uber anyway. What
duty does Uber, a separate entity, have to protect Levandowski if it retains a
copy of the report?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> I assume it's only a matter of time before Judge Alsop compels Uber anyway.

For that information, he already has.

------
xfour
I have a hard time believing the term sheet says something to the effect of,
for $680 million we would like to purchase all your stolen documents please.

The article is more about the due diligence reports where it might out that
Uber knew that there was stolen documents, which Uber seems keen on keeping
out of Waymo's hands.

~~~
londons_explore
If Uber knew about the stolen documents, then presumably they would be super
careful not to put anything about them in writing.

I assume the whole lot to be verbal promises between friends and printouts of
documents which can later be "lost" leaving no trace.

Uber isn't stupid - if they're doing something wrong, and suspect later
litigation, they aren't going to let anyone write about it.

~~~
FireBeyond
You'd think so, but Uber has also been pinged by a Judge for handing over
email which, among other things, says to "use encrypted email or chat",
specifically "to avoid discovery issues":

* [https://theintercept.com/2016/07/29/federal-judge-rips-uber-...](https://theintercept.com/2016/07/29/federal-judge-rips-uber-apart-over-dirt-digging-investigation/)

* [https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/20...](https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/07/Screenshot-2016-07-27-14.37.431.png)

~~~
openmosix
That's honestly "common". I've seen it a number of times emails along the line
of "let's not talk about this via email but let's discuss it only over the
phone" \- in many other companies/situations.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Sure. In the context of an already-filed lawsuit, however, that's asking for
trouble. The other side has the legal right to discover relevant documents
that you hold; deliberately trying to make that harder during a court case is
arguably unethical, and is _certainly_ frowned on by judges.

------
ChuckMcM
One of the most fascinating things to me about these sorts of proceedings is
the multiple levels on which they operate. From a top level (the complaint)
all the way down to preparation for various exits that try to minimize damage.

~~~
ethbro
Well, if you're paying the kinds of amounts these guys are for legal firms,
I'd expect them to have an answer for any contingency.

