Which is interesting because you don't invoke the fifth in a civil case unless "the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it"
Doesn't imply guilt, but it shows that Uber recognizes the alleged conduct could be criminal versus just a tort.
I too am confused by the article's wording in explaining that he invoked the fifth "to avoid incrimination in turning over documents relevant to the case" - is it perhaps to make a technical distinction of "here, these are my documents" vs. "oops, I don't know what these documents in my bedroom are or how they got here"?
"Uber’s lawyers claim that the company doesn’t have the documents Levandowski allegedly stole from Waymo and therefore won’t be handing them over tomorrow as part of a scheduled document production."
So more like "I don't have those documents, and I can't say more."
The article seems to suggest that uber is complying with discovery by saying they have 0 documents and his lawyers are saying that revealing any documents he had would be testimony against himself.
