Waymo Jury May Be Warned Uber Lawyers Didn't `Come Clean'
-
Alphabet unit seeks punishment for missed disclosure deadline
-
‘You misled the judge time and time again,’ judge tells lawyer
Uber Technologies Inc. may pay a price for withholding key evidence from Waymo when their trade secrets dispute goes to trial -- the judge proposed letting the jury know the ride-hailing company’s lawyers didn’t “come clean.”MoFo lawyer?
“I’m inclined to let the jury know what happened here,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said Wednesday at a hearing in San Francisco, speaking to one of Uber’s lead lawyers. “You misled the judge time and time again.”
Alsup said he agreed with Waymo that Uber didn’t turn over the evidence by court-ordered deadlines, adding that he hasn’t made up his mind about what to tell jurors about the role Uber’s lawyers played. Since the case was filed in February Alsup has repeatedly expressed frustration with lawyers at Morrison and Foerster, or MoFo, for making sweeping arguments that information sought by Waymo is protected by confidentiality provisions and out of its adversary’s reach.
Waymo continues to hunt for hard evidence that the driverless car technology it claims was downloaded by its former engineer, Anthony Levandowski, was used by Uber. Levandowski, who went on to become the head of Uber’s robocar project, has refused to testify in the case, asserting his constitutional protections against self-incrimination. Uber fired him in May.
MoFo lawyer Arturo Gonzalez told Alsup that complying with court orders to turn over information to Waymo, protecting Uber’s confidentiality, and not stepping on Levandowski’s rights is akin to navigating a “minefield.” Gonzalez noted that Levandowski -- but not Uber -- appealed Alsup’s ruling requiring Uber to turn over a report containing key evidence in the case....MORE
This is the third time the mofo's have dissed Judge Alsup:
May 12
Uber Suffers Legal Setbacks In Europe, U.S.
In the Waymo case Uber's bid to make their arguments in private was turned down by the judge overseeing the action but even worse for Levandowski, hizzoner is using his Federal Judgeship powers.*April 1
Uber: Judge Says He May Grant Waymo's Request For An Injunction Against Uber's Self Driving Efforts
I was going to put something together on Anthony Levandowski's use of the 5th amendment in a civil matter and some of the implications of doing so but didn't get to it. In the meantime here is a look at some high-buck lawyering and tactics of litigators...I was thinking more along the lines of inferring guilt--in a criminal proceeding an inference from the assertion of the 5th amendment right is strictly verboten and judges so instruct the jury, whereas in most state courts (California being a notable exception) and U.S. federal court, a civil pleading of the 5th may be assumed to be an admission of guilt.
But yeah, another implication is: if you piss off a tech savvy* federal judge you've got a problem....
