Yeah, reading through pages 14 -> 20 Uber sounds like they're in some shit. Essentially Levandowski wants to keep his criminal 5th amendment protections at the same time Uber is keeping him as head of the division and the judge thinks it already looks likely he stole 14,000 documents. Uber's almost trying to launder his criminal protections into their civil case while he's still running the department they accused him of stealing the IP for?

IANAL but this does not sound good:

Judge: "And if [Levandowski] doesn't testify to that at the deposition, well, I guess Uber -- you know, Uber is -- if you think this is going to help you, my preliminary view of it is it's not going to help you; and that if there's not a clear-cut path to showing that those 14,000 documents weren't used, then you're looking at a preliminary injunction."

> launder his criminal protections into their civil case

Which they just can't do right? Fifth amendment can be used against you in civil cases.

Uber isn't claiming the fifth amendment. A senior executive of theirs is. Their argument is that his choices aren't theirs.

Judge Alsup doesn't seem very sympathetic to that line of reasoning.

He did not, however, decide upon that point at this stage, given that these matters were not properly in front of the court.

His choice isn't Uber's. True, and legitimate. But Uber wants him to be able to make that choice, and still continue as the head of Uber's self-driving program. That's what the judge is very unsympathetic to.

Not talking about claiming it, but about "laundering it" as the parent comment put it. And in fact as you say, it's being interpreted as making excuses more than respecting the choice of their executive.