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.