This is a civil case, so Waymo's burden isn't "reasonable doubt", it's "preponderance of the evidence". In other words: is it more likely than not that Otto stole their tech from Waymo?

This is a much easier bar to clear as a plaintiff. It's the defense's job to make the case that it's more likely than not that they didn't do whatever they're accused of doing.

In this case specifically, one side has extensive computer records that strongly suggest wrongdoing, and the other side hasn't yet produced any evidence -- or even any statements -- contradicting that. Good luck, guys.