actually it is exceedingly rare for a criminal defendant to ever take the stand and offer testimony...in fact, most legal professionals would say a defendant taking the stand is more often a Hail Mary and such a move indicates guilt.

And this is not a criminal trial. It is exceedingly rare for a head of a division and the former CEO of an acquired company to plead the 5th in response to litigation demands. Therefore, it looks damning and is damning to Uber's case, which is why their lawyers are in full damage-control mode. Having bought Otto, Uber has assumed its liabilities, including liability for Levandowski's past actions as founder of Otto.

In any case (criminal or civil) the gut reaction/bias the public or a layman may feel when one opts for the 5th (silence = culpability/liability) is ignored in favor of the law (5th != guilt) applied by both judges and informed juries.

Take a real-life case:

-OJ criminal case for murder, doesn't take the stand (found not guilty)

-OJ civil case for wrongful death, takes the stand gives inconsistent statements/impeached - not regarding anything to do with the case itself but his prior record (found liable)

Yes, the standards are different in civil and criminal but the legal strategy is the same...the defendant doesn't have to do anything, the burden is on the other party to prove their case, and opening yourself up to cross when there are criminal allegations (whether in a actual criminal case or civil case) would be a questionable legal decision. All this is compounded in this Uber case where allegations of (potentially) criminal acts are being made in the civil case because potentially a criminal case may follow, but it does beg the question if this theft of intellectual property is so obvious why hasn't law enforcement brought the charges yet (they in fact may, but see how silence doesn't really indicate anything). FYI, yes in a acquisition Uber likely assumed all liabilities, but that would also generally exclude liabilities as a result of criminal acts.

> FYI, yes in a acquisition Uber likely assumed all liabilities, but that would also generally exclude liabilities as a result of criminal acts.

That's not true at all where the act is done in an official capacity and inures to the benefit of the acquired firm. The entire case is basically that Otto was built upon the founder's stolen tech. If Uber purchased and received infringing and stolen property then they are very much on the hook for all applicable damages, including punitive damages for Otto's egregiously bad acts.

>That's not true at all where the act is done in an official capacity and inures to the benefit of the acquired firm.

If you are suggesting Uber instructed the Otto founder to steal the tech and set up his own shop to be acquired...then, yes Uber would be liable, and while that may be the theme of the case, if there were any real evidence theft of IP was done as an official act of Uber this would already be settled.

An employer is generally liable for the acts of its employees done in their official capacity (respondiate superior) the employer will not be liable for criminal acts of its employees. That is unless you can find smoking gun evidence the employer instructed the employee to commit the act, otherwise legally criminal acts are outside the scope of official employment and employers are not liable...the same is true of an acquisition, whereas Otto would have expressly stated they own all IP and have authority to sell the same, which would be a breach and potentially void/invalidate the entire acquisition. Either way, If Uber is infringing IP they can be enjoined, but unless it can be shown Uber instructed the Otto founders to steal the IP or knew it was stolen I think they would be indemnified, assuming that's what occurred.