[bhups]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole point of this case is to prove this. I would find a more impartial adjudicator to take more of a "the motives contradict with the allegations of theft" view.

To outright say that the theft occurs before an official judgement was made seems in poor taste for, well, a judge.

[gareim]

Google has logs. Google made assertions with the logs backing them up. Uber (to my knowledge) has not denied the assertions. The employee in question (to my knowledge) has not denied the assertions.

It's a civil case. That's probably enough.

[lost953]

The bar in civil cases is preponderance of the evidence, of which Google has plenty and Uber / Levandowski have shown very little. It seems beyond sufficient at this point anyway.

[bmelton]

Worth noting that while I might otherwise agree with your position, the thing you're missing here is that this isn't a case as you're used to seeing them, and neither guilt nor innocence is being determined here. Preliminary injunctions function very differently from other legal proceedings.

What Waymo might do is offer proof that Lewandowski stole the documents. What Uber might do is offer proof that he didn't, or that even if he did, it doesn't matter for some other reason. In determining whether or not an injunction can proceed, the judge isn't being asked to determine guilt or innocence, but to determine, based on the strength of the evidence, whether or not they might later find something like guilt or innocence enough that an injunction should or should not be granted.

If Waymo were to offer continuous video of Lewandowski stealing the documents and taking them to Uber, uploading it to their servers, and then implementing them in their self-driving cars, a judge would almost certainly find that guilt is probable enough to establish positive grounds for issuing an injunction, but that does not mean that Lewandowski is found guilty in the way that we usually associate guilt.