[cantrip]

"Wong also claims knowledge of a large swath of Levandowski’s personal and business dealings. She does so in great detail, including dozens of overheard names, the license-plate numbers of cars she observed at a Levandowski property, and an extensive list of the BDSM gear she claims he kept in his bedroom."

This sounds a lot like she was spying on him for trade secrets. Also, the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything.

[Waterluvian]

The only reason to ever publicise stuff like that is to smear someone. Its low and it undermines any legitimate claim. I'm sure a defense would point out the vexacious nature of those publications.

[crag]

It will never reach a courtroom. He will settle long before that.

He has too much at stake for her to take the stand and be questioned.

[samfisher83]

It might be too late for it at this point. Some of that information is pretty much saying he did some illegal things. A prosecutor could just subpoena her and she has to tell the truth or risk going to jail.

[gamblor956]

At this point, either all of the allegations she made about him are true or he has a very good defamation lawsuit against her. Whether or not the BDSM claim is true, he has an invasion of privacy claim he can pursue.

Time will tell. Most likely, they'll settle for much less than $6 million.

[Blazespinnaker]

Legal way to blackmail. Cool! But, alas, she can be subpoenaed which overrides any gag clause.

[vkou]

Generally speaking, when you sue someone, it's often in your best interests to give them an opportunity to settle, instead of going to trial. You often do this by listing all the awful shit about the other person that you're going to air at trial. We don't call that a 'Legal way to blackmail,' and neither is this.

[eganist]

> We don't call that a 'Legal way to blackmail,' and neither is this

I mean, if we're just going by Wikipedia, my non-lawyerly brain would parse this:

> It is coercion involving threats to reveal substantially true [...] information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates, or threats of [...] criminal prosecution.

as being precisely what's happening here. Breadcrumbs were thrown out in public with an implication to settle in order to avoid more getting out.

That sounds like "legal blackmail" to most laypeople.

[vkou]

Again, how is this different from a threat to sue? Should out-of-court civil settlements be made illegal? All of them are coercive in nature, and a lawsuit almost always results in a lot of dirty laundry being aired. Does this make every settled lawsuit 'legal blackmail'? If so, does the word even have any meaning?

[jimrandomh]

The key words in that sentence are "criminal prosecution". This is a civil suit.

[sorokod]

Well, it can be a reason but not the only reason.

[Fricken]

>the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything

Only if we presume that HN's fascination with Waymo vs Uber and the man at the centre of it all serves as something other than a tech world surrogate for lurid celebrity gossip.

[pwaai]

> the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything

Sums up the level of horseplay when they examined the power relationships involving contractual bondages offered by a competing corporate interest through the submission to a liquid asset.

[rdiddly]

It's relevant to getting revenge. It worked. Will it be thrown out of court? It was never intended for court.

[dragonwriter]

> This sounds a lot like she was spying on him for trade secrets. Also, the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to anything.

Without access to the actual complaint, there's little basis for the first sentence and none for the second.

[cantrip]

The complaint, "Wong v. Levandowski" is available online.

[dragonwriter]

Well, it's available in the sense that all federal court filings are available at a fee through PACER; it's not linked in the article, nor available anywhere I can readily find other than PACER or pay sites that charge more than PACER for documents plus a monthly fee.

If you’d like to provide a link, that would actually contribute a lot to the discussion. Suggesting that it's out there somewhere does not.

[cantrip]

You're saying there's no basis for these claims. The basis is the legal complaint, which is publicly accessible. The whole reason the news media is reporting on this is because they now have access to a public legal filing.

Without being a news reporter myself, I must rely on what is reported to me. While I know that the news media will give it their own biased slant, certain things, like her saying that she has the license plate numbers of those visiting his house, or that he has BDSM gear, I believe I can take as objectively factual.

Would you also say that without access to a rocket ship or the personal ability to do advanced astrological calculations that there is no basis to the statement that the earth is round?

[dragonwriter]

> You're saying there's no basis for these claims

I'm saying that there is no basis that has been cited for the specific characterizations made in the comment I first responded to upthread, correct.

> The basis is the legal complaint, which is publicly accessible.

Your post in which you made the characterization quoted text from the news article, not the complaint. If you actually have read the complaint and were characterizing the material in it after reading it in context, that was a very poor presentation.

> While I know that the news media will give it their own biased slant, certain things, like her saying that she has the license plate numbers of those visiting his house, or that he has BDSM gear, I believe I can take as objectively factual.

Perhaps, but the characterization of their relevance to the legal causes of action at the center of the case would require knowing, for instance, the details of the alleged manner of intentional infliction of emotional distress and whether or not the arsenal of BDSM equipment was integral to that. Which you could not get from the news article at the head of the thread; you could, presumably, from the complaint, but I see no evidence that you have seen it.

[cantrip]

Please respond to the point about the earth being round.

[rayiner]

It’s relevant to the question of whether she had enough access to know those other things.

[cantrip]

But her claims about his business dealings and his sexual fetishes are both unverified claims, so it's circular reasoning to say one helps prove the other.

[rayiner]

What he keeps in his BDSM drawer can be verified directly.