The court can't order a private entity to fire a private employee. They did this because they know they are probably going to lose this case, and it will be harder for Waymo to show that Uber's conduct was willful now that they have fired the main person involved. They want to be able to say "as soon as we were sure that some of this was stolen, we fired the person that did it". That may make a settlement more palatable to Waymo, or potentially decrease the damages awarded to them by a jury if it goes to trial.
> immediately and in writing exercise the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other
authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other
officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials; and
(b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court) by MAY 31 AT NOON [1]
---
I believe that authority includes firing him if he did not comply.
You're thinking like an engineer. You probably also think that playing a video creates a copy just because it does. You probably also think Aereo's business model was legal just because it technically obeyed all of the laws.
Don't all corporate punishments include the clause "up to and including termination"?
If the court is compelling Uber to produce documents and/or information, and if those documents/information are in the hands on one employee, then the courts are compelling Uber to compel employee. That's Uber's card to play, "punishment, up to and including termination".
The court didn't order Uber to fire Levandowski, it ask Uber to do everything within its power to produce documents/information.
Actually, they did it because the judge suggested it. There was no other practical way for Uber to comply with the court's orders in light of Levandowski's pleading the Fifth.
They didn't do this "because they are probably going to lose the case" they did this because the judge instructed them to.
Its also entirely unclear if they will actually lose the case or not. Comments made in the PI ruling make it seem very ambiguous, and it will hinge on the results of further discovery. If no new relevant evidence is found in discover, uber will be found innocent.
