SAN FRANCISCO - In a packed courtroom today, lawyers for Google's Waymo self-driving car division made their case that Uber's self-driving car chief should be kicked off the job by judicial order.

Anthony Levandowski, a former Google employee who now works on Uber's self-driving car project, has been accused by Google of stealing trade secrets before he left to create his own startup. That startup, Otto, was quickly bought by Uber for $680 million. Now Waymo has sued Uber over the alleged trade secret theft, as well as patent infringement.

"This is an extraordinary case of misappropriation of intellectual property," said Waymo lawyer Charles Verhoeven. "Mr. Levandowski downloaded over 14,000 proprietary files while he was at Waymo for use as a competitor."

Levandowski searched Google's intranet for instructions on how to download the material. Then he attached an external drive to his laptop and spent eight hours downloading files, said Verhoeven.

"He then tried to cover his tracks by wiping clean his laptop and hiding evidence," said Verhoeven. "The statements I've made, Your Honor, are undisputed. Mr. Levandowski has taken the Fifth Amendment."

Verhoeven showed planning documents from Uber suggesting that the company was considering hiring Levandowski well before he quit, without advance notice, on January 27. Before he did that, Levandowski had exchanged e-mails with Uber executives on January 12.

“What if Uber is totally innocent?”

Verhoeven wants US District Judge William Alsup, who's overseeing the case, to make an "adverse inference" against Uber as the judge considers the matter of an injunction. Essentially, Waymo wants Alsup to assume the worst about the information that Waymo lawyers can't get.

There's a lot of information. Uber has said that 3,500 documents are privileged, most of them because they involve correspondence with attorneys. Verhoeven believes there is proof that Uber is using Waymo trade secrets—whether proof is in those privileged documents or on Levandowski's personal computer, he doesn't know.

"I’ve been practicing since 1989," said Verhoeven. "I’ve never had a case where there’s a 3,500 [document] privilege log. It doesn’t pass the straight-face test. [Uber is] employing Mr. Levandowski, even today, as an officer in the Lidar program." (Levandowski stepped down as Uber's point man for Lidar last week.)

Verhoeven also presented a document showing that, as part of the merger, Levandowski got more than 3.5 million shares of private Uber stock, worth more than $250 million at the time of the acquisition. The vesting date of the stock is January 28, the day after Levandowski left Waymo.

"The very next day, he's getting awarded stock by Uber!" said Verhoeven. "When he's supposedly starting his own company."

Alsup pointed out that it wouldn't be surprising for Levandowski, once a deal had been reached with Uber, to backdate the stock grant to an earlier point in time. Verhoeven admitted he didn't have much context for the just-produced document.

Update: An Uber spokesperson has confirmed that Levandowski's stock grant was made at the time of the acquisition, and backdated to Jan. 28, a standard practice.

"There's bad intent, and there’s downloading illegally that hasn’t been rebutted," said Verhoeven. "A broad injunction is appropriate."

"Part of the problem is your best proof is against Levandowski," said Alsup. "It is true that you have very solid proof that he did all that downloading under suspicious circumstances. But you didn't sue him, you sued Uber. So what if it turns out Uber is totally innocent? What if the worst thing they did was pay a lot of money to hire away a brilliant guy from a competitor? And he downloaded all this information, and didn't consult them?"

“We’re not hiding anything”

"What I just heard was their arbitration case against Anthony Levandowski," said Uber lawyer Arturo Gonzalez, when he got his turn at the podium. "They are now asking you—realizing that their case is falling apart—to issue an injunction based on the case they're making in the arbitration."

Gonzalez acknowledged that it was "probably true" that, in the course of Uber evaluating the self-driving car landscape, the ride-sharing company may have reached out to Levandowski about whether he could join them. But he rejected Waymo's assertions that Uber hasn't been cooperative with discovery. "We're not hiding anything," he said.

Since the lawsuit was filed in February, Uber has interviewed 85 employees and maintained a team of 40 attorneys who have reviewed more than 300,000 documents. Forensic consultants imaged the workstations of 131 employees. They've run 100 search terms on their e-mail, including 15 selected by Waymo, and allowed Waymo to take 12 depositions. That includes the deposition of Levandowski, who pleaded the Fifth Amendment on almost every question.

Alsup acknowledged that the Uber legal team had worked hard on discovery. Even with all that, Alsup had questions about the possibility of Levandowski using a personal device to keep the downloaded files.

"The best thing to do would be to look at his laptop and get one of those computer scientists to see what files he accessed," said Alsup. "But you won't allow that."

"He does have an Uber-issued laptop that we have analyzed," said Gonzalez, in addition to e-mails and Google Drive documents. "You are correct that he has a personal device that his lawyers have instructed him to assert the Fifth Amendment on."

Gonzalez said that other cases involving injunctions include situations in which companies admitted using trade secrets or had already been found liable for wrongdoing.

"That is not this case," Gonzalez said. "We are adamant that we did not use any of their secrets."

He finished up by noting that Uber has voluntarily moved Levandowski away from any work on Lidar, even though in his view Waymo hasn't met the legal standard for getting an injunction.

"It's no more Lidar for you, until this trial is over," said Gonzalez.

Waymo wants the injunction to prevent use of anything on their trade secret list, a document which isn't public.

“What do we do?”

"It is overwhelmingly clear that the downloads occurred," said Alsup, near the end of the hearing. "There are two possibilities. Either there was a scheme to download all that stuff and use it in the design of the Uber product. Or Uber realized that Mr. Levandowski was radioactive and came up with agreements that would, somehow, insulate Uber from any of that material being used. We just want him; we don't want his documents."

Judge Alsup continued: "So what do we do? What does the system of justice do in a case like this? There's an innocent explanation and a guilty explanation, and neither has been proven yet. The only thing that has been proved is that he downloaded 14,000 documents. I’ve already allowed a lot of discovery, and you haven't found a smoking gun."

The lawyers will continue arguing after the lunch break in a sealed session, where trade secrets can be discussed. Alsup could rule on an injunction at any time after that.

Whatever he decides will set the "rules of the road" for Uber's self-driving car work for months to come. If the two companies can't reach a deal by October, the matter could go to a jury.

More on Waymo v. Uber:

On February 23, Google's Waymo division filed a lawsuit claiming that Uber's self-driving car chief, Anthony Levandowski, illegally downloaded 14,000 files when he worked at Google.

On March 29, during a closed-door hearing, Levandowski's lawyer said his client would plead the Fifth to avoid testifying about documents that he may have.

On April 3, Google accused Levandowski of creating "competing side businesses," even while he earned a reported $120 million from Google.

On April 4, Levandowski filed a public motion invoking his 5th Amendment rights.

On April 5, US District Judge William Alsup insisted that Uber search harder for the 14,000 allegedly stolen files.

On April 6, Alsup said he would likely rule against Levandowski on the 5th Amendment issue and told him to prepare an appeal.

On April 25, an appeals court ruled against Levandowski, upholding Alsup's decision.