Waymo, the self-driving car unit of Alphabet, sued ride services company Uber Technologies last month, alleging that a former Waymo executive, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 confidential documents before leaving the company to subsequently join Uber, which benefited from the stolen secrets.

Levandowski is not a defendant in the case, but he is a central figure in the high-profile litigation, which pits two Silicon Valley technology giants against each other, both of which are vying to dominate in the competitive autonomous vehicles sector.

Waymo is seeking a preliminary injunction from the court, which would temporarily stop Uber from using any of the allegedly stolen intellectual property. A hearing is scheduled for May 3.

Uber, which has said the allegations are baseless but has not yet responded to Waymo’s complaint in court, has argued that the trade secrets issue should be sent to arbitration.

“You represent somebody who’s in a mess,” U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in San Francisco told the attorney for Levandowski, Miles Ehrlich, during a closed court hearing on Wednesday.

Ehrlich had told the court that based on the “potential for criminal action” against Levandowski, the engineer would be asserting his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

In the hearing, Alsup bandied with lawyers for Uber and Levandowski over the allegedly stolen documents, some of which Uber said were not in its possession, but in Levandowski’s.

“I’m sorry that Mr. Levandowski has got his — got himself in a fix. That’s what happens, I guess, when you download 14,000 documents and take them, if he did. But I don’t hear anybody denying that,” Alsup said.

Uber attorney Arturo Gonzalez said he would like Levandowski to testify in court, but could not force him to. But if the case was sent to arbitration, Levandowski might choose to testify, Gonzalez said, because arbitration proceedings are not public.

“At least it’s not in the public where it’s going to be in the front page of The New York Times the next day,” Gonzalez said, an argument rejected by the court, which said the public had a right to know details of the case.

Gonzalez suggested Uber’s strategy would be to convince the court that Uber was “not using any of these things” Waymo says he stole.

Still, Alsup warned Uber of its difficulty in dodging a preliminary injunction in light of Levandowski’s Fifth Amendment privilege.

“They have a record over there of theft,” Alsup said, referring to Waymo. “And if you think for a moment that I’m going to stay my hand because your guy is taking the Fifth Amendment and not issue a preliminary injunction to shut down that … you’re wrong.”