From the Judge Alsup's write up:<p>> Having made and benefitted from its strategic choice to not name Levandowski as a defendant, Waymo may not renege and suggest that Otto Trucking—or any other defendant—is somehow a stand-in for Levandowski, or that misappropriation by Levandowski is somehow automatically transmogrified into misrepresentation by Otto Trucking—or any other defendant—such that Waymo need not separately prove the latter.<p>So, the issue in question is not naming Levandowski as a defendant. Any ideas on why would Waymo's lawyers do this?