No, that's a completely non-substantiative quote from an attorney for one side that contains the implicit assumption that Uber really does have the documents and is actively committing crimes in discovery to prevent the discovery from working. Not only is it not an unbiased source, it's basically a source being paid to be biased. Which is fine; I am generally down with the philosophy of adversarial justice. But you shouldn't read much of anything at all into that quote.

For those of us on the outside, while we are justified in considering that a possible hypothesis, we are also justified in looking at the facts and considering that it may indeed be the case that these documents were never given to Uber. I for one have no trouble believing that the documents were downloaded by an individual but that they were never given to Uber, as I rather suspect "keeping more than one really ought from one's previous job but never raising to the level of actually giving that stuff to one's next employer" is really quite common.