You're right with respect to the point about the source of the emails. > Seems like the judge's argument would apply to any user of a service with multiple dat

You're right with respect to the point about the source of the emails. > Seems like the judge's argument would apply to any user of a service with multiple data centers that regularly replicate (or transfer) data between them. I find this decision even more onerous than that, which is disturbing on a number of levels, specifically, this excerpt from the conclusion: under this court's interpretation, Google will gather the requested undisclosed data on its computers in California, copy the data in California, and send the data to law enforcement agents in the United States, who will then conduct their searches in the United States. An important note is that this is not simply because the data in question is sharded (and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be wholly present in some single sovereign's jurisdiction - this conclusion is considered ancillary to the SCA warrant extraterritoriality question).