4 ms·

It sounds like there were disagreements between Google's lawyers and the DOJ lawyers on the scope of the hold and what constitutes "reasonable."

burna_aws_acct 4y ago
i.e., Google lawyers found a loophole, and through it all employee chats were funneled.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
IncRnd 4y ago
Don't change the goalposts. It's not about collectively agreeing on what is reasonable. From the article: "Federal rules for litigation required Google to suspend deleting chats in mid-2019, when Google would have anticipated the antitrust lawsuit, the government said. But Google continued using “off the record chats” even after the lawsuit was filed, the DOJ’s attorneys wrote."
dragonwriter 4y ago
The consequences of being found to have destroyed evidence is one of the reasons why organizations generally treat litigation / potential litigation holds broadly. (Also, unless you know there is no possible way something could be beneficial, you never know what, touching on the broad issue of litigation, you might actually need yourself, e.g., to rebut an argument from the other side.)
- Zircom 4y ago
  From what I'm seeing they're seeking monetary fines against Google for this, and at their scale that's hardly a deterrent. It always works out to be a fraction of what they'd actually have to pay if they hadn't pulled whatever bullshit got them fined, and in the end won't impact them or their bottom line in the slightest. Until the fines are high enough to actually deter them, or they start pressing criminal charges for shit like this, nothing gonna change with these huge megacorps.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > From what I'm seeing they're seeking monetary fines against Google for this This is false. They are seeking a finding that Google destroyed evidence, and a hearing to assess sanctions, and an order for Google to make additional evidence available before the hearing. [0] While fines might be part of the sanctions, a very common sanction for destruction of evidence is adverse inference jury instructions in the litigation the evidence was relevant to. [0] actual motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205.512.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223...
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
    > It always works out to be a fraction of what they'd actually have to pay if they hadn't pulled whatever bullshit got them fined An oft-repeated argument, but usually not backed by any evidence or math.
stefan_ 4y ago
This is not some kind of lawyer golf. Google employees with functions far outside legal wrote things like: > “Let’s not talk about markets and market share via email.” > “[W]e should chat live so you can get the history; best to not put in email.” > “Since it’s a sensitive topic, I prefer to discuss offline or over hangout.” This is of course not, in fact, some cute way around legal custodial requirements, no matter what the people who passed leetcode preached in trainings.

burna_aws_acct 4y ago

i.e., Google lawyers found a loophole, and through it all employee chats were funneled.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

IncRnd 4y ago

Don't change the goalposts. It's not about collectively agreeing on what is reasonable. From the article: "Federal rules for litigation required Google to suspend deleting chats in mid-2019, when Google would have anticipated the antitrust lawsuit, the government said. But Google continued using “off the record chats” even after the lawsuit was filed, the DOJ’s attorneys wrote."

dragonwriter 4y ago

The consequences of being found to have destroyed evidence is one of the reasons why organizations generally treat litigation / potential litigation holds broadly. (Also, unless you know there is no possible way something could be beneficial, you never know what, touching on the broad issue of litigation, you might actually need yourself, e.g., to rebut an argument from the other side.)

Zircom 4y ago
From what I'm seeing they're seeking monetary fines against Google for this, and at their scale that's hardly a deterrent. It always works out to be a fraction of what they'd actually have to pay if they hadn't pulled whatever bullshit got them fined, and in the end won't impact them or their bottom line in the slightest. Until the fines are high enough to actually deter them, or they start pressing criminal charges for shit like this, nothing gonna change with these huge megacorps.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > From what I'm seeing they're seeking monetary fines against Google for this This is false. They are seeking a finding that Google destroyed evidence, and a hearing to assess sanctions, and an order for Google to make additional evidence available before the hearing. [0] While fines might be part of the sanctions, a very common sanction for destruction of evidence is adverse inference jury instructions in the litigation the evidence was relevant to. [0] actual motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205.512.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223...
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  > It always works out to be a fraction of what they'd actually have to pay if they hadn't pulled whatever bullshit got them fined An oft-repeated argument, but usually not backed by any evidence or math.

stefan_ 4y ago

This is not some kind of lawyer golf. Google employees with functions far outside legal wrote things like: > “Let’s not talk about markets and market share via email.” > “[W]e should chat live so you can get the history; best to not put in email.” > “Since it’s a sensitive topic, I prefer to discuss offline or over hangout.” This is of course not, in fact, some cute way around legal custodial requirements, no matter what the people who passed leetcode preached in trainings.