5 ms·

> The Court has repeatedly asked Google why it never mentioned Chat until the issue became a substantial problem. It has not provided an explanation, which is w

> The Court has repeatedly asked Google why it never mentioned Chat until the issue became a substantial problem. It has not provided an explanation, which is worrisome, especially in light of its unlimited access to accomplished legal counsel, and its long experience with the duty of evidence preservation. courts never stray "outside the case" but I wish they had said "...and google's long experience saving every scrap of information about everybody on the planet they can find, so weird they would delete this information" ianal, but i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you. It's not the direct sanction against this behavior that is the worst part, but whatever the case is about going against you.

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
> i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you This is the concept of "adverse inference", and Epic has indeed requested the court instruct the jury of this. However, at this time that hasn't been decided by the court.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  The court might do more or (less likely, as I read the order) less than that in this case, having explicitly said it wants to see the state of play of evidence at the end of discovery before making a decision, and only ruling out “terminating sanctions” (i.e., summary judgement now against Google) at this point.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> courts never stray “outside the case” They do, regularly, otherwise the entire concept of “obiter dictum” wouldn’t exist. > ianal, but i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you. The court can (rough summary of Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) (1) Itself (in a bench trial), or by direction to the jury (in a jury trial), allow that to serve as the basis for adverse inference as you describe, or (2) Simply direct a finding of fact against the party who does that (bypassing the jury, in a jury trial), or (3) Strike any claims of the party at fault that the discovery touches on from the case entirely, or (4) Dismiss the case (if the party is the plaintiff) or render summary judgement against the party (in any case), (5) Treat the failure as a contempt of court and sanction it that, or (6) any combination of those (and a few other things) that it thinks is appropriate.
rodgerd 4y ago
> i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you This is why Alex Jones lost his civil actions: he was so intransigent about refusing to produce evidence that the judge determined he was guilty.
- more_corn 4y ago
  Also when his lawyer accidentally provided the evidence it showed he was guilty.
  - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 4y ago
    That was during the judgment (penalty?) phase. Jones had already been found guilty in a prior proceeding.
  - euroderf 4y ago
    A teachable moment for legal education.

ocdtrekkie 4y ago

> i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you This is the concept of "adverse inference", and Epic has indeed requested the court instruct the jury of this. However, at this time that hasn't been decided by the court.

dragonwriter 4y ago
The court might do more or (less likely, as I read the order) less than that in this case, having explicitly said it wants to see the state of play of evidence at the end of discovery before making a decision, and only ruling out “terminating sanctions” (i.e., summary judgement now against Google) at this point.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 4y ago

> courts never stray “outside the case” They do, regularly, otherwise the entire concept of “obiter dictum” wouldn’t exist. > ianal, but i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you. The court can (rough summary of Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) (1) Itself (in a bench trial), or by direction to the jury (in a jury trial), allow that to serve as the basis for adverse inference as you describe, or (2) Simply direct a finding of fact against the party who does that (bypassing the jury, in a jury trial), or (3) Strike any claims of the party at fault that the discovery touches on from the case entirely, or (4) Dismiss the case (if the party is the plaintiff) or render summary judgement against the party (in any case), (5) Treat the failure as a contempt of court and sanction it that, or (6) any combination of those (and a few other things) that it thinks is appropriate.

rodgerd 4y ago

> i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you This is why Alex Jones lost his civil actions: he was so intransigent about refusing to produce evidence that the judge determined he was guilty.

more_corn 4y ago
Also when his lawyer accidentally provided the evidence it showed he was guilty.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 4y ago
  That was during the judgment (penalty?) phase. Jones had already been found guilty in a prior proceeding.
- euroderf 4y ago
  A teachable moment for legal education.