3 ms·
no. they were under legal obligation to retain that evidence, and were lying in court and claiming that they were retaining that evidence. https://storage.cou
by ruined 2y ago
no.
they were under legal obligation to retain that evidence, and were lying in court and claiming that they were retaining that evidence.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205.512.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223...
>All this time, Google falsely told the United States that Google had "put a legal hold in place" that "suspends auto-deletion." Indeed, during the United States' investigation and the discovery phase of this litigation, Google repeatedly misrepresented its document preservation policies, which conveyed the false impression that the company was preserving all custodial chats. Not only did Google unequivocally assert during the investigation that its legal hold suspended auto-deletion, but Google continually failed to disclose—both to the United States and to the Court—its 24-hour auto-deletion policy. Instead, at every turn, Google reaffirmed that it was preserving and searching all potentially relevant written communications.
- pylua 2y agoA legal hold is very serious and I can’t believe they would be so negligent or untruthful. This is a very bad look.
- cogman10 2y agoBingo. What Google did here is sanctionable. It's not something the courts tend to look favorably on and could ultimately end up getting a default judgement. And this isn't the first case of Google burying evidence to try and complicate legal proceedings. They had, for example, the policy of "any email with sensitive stuff should cc legal" policy to try and shield potential criminal behavior with attorney client privilege.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoThe important part is it is only sanctionable. The boss is shown, in writing, to violate court orders, and the worst that will happen is having to pay an insignificant fee. So why not violate the court order?
- cogman10 2y agoSanctions can include jail time and a default judgement. That's not insignificant. Sanctions can just be fines, they can also be a lot more.
- ameister14 2y agoSo the risk is that if intent is shown the spoliated evidence is assumed to be unfavorable for the party responsible, so the court will tell the jury to consider the facts in light of the missing evidence being negative for Google. It can also result in a default judgment against Google.