Discovery Steering Committee re Google Antitrust Litigation [pdf](ia804605.us.archive.org)
ia804605.us.archive.org
Discovery Steering Committee re Google Antitrust Litigation [pdf]
https://ia804605.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903.631.0.pdf
79 comments
New title should say "In re" not just "re".
Why?
Because the title has "In re".
The article's title exceeds HN's 80 char limit and so had to be shortened.
"Litigation" can be shortened to "Litig."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Litig%2e
[fixed typo and HN does not accept trailing dot in URL]
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Litig%2e
[fixed typo and HN does not accept trailing dot in URL]
"Litigation" can be shortned to "Litig."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Litig.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Litig.
We don't do abbreviations like that in HN titles. I even want to say we never do that, though never is a strong word.
Agree, there's no need to editorialize here. There's going to be a lot of action against the big companies, please just copy-paste the original titles. I think in the majority of instances the content will already be damning enough.
Note: I'm about as pro-break-them-up as they come and truly think ruling against Google/Amazon/FB will be great for both the tech space as well as society as a whole
Note: I'm about as pro-break-them-up as they come and truly think ruling against Google/Amazon/FB will be great for both the tech space as well as society as a whole
"At the September 15 hearing, Judge Anderson pressed Google to explain how it could have permitted what the court termed an egregious and very significant problem in this case: I'm not understanding how this could happen with what should have been at least two levels of oversight. (9/15/23 DOJ Action Tr. at 52, 54, 59.) As the Court noted: You produced how many documents since the filing of this lawsuit? 1 million. So you're talking about potentially five times what you've produced, and you're saying you thought there was substantial completion done? Its false. It wasnt; was it? (Id. at 55.)
After hearing from Google's counsel, the court stated, It's no excuse and Maybe it wasn't malicious, maybe it wasn't in bad faith, but it clearly was not being done under proper supervision, either internally or externally. And you've put everyone in an unfortunate situation by your failure to do that. (Id. at 56, 58.) The Court appeared further concerned about the delay in jumping on this issue sooner: You've known about this for a month now. You knew about it starting on August 18th. You knew there was a real issue. There didn't seem to be a call to arms then. The first time I heard about it was September 1, and it was this, you know, like, whoops, we've got a problem. It wasn't as clear as I now know how egregious this is. (Id. at 59.)"
After hearing from Google's counsel, the court stated, It's no excuse and Maybe it wasn't malicious, maybe it wasn't in bad faith, but it clearly was not being done under proper supervision, either internally or externally. And you've put everyone in an unfortunate situation by your failure to do that. (Id. at 56, 58.) The Court appeared further concerned about the delay in jumping on this issue sooner: You've known about this for a month now. You knew about it starting on August 18th. You knew there was a real issue. There didn't seem to be a call to arms then. The first time I heard about it was September 1, and it was this, you know, like, whoops, we've got a problem. It wasn't as clear as I now know how egregious this is. (Id. at 59.)"
"We get sued all the time, so how could we have known this was a special case?"
> There didn't seem to be a call to arms then. The first time I heard about it was September 1, and it was this, you know, like, whoops, we've got a problem.
They seem to have significant problems. Its broader then "not discovering" 5 minus 1 million of documents. There seems to be multiple smoking guns in evidence: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416652.pdf Google internal Email instruct: never to talk about 'market share' or even 'markets'. This is clear and deliberate behaviour to evade government regulators. It is institutionalised through legal training class 101.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer, CS professor with some courtroom experience.
They seem to have significant problems. Its broader then "not discovering" 5 minus 1 million of documents. There seems to be multiple smoking guns in evidence: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416652.pdf Google internal Email instruct: never to talk about 'market share' or even 'markets'. This is clear and deliberate behaviour to evade government regulators. It is institutionalised through legal training class 101.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer, CS professor with some courtroom experience.
NAL - I'm failing to see how telling your employees not to do things that violate or give the impression of anti-trust law is a smoking gun.
That seems like a no-brainer thing a company should be doing.
That seems like a no-brainer thing a company should be doing.
the problem is when it becomes more instruction on "if you do X, make sure you don't say suspicious words so nobody notices we are doing X"
"...so that when we get sued and in discovery they ask for all documents discussing markets, nothing will come up."
You can be sure Google's lawyers vetted the training to ensure it was lawful instruction.
The ruling also documents a pattern of Google performing badly in discovery which suggests that it is a strategy.
> The ruling also documents a pattern of Google performing badly in discovery...
So, Google is bad at finding things.
So, Google is bad at finding things.
Their motto (after “don’t be evil” was phased out) was something like “organizing the information of the world, making it accessible for everyone”.
Objective failed, I guess?
Objective failed, I guess?
Just found out there is wikipedia page for that old motto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
>after “don’t be evil” was phased out
It wasn't https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/
It wasn't https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/
It was. "Don't be evil" was their motto, since it no longer is means that it was phased out. The GP is wrong on the following motto which, IIRC, was/is "Do the right thing".
Yeah I think I mixed up the mission statement which is technically different (and more “official”) than the motto, which I believe was always unofficial and later made it into the code of conduct or something like it. When I was at Google they drilled the mission statement pretty intensely in internal comms.
So why are they continually evil? OR are those just words on a page?
They've always been words on a page.
The idea that Google always wanted to be evil but was stymied by that pesky motto and then decided "I know, I'll change the motto (but keep it in the code of conduct) and then I'll be free to be evil" is just disconnected from reality.
The idea that Google always wanted to be evil but was stymied by that pesky motto and then decided "I know, I'll change the motto (but keep it in the code of conduct) and then I'll be free to be evil" is just disconnected from reality.
You're assuming the goal posts on evil haven't been moved. Easy to justify all of your nonsense if you lower bar of evil to "not committing genocide."
Google search has been going downhill.
They also deleted chat messages without verifying if they needed to be reported.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/23/doj-says-google-destroyed-ch...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/23/doj-says-google-destroyed-ch...
they knew the chats should have been saved, and repeatedly said they knew and said that they were doing that. They weren’t. here are the chats where they discuss deleting the chats https://www.fastcompany.com/90955785/google-deleted-chats-in...
That article reads like a report on a criminal conspiracy.
> “[W]ould it be too much to ask you to turn history off?,” another employee wrote in a chat about Mobile App Distribution Agreements, or MADAs, contracts that Google requires device manufacturers to enter into to license Google Mobile Services. “lots of sensitivity with legal these days :).”
> Initially, Google had also claimed that it did not have the “ability to change default settings for individual custodians with respect to the chat history setting,” but evidence “plainly established that this representation was not truthful,”
> Google lawyers also argued that Chat was used primarily for nonbusiness, casual conversations, but the court found that the company does in fact use it to discuss “substantive business.”
How can you read this and not believe that these people knowingly participate in illegal business.
> “[W]ould it be too much to ask you to turn history off?,” another employee wrote in a chat about Mobile App Distribution Agreements, or MADAs, contracts that Google requires device manufacturers to enter into to license Google Mobile Services. “lots of sensitivity with legal these days :).”
> Initially, Google had also claimed that it did not have the “ability to change default settings for individual custodians with respect to the chat history setting,” but evidence “plainly established that this representation was not truthful,”
> Google lawyers also argued that Chat was used primarily for nonbusiness, casual conversations, but the court found that the company does in fact use it to discuss “substantive business.”
How can you read this and not believe that these people knowingly participate in illegal business.
It's an attempt to move the digital world into the analog world. As a regular human having a quick throwaway conversation with someone, I'm not going to remember it weeks or months down the road. The same thing with digital. Signal has the same feature.
I'm failing to see how disappearing chat that is on by default differs from in-person conversations. If I have a video call, I'm not required to record it. If we have a meeting in-person I don't need to either.
They will have the conversation off the record, and if text isn't available it will be a call or meeting instead.
They will have the conversation off the record, and if text isn't available it will be a call or meeting instead.
I'm saying that disappearing chat that is on by default is (trying to be) like in-person conversations. So it's easy to interpret person A's request to take the conversation off the record as evidence of a conspiracy, but maybe just just don't want a record of what they're saying because it's weird if I took a video recording of every in-person meeting I've ever had, and that weird feeling holds true in the digital realm as well.
The issue here is not having an off-the-records conversation, it's saying that they want one because they're about to talk about something that would embarass legal.
Isn't Google going to get some sort of sanction for this specifically? I'm having a hard time following it all now, but I remember reading that the DOJ was going to "sanction" Google and have been waiting for the court case to begin to see what that will amount to.
Legal sanctions for spoliation are not always as satisfying as you are probably imagining.
Putting aside whatever predisposition you have about Google and this case, I do find it troubling that American jurisprudence is headed for a future where there is no such thing as going off the record, if you are using a chat app. Nobody thinks you have to record and preserve face-to-face communications, but apparently people want it to be that you always have to record and preserve them if there was some intermediate device used to do it, other than by voice. In the WFH era this bothers me.
Putting aside whatever predisposition you have about Google and this case, I do find it troubling that American jurisprudence is headed for a future where there is no such thing as going off the record, if you are using a chat app. Nobody thinks you have to record and preserve face-to-face communications, but apparently people want it to be that you always have to record and preserve them if there was some intermediate device used to do it, other than by voice. In the WFH era this bothers me.
> no such thing as going off the record
Hard agree. I have personal bias in this case, but it’s crazy to me that sentiment on off the record chat in these threads has been so heavily weighted towards normalizing the idea that everything should be recorded. I would be horrified if certain of my Slack DMs end up in discovery at my current job. I have to admit that sometimes I just need to blow off some steam to my teammate who sits two states over, and we communicate on Slack or Zoom, both of which are automatically recorded and preserved for at least a short time. Bob in procurement is not a literal gnome-fucking-shit-smear-artist but sometimes I do feel that way. My barber doesn’t know Bob but my teammate sat in the same meeting where we got a raw deal so we bond over the experience by saying stupid things in a Slack DM conversation. Under the developing regime this kind of casual talk on company systems is a risk for both myself and my employer if it ends up getting keyword matched during discovery. Not sure where a reasonable line is but it does seem like the grey area needs urgent attention before tech turns into finance.
Hard agree. I have personal bias in this case, but it’s crazy to me that sentiment on off the record chat in these threads has been so heavily weighted towards normalizing the idea that everything should be recorded. I would be horrified if certain of my Slack DMs end up in discovery at my current job. I have to admit that sometimes I just need to blow off some steam to my teammate who sits two states over, and we communicate on Slack or Zoom, both of which are automatically recorded and preserved for at least a short time. Bob in procurement is not a literal gnome-fucking-shit-smear-artist but sometimes I do feel that way. My barber doesn’t know Bob but my teammate sat in the same meeting where we got a raw deal so we bond over the experience by saying stupid things in a Slack DM conversation. Under the developing regime this kind of casual talk on company systems is a risk for both myself and my employer if it ends up getting keyword matched during discovery. Not sure where a reasonable line is but it does seem like the grey area needs urgent attention before tech turns into finance.
Did you miss the briefing in kindergarten where the rest of us were shocked, shocked I tell you (!) to learn that every bit transmitted on a corporate network or from a corporate device will be used against you at the slightest provocation?
> Ggome-fucking-shit-smear-artist [...] if it ends up getting keyword matched during discovery
I'm forced to point out that, maybe, working at a company smuggling erotic gnome depictions should be avoided in your specific case.
I'm forced to point out that, maybe, working at a company smuggling erotic gnome depictions should be avoided in your specific case.
That's not a developing regime, it's been the norm since email.
Pretty sure it's been the case since long before then. If you read Jane Austen novels, it's pretty clear that w/in London it was possible to send notes back and forth with only a 1-2 hour latency, sometimes less.
Or consider the following quote from That Hideous Strength, written and set in the mid 1940s; the "Bill" in question has recently been murdered:
---
"There's a letter you wrote," said the Fairy.
"What letter?"
"A letter to Mr. Pelham, of your own College, dated six weeks ago, in which you say, 'I wish Bill the Blizzard could be moved to a better world.'"
Like a sharp physical pain the memory of that scribbled note came to Mark. It was the sort of silly jocularity one used in the Progressive Element -- the kind of thing that might be said dozens of times a day in Bracton about an opponent or even about a bore.
---
If that scene was written now, the message in question would certainly have been a text. Email is certainly much more convenient than snail-mail or inter-departmental memos, but people have been writing short, quick notes to each other for millennia.
NB a few minor edits.
Or consider the following quote from That Hideous Strength, written and set in the mid 1940s; the "Bill" in question has recently been murdered:
---
"There's a letter you wrote," said the Fairy.
"What letter?"
"A letter to Mr. Pelham, of your own College, dated six weeks ago, in which you say, 'I wish Bill the Blizzard could be moved to a better world.'"
Like a sharp physical pain the memory of that scribbled note came to Mark. It was the sort of silly jocularity one used in the Progressive Element -- the kind of thing that might be said dozens of times a day in Bracton about an opponent or even about a bore.
---
If that scene was written now, the message in question would certainly have been a text. Email is certainly much more convenient than snail-mail or inter-departmental memos, but people have been writing short, quick notes to each other for millennia.
NB a few minor edits.
But we are talking about messaging which has greatly displaced face to face conversation while email is flat or shrinking over the same time period.
>But we are talking about messaging which has greatly displaced face to face conversation while email is flat or shrinking over the same time period.
That's irrelevant, IMHO.
If an exchange is recorded, then it's fair game for legal discovery.
I'll give you some (modified[0]) 25+ year-old advice that's just as relevant today to messaging/collaboration apps as it was to email: If you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the NYT/WaPo/FoxNews/HN/Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/tiktok/BBC/Deutsche Welle/YouTube/etc., then don't put it in any recorded form.
And that goes triple for anything shared on platforms you don't own and physically control -- especially those owned/controlled by your employer.
You might just as well just wear a GoPro 24/7 and livestream the feed everywhere.
I'd add that in a professional setting, anything that might even be tangentially related might well be subject to discovery in the event of a lawsuit.
Don't like it? Get the laws changed. And good luck with that. You're gonna need it.
[0] The original advice referenced "local newspapers" and email, but since the former are mostly gone and (at least you claim it's so) "email is flat or shrinking", I thought I'd update it for you.
Edit: Fixed typo.
That's irrelevant, IMHO.
If an exchange is recorded, then it's fair game for legal discovery.
I'll give you some (modified[0]) 25+ year-old advice that's just as relevant today to messaging/collaboration apps as it was to email: If you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the NYT/WaPo/FoxNews/HN/Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/tiktok/BBC/Deutsche Welle/YouTube/etc., then don't put it in any recorded form.
And that goes triple for anything shared on platforms you don't own and physically control -- especially those owned/controlled by your employer.
You might just as well just wear a GoPro 24/7 and livestream the feed everywhere.
I'd add that in a professional setting, anything that might even be tangentially related might well be subject to discovery in the event of a lawsuit.
Don't like it? Get the laws changed. And good luck with that. You're gonna need it.
[0] The original advice referenced "local newspapers" and email, but since the former are mostly gone and (at least you claim it's so) "email is flat or shrinking", I thought I'd update it for you.
Edit: Fixed typo.
> If you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the NYT/WaPo/FoxNews/HN/Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/tiktok/BBC/Deutsche Welle/YouTube/etc., then don't put it in any recorded form.
Indeed, and 25 years ago the balance of communication was significantly less recorded, was the point of the story.
Indeed, and 25 years ago the balance of communication was significantly less recorded, was the point of the story.
>Indeed, and 25 years ago the balance of communication was significantly less recorded, was the point of the story.
You're absolutely correct.
And for those of us who care about our privacy, more's the pity. :(
You're absolutely correct.
And for those of us who care about our privacy, more's the pity. :(
First off, welcome to Third Party Doctrine. If you don't like it, write your Congressperson and get them cracking.
Second: this is only a problem where you have significant pressure/attempts to specifically avoid leaving paper trail in order to do something dicey. If you're fairly sure you shouldn't be doing it, and the only thing keeping you from talking about it is being on the record, then blurt that shit out on the record, because odds are you shouldn't be doing it.
Second: this is only a problem where you have significant pressure/attempts to specifically avoid leaving paper trail in order to do something dicey. If you're fairly sure you shouldn't be doing it, and the only thing keeping you from talking about it is being on the record, then blurt that shit out on the record, because odds are you shouldn't be doing it.
> American jurisprudence is headed for a future where there is no such thing as going off the record, if you are using a chat app.
Companies could set up internal chat solutions where conversations aren't logged.
But they'd like to spy on everyone's message traffic for their own purposes, at that point their logs are subject to subpoena.
Companies could set up internal chat solutions where conversations aren't logged.
But they'd like to spy on everyone's message traffic for their own purposes, at that point their logs are subject to subpoena.
> Companies could set up internal chat solutions where conversations aren't logged.
No, transient storage of chat records has specifically been categorized as unacceptable in exactly these ongoing Google litigations.
No, transient storage of chat records has specifically been categorized as unacceptable in exactly these ongoing Google litigations.
It's only an issue in the current Google litigation because Google's current chat solution apparently has an option to enable logging for everybody. If you have an internal chat app that never logs messages -- say, the sender looks up the recipient's IP address on the VPN and connects to them directly -- then a court can't order you to write new code to enable logging. But if your chat app has a big master "log all messages" switch, a court can order you to turn it on.
> If you have an internal chat app that never logs messages -- say, the sender looks up the recipient's IP address on the VPN and connects to them directly -- then a court can't order you to write new code to enable logging.
No, they absolutely can. You may be confusing this with various first amendment cases about compelled speech, given the focus on a court ordering code authorship. A regulator does not have to concern themselves with the mechanism of storage, they can simply designate communications as requiring storage. And they have done so in the case of electronic transmissions. The relevant law allows regulators to compel retention of written communications. Storing a communication in memory and sending it over the network to the memory of another computer for display is by itself sufficient to qualify as a written communication.
No, they absolutely can. You may be confusing this with various first amendment cases about compelled speech, given the focus on a court ordering code authorship. A regulator does not have to concern themselves with the mechanism of storage, they can simply designate communications as requiring storage. And they have done so in the case of electronic transmissions. The relevant law allows regulators to compel retention of written communications. Storing a communication in memory and sending it over the network to the memory of another computer for display is by itself sufficient to qualify as a written communication.
You're still fundamentally conflating "aren't logged" with "are logged, but chats expire".
Consider what would happen if a company deployed a system of microphones across their offices such that all in-person conversations were logged. They'd then look at these logs, discipline people based on "private" exchanges etc.
Then when they got into some legal trouble they'd say "oh, we'll keep the microphones and surveillance practices, but expire the records after X days".
That's fundamentally different from the situation of simply removing the surveillance. A court could very reasonably conclude that the company is structuring its affairs in such a way as to avoid court oversight.
I've worked at other companies with similar expiry policies. It's well known in the industry that everyone does this to avoid discovery.
For the employees it's the worst of both worlds: You don't get privacy, and you also can't look up some valuable exchange that happened 90+ days ago.
I think the courts are right to call companies on this particular line of bullshit, and very much doubt that the government could force companies without the proverbial microphones everywhere to install them.
Consider what would happen if a company deployed a system of microphones across their offices such that all in-person conversations were logged. They'd then look at these logs, discipline people based on "private" exchanges etc.
Then when they got into some legal trouble they'd say "oh, we'll keep the microphones and surveillance practices, but expire the records after X days".
That's fundamentally different from the situation of simply removing the surveillance. A court could very reasonably conclude that the company is structuring its affairs in such a way as to avoid court oversight.
I've worked at other companies with similar expiry policies. It's well known in the industry that everyone does this to avoid discovery.
For the employees it's the worst of both worlds: You don't get privacy, and you also can't look up some valuable exchange that happened 90+ days ago.
I think the courts are right to call companies on this particular line of bullshit, and very much doubt that the government could force companies without the proverbial microphones everywhere to install them.
It puts a premium on in-person face-to-face communication.
I'm okay with that, so long as any potential employer understand I also put a premium on it.
I'm okay with that, so long as any potential employer understand I also put a premium on it.
I don’t see any issue with that if it only applies to corporations.
I have several questions.
Exactly how bored are you?
Are you thinking C corporations like couple-owned small businesses and startups?
Accurate Zoom transcripts can be automatically created for every call but this feature is off by default. When it defaults on, does the same rule apply?
In terms of the rules and regulations, is there a digital means to have a private conversation?
Am I permitted to FaceTime?
Under what circumstances can myself and a co-worker communicate on personal devices?
What is your personal opinion on return to office vs hybrid vs all-remote or remote first?
Exactly how bored are you?
Are you thinking C corporations like couple-owned small businesses and startups?
Accurate Zoom transcripts can be automatically created for every call but this feature is off by default. When it defaults on, does the same rule apply?
In terms of the rules and regulations, is there a digital means to have a private conversation?
Am I permitted to FaceTime?
Under what circumstances can myself and a co-worker communicate on personal devices?
What is your personal opinion on return to office vs hybrid vs all-remote or remote first?
[deleted]
I'll let you in a a little secret[0]: Three can keep a secret, if two are dead.
[0] It's not really a secret, but rather a concept you might want to consider if you value your privacy.
[0] It's not really a secret, but rather a concept you might want to consider if you value your privacy.
I can’t help but be amazed how willingly people are to give power to the government to surveil you.
Would you really be okay with the government knowing everything you say during business hours? Should they also force companies to have microphones in conference rooms when you speak in person? In the bathroom?
Would you really be okay with the government knowing everything you say during business hours? Should they also force companies to have microphones in conference rooms when you speak in person? In the bathroom?
This isn't government surveillance. This is companies keeping business records. Or more specifically not throwing them out when they might be evidence in a legal proceeding. They only end up in the hands of the government when the government has brought a lawsuit and a judge has decided the records are relevant.
And recording meetings isn't the stretch you might think. Financial companies have long had a variety of legal obligations to record communications related to financial trades and customer orders. This isn't just for funsies. Trust in the financial system is an incredibly valuable societal asset, and good records both mitigate errors and reduce crime.
As we see with the rise in recorded video meetings and auto-transcription services, plus the utility of from things like Slack's search, companies are seeing the value of keeping track of what happened. But that's not new; I don't know how far back the custom of meeting minutes goes, but it was in Robert's Rules of Order in 1876. [1] So it's entirely plausible to me that in a generation's time, auto-transcripts of every meeting will be seen as normal, with auto-summarization and LLM querying thrown in for free.
[1] https://www.fulltextarchive.com/book/Robert-s-Rules-of-Order...
And recording meetings isn't the stretch you might think. Financial companies have long had a variety of legal obligations to record communications related to financial trades and customer orders. This isn't just for funsies. Trust in the financial system is an incredibly valuable societal asset, and good records both mitigate errors and reduce crime.
As we see with the rise in recorded video meetings and auto-transcription services, plus the utility of from things like Slack's search, companies are seeing the value of keeping track of what happened. But that's not new; I don't know how far back the custom of meeting minutes goes, but it was in Robert's Rules of Order in 1876. [1] So it's entirely plausible to me that in a generation's time, auto-transcripts of every meeting will be seen as normal, with auto-summarization and LLM querying thrown in for free.
[1] https://www.fulltextarchive.com/book/Robert-s-Rules-of-Order...
Financial companies should have higher regulator standards since if they fail, our taxpayer money is on the line and any malfeasance affects people’s lives.
Google is just an adTech company masquerading as a search engine? Who cares?
Google is just an adTech company masquerading as a search engine? Who cares?
I can't help but be amazed how many people think they have any agency at all over what the government and their employers can and will gleefully do.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Google stated that “it has come to our attention that the search terms that Google agreed to use for the litigation were mistakenly not run over all of the ingestion sites where the custodians’ documents are stored.”
> So you’re talking about potentially five times what you’ve produced, and you’re saying you thought there was substantial completion done? It’s false. It wasn’t; was it?” (Id. at 55.)
Well, what can you do? :shrug: Dogs eat homework papers, evidence slips and falls into shredders accidentally, unfortunate fires happen /s
But really, what could the court really do in cases like this, a slap on the wrist fine and everyone goes home and promises to behave better next time.
> So you’re talking about potentially five times what you’ve produced, and you’re saying you thought there was substantial completion done? It’s false. It wasn’t; was it?” (Id. at 55.)
Well, what can you do? :shrug: Dogs eat homework papers, evidence slips and falls into shredders accidentally, unfortunate fires happen /s
But really, what could the court really do in cases like this, a slap on the wrist fine and everyone goes home and promises to behave better next time.
Courts can issue sanctions for failure to cooperate in discovery. There's a big list of possible sanctions here [1] under "Sanctions Sought in the District Where the Action Is Pending." I'm not qualified to guess at which if any of these sanctions might be granted in this case... But that's the kind of things available.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37
(added link, thanks)
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37
(added link, thanks)
no link.
But in that "big list of possible sanctions" is there anything that would inconvenience google as much as a $200 fine inconveninences someone on minimum wage? Is there anything at all that isn't just a trivial business expense dwarfed by what they will pay their lawyers just for this one case? Is there any risk of a human being held accountable for anything?
But in that "big list of possible sanctions" is there anything that would inconvenience google as much as a $200 fine inconveninences someone on minimum wage? Is there anything at all that isn't just a trivial business expense dwarfed by what they will pay their lawyers just for this one case? Is there any risk of a human being held accountable for anything?
Ah, yeah. The possibilities include the judge just straight up ruling against Google in a summary judgement.
The worst case scenario is Google just looses the case and the FTC gets whatever it has asked for.
The likelihood of that happening is up for debate of course, but that is the very very very bad thing that could happen.
The worst case scenario is Google just looses the case and the FTC gets whatever it has asked for.
The likelihood of that happening is up for debate of course, but that is the very very very bad thing that could happen.
>FTC gets whatever it has asked for.
And goes straight to appeal. What can the FTC even ask for? Jail terms for execs the way it happens to poor people who can't pay fines? Somehow I doubt the "very, very, very bad thing" could meet a materiality test in goog's P&L or balance sheet.
>> is there anything that would inconvenience google as much as a $200 fine inconveniences someone on minimum wage?
So do we have a /hard/ no on that yet?
And goes straight to appeal. What can the FTC even ask for? Jail terms for execs the way it happens to poor people who can't pay fines? Somehow I doubt the "very, very, very bad thing" could meet a materiality test in goog's P&L or balance sheet.
>> is there anything that would inconvenience google as much as a $200 fine inconveniences someone on minimum wage?
So do we have a /hard/ no on that yet?
> The worst case scenario is Google just loses the case and the FTC gets whatever it has asked for.
As a deterrent to failure to produce inculpating documents, "maybe" getting the same punishment as producing the documents faithfully falls rather short.
As a deterrent to failure to produce inculpating documents, "maybe" getting the same punishment as producing the documents faithfully falls rather short.
Adverse inference for one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference
one of the things the court can issue as a sanction is that the opposing party can tell the jury "we don't know what information Google has because they deleted it, violating the court's order" the damage to your case in the eyes of the jury they're can be pretty damaging
[deleted]
If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
(Submitted title was "Google's 5M Document Discovery Failure: "Egregious", Says Magistrate Judge [pdf]")