Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 128 posts

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#41

Post by AlbertCory »

> The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation.

> Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation.

All true. I'm just glad I wasn't subpoena'ed.

"Off the record" on a chat was often interpreted as "anything goes" including by people who should have known better. It should not have been, and I definitely heard lawyers say "if it's something you wouldn't want to come out in court, then don't say it via the computer, whether it's on OR off the record."

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#42

Post by Tuna-Fish »

hanniabu wrote: post #3

It's worth it b/c corporations only get penalized with measly fines

What's in play here is not a fine, but courtroom sanctions that potentially hurt their case.

For example, the most powerful remedy Epic has asked from the court is "adverse inference", which would mean that the judge tells the jury that instead of judging the case on the basis of evidence presented by both parties, they should consider absence of evidence to be in favor of Epic. This can be quite devastating for your case.

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#43

Post by kelseyfrog »

carabiner wrote: post #19
badpun wrote: post #4

It's not "Google" (corporations don't exist in the physical world, so they can't act in it), it was specific people at Google who destroyed evidence or lied to court.

A few bad apples. A few bad cops. A few bad prison guards. Everyone is guilty of something. So is no one guilty of anything?

The last part goes:

If everyone is guilty of something then politics and power decide who gets punished.

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#44

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

capableweb wrote: post #14
badpun wrote: post #4

It's not "Google" (corporations don't exist in the physical world, so they can't act in it), it was specific people at Google who destroyed evidence or lied to court.

But when things go right, Google reaps most of the benefits, individuals just get a small piece of the pie. But when things go wrong, you want to blame the individuals instead of the group?

I'm pretty sure those with equity in google get exactly what google makes redistributed to them, minus taxes and whatever they choose to reinvest in the company.

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#45

Post by SegFaultx64 »

badpun wrote: post #4

It's not "Google" (corporations don't exist in the physical world, so they can't act in it), it was specific people at Google who destroyed evidence or lied to court.

What’s funny about this take is I can’t tell if it’s super leftist and “lock up the bankers” or super capitalist and “we will never know show did this”.

Schrödinger's Comment

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#47

Post by lisasays »

badpun wrote: post #4

It's not "Google" (corporations don't exist in the physical world, so they can't act in it), it was specific people at Google who destroyed evidence or lied to court.

Corporations don't exist in the physical world, so they can't act in it

They very much exist in the legal world, and are accountable for the actions of employees acting under their direction.

According to, you know, those fussy pieces of paper that their owners signed (and presumably read) when they agreed to incorporate.

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#48

Post by knome »

badpun wrote: post #4

It's not "Google" (corporations don't exist in the physical world, so they can't act in it), it was specific people at Google who destroyed evidence or lied to court.

Corporations are responsible for the actions of those they employ.

If google publishes an option to press a button to violate the law to its employees, they are responsible for those that chose to click it.

Re: Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]

#49

Post by dragonwriter »

fsckboy wrote: post #15

> 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 sc…

> 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.

Post reply on HN