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

Post by more_corn » Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 10:17 PM UTC

rodgerd wrote: post #69

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…

> 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.

Post by danaris » Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 10:18 PM UTC

bcrosby95 wrote: post #66

sebzim4500 wrote: post #9

It's a useful reminder not to pay attention to legal commentary from HN, most of the comments were saying that Google did nothing wrong w.r.t. these messages.

Ah, the stodgy old "only ever discuss things with experts" advice.

Post by twoodfin » Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 10:34 PM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #73

AlbertCory wrote: post #41

> 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 gla…

Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I don't recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.

Post by runnerup » Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 10:40 PM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #73

AlbertCory wrote: post #41

> 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 gla…

Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I don't recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.

Post by alach11 » Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 10:52 PM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #41

> 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 gla…