DOJ Loses Bid To Sanction Google for Withholding Documents (bnnbloomberg.ca) 13
Alphabet's Google dodged court sanctions after it was called out by the Justice Department for hiding documents from government lawyers. From a report: U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington said during a hearing Thursday that he wouldn't punish the company over its practice of having employees copy company lawyers on emails when discussing competition issues. The US government claims Google uses "silent attorney" emails as a ploy to avoid disclosing records in litigation. But Mehta ordered Google to ensure that all of the "silent-attorney" emails are reviewed anew to make sure the company has complied with disclosure obligations.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole idea of hiding emails from discovery by copying lawyers on them is stupid. So when the emails were subpoenaed, the lawyers who handled the response did the sensible thing and provided them. If they hadn't, the opposing lawyers would surely have smelled a rat, and when the judge found out it would have been a very bad day for the company. The lawyers themselves would be disciplined, possibly even disbarred.
If management was trying to avoid future discovery this way, I guess you could do them for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington said during a hearing Thursday that he wouldn’t punish the company over its practice of having employees copy company lawyers on emails when discussing competition issues."
Which highlights a practice Google uses to avoid disclosing records in litigation.
Perhaps you should read the fucking article before posting a comment and looking like a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Note also the sentences that follow:
The US government claims Google uses "silent attorney" emails as a ploy to avoid disclosing records in litigation. But Mehta ordered Google to ensure that all of the "silent-attorney" emails are reviewed anew to make sure the company has complied with disclosure obligations.
Like most people in this discussion, IANAL. And the actual article doesn't provide many additional details. (It's a very short article.) However, my takeaway is:
1. Google won't be punished for the practice (at least this time.)
2. Google may still need to hand over the e-mails.
Don't hate the player... (Score:2)
However dodgy you think the practice of the silent lawyer is, remember that it's partly a defense mechanism against over-reaching, ambiguous, and expensive demands. They didn't start doing this for no reason. When you're swimming in waters where the numbers are rounded off to the tens of millions, you take what protections you can afford.
Dodgy? Sure. Pointless? Not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"though the company’s lawyer said at a recent hearing there could have been “mistakes” made by the legal team that reviewed emails."
The taste of Google's dick in the morning is a good thing...
Re: (Score:2)
Again my statement was :"Also depends on timing and Google's role in the practice. If employees were doing it long before the government requested records, and the company itself did not mandate employees do so it would be less sanctionable. The article is light on details."
Please show me where your statements remotely answers my question: 1) When did employees start this practice? 2) Do you have evidence that Google directed employees to do this? Also please tell me how me commenting on general parameter
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: Google's defense: (Score:2)
Even Bing uses Google. Or did at one point, anyway.
https://www.wired.com/2011/02/bing-copies-google/
*Ahem* (Score:2)
Strange. I'm sure I've heard that before, but where?