Federal Judge Surprised by Google’s Efforts to Avoid Paper Trail
A federal judge recently made a ruling that Google is a monopolist, but he decided not to sanction the search engine for failing to preserve internal chat messages. Despite this, he criticized Google’s policies that aim to keep unfavorable evidence out of litigation.
Judge Amit P. Mehta of Washington, D.C., expressed his surprise at the lengths Google goes to avoid creating a paper trail for regulators and litigants. However, he did not see the need to impose sanctions as he was able to assess Google’s liability without presuming that the deleted chats were harmful to the company.
The United States and state plaintiffs had requested sanctions against Google for what they claimed was a “systemic destruction of documents” and a “flagrant misuse of the attorney-client privilege.” Google had a practice of deleting chat messages among employees after 24 hours, even after receiving a hold notice during the antitrust case investigation.
Additionally, Google trained its employees to be cautious in their communications, instructing them to include a lawyer in sensitive discussions to ensure privilege. Employees were also advised to avoid certain keywords in their communications to prevent creating unfavorable evidence.
Judge Mehta noted that Google’s employees followed this advice diligently, leading to the withholding of tens of thousands of records on privilege grounds initially, which were later deemed non-privileged and produced after review. He mentioned that Google’s case lacked the overtly anticompetitive communications seen in previous antitrust cases, attributing this to Google’s effective training of employees.
While Judge Mehta did not sanction Google in this case, he warned that the company may not be as fortunate in future cases. He emphasized that his decision should not be seen as condoning Google’s failure to preserve chat evidence.
This ruling sheds light on Google’s efforts to avoid creating a paper trail and the measures the company takes to prevent unfavorable evidence from surfacing in litigation. It also serves as a reminder that compliance with document preservation rules is crucial in legal proceedings.