Google CEO Sundar Pichai is accused of intentionally deleting company communication in violation of US retention laws.
Companies in the US are legally required to retain communications if they have reason to believe they may be involved in legal action. The Department of Justice has already accused Google of ‘systematically destroying’ communications related to its antitrust case. The DOJ maintains that Google intentionally had its various chat platforms set to auto-delete messages every 24 hours, despite telling US authorities that it had suspended such operation.
The DOJ, as well as Epic Games and others, are now accusing Pichai of being involved in the deletion, effectively creating a top-down culture of hiding relevant information, according to FOSS Patents. In the latest claim, the plaintiffs make the following claim:
“The newly produced Chats reveal a company-wide culture of concealment coming from the very top, including CEO Sundar Pichai, who is a custodian in this case. In one Chat, Mr. Pichai began discussing a substantive topic, and then immediately wrote: ‘[REDACTED]’ Then, nine seconds later, Mr. Pichai [REDACTED]. […] When asked under oath [REDACTED]’ (Id. Ex. 2, Pichai Dep. Tr. 195:7-12.)
“Like Mr. Pichai, other key Google employees, including those in leadership roles, routinely opted to move from history-on rooms to history-off Chats to hold sensitive conversations, even though they knew they were subject to legal holds. Indeed, they did so even when discussing topics they knew were covered by the litigation holds in order to avoid leaving a record that could be produced in litigation.” (emphasis in original)
The plaintiffs, including the Utah Attorney General, asked the court to issue an adverse ruling that Google was trying to hide something by deleting the messages. The court had previously indicated that it would not issue a ruling telling jurors they must conclude the deleted messages are indicative of Google intentionally hiding something, but the plaintiffs say this latest revelation provides enough evidence that that is exactly what Google and its executives were trying to do.
In light of the recently produced documents, anything less than a clear adverse inference instruction — instructing the jury as to what Google did and what the jury should make of it — would reward Google for its years-long, calculated policy of systematically destroying evidence, and would encourage Google to maintain, rather than eradicate, the corporate culture of litigation misconduct it has nurtured for many years.
If the plaintiffs are able to prevail upon the court and convince it to render such a judgment, it would be catastrophic for Google’s case.
Eileen Scallen, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, previously told CNBC that an adverse jury instruction would be “very damning.”
“The one person the jury respects in a courtroom is the trial judge,” Scallen said. “And if the trial judge is telling them you can presume that this was bad news for Google, they’re going to take that to heart.”