WebProNews

Tag: Eileen Scallen

  • Google CEO Sundar Pichai Accused of Intentionally Deleting Communications

    Google CEO Sundar Pichai Accused of Intentionally Deleting Communications

    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.”

  • DOJ Says Google Misled It, “Systematically Destroyed” Messages

    DOJ Says Google Misled It, “Systematically Destroyed” Messages

    The Department of Justice says Google “systematically destroyed” messages and misled the agency about its actions.

    US companies are required by law to keep copies of internal communications if there is any reasonable anticipation of upcoming litigation. In Google’s case, the DOJ argues in its filing that the company should have anticipated the government’s legal action against it as early as mid-2019, according to CNBC.

    In spite of the DOJ’s belief that Google should have anticipated the current litigation, the company continued to delete its internal chats every 24 hours…right up to this month. Instead, the company left it up to individuals to decide whether they would keep or auto-delete their messages.

    “Few, if any,” did, says the DOJ.

    To make matters worse, the DOJ says the company repeatedly and “falsely” told the agency that it had ”‘put a legal hold in place’ that ‘suspends auto-deletion.’”

    See Also: States Sue Google for Antitrust

    As a result of the DOJ’s claims, Judge James Donato indicated at the end of January that he would consider an adverse jury instruction, although he would be open to allowing the jury to arrive at their own conclusions regarding the implications of Google’s actions.

    Eileen Scallen, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, 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.”

    In the meantime, Google is disputing the DOJ’s claims. A company spokesperson told CNBC that company officials “strongly refute the DOJ’s claims. Our teams have conscientiously worked for years to respond to inquiries and litigation. In fact, we have produced over 4 million documents in this case alone, and millions more to regulators around the world.”

    Given the various antitrust investigations that have been building against the company for years, it is hard to fathom any halfway intelligent individual not anticipating possible litigation against the company. Google may well have dug its own grave on this one.