In a surprising turn of events, Google employees and executives have been accused of attempting to conceal potentially harmful communications from investigators.
The tactics employed include the use of auto-deleting chats and the frequent labeling of emails as privileged and confidential. These maneuvers, which have been revealed during the ongoing second antitrust trial against the tech giant, could potentially backfire, casting a shadow over Google's reputation.
As reported by Breitbart, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has alleged that Google employees have been excessively marking their emails as privileged and confidential and engaging in off the record chat messages. This behavior persisted even after they were directed to preserve their communications for the investigators. These revelations have emerged during Googles second antitrust trial in a Virginia court over the past few weeks.
The DOJs legal team has warned that this strategy could have severe repercussions for Google. If the judge is convinced that the company deliberately destroyed evidence that could have been harmful to its defense, the consequences could be dire. In the worst-case scenario, the judge could assume that Googles missing documents would have been detrimental to the companys defense and issue an adverse inference.
Court-presented evidence reveals that Google employees regularly used the privileged and confidential label in their email discussions, occasionally involving a member of Googles legal team. Chris LaSala, a former Google sell-side ad executive, testified that employees also used Googles chat feature, which had message history turned off by default, for substantive work conversations after being placed on a litigation hold.
LaSala confessed to instructing employees to start chat threads with history turned off or to have off the record discussions when dealing with sensitive topics. While he claimed this was a common practice among employees, LaSala admitted that he made mistakes in adhering to the litigation hold but insisted that they were unintentional.
Other former Google executives, such as Brad Bender and Rahul Srinivasan, were questioned about their use of the privileged and confidential label in emails and chats. Bender described chat conversations as more casual, like bumping into the hall and saying hey we should chat,' while Srinivasan could not recall the specific legal advice he sought in emails marked as privileged.
The DOJ argued that Google employees were well aware of how their written communications could be used against the company. They pointed to Googles Communicate with Care legal training for employees. In one instance, a Google executive reminded colleagues to be careful with their language, particularly when framing something as a circumvention, and to assume that every document and email generated would likely be seen by regulators.
Despite the numerous documents presented by the DOJ showing that Google often discussed business decisions in writing, there were instances where they seemed to intentionally limit documentation due to the sensitivity of the subject matter.
Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels stated that the company takes its obligations to preserve and produce relevant documents seriously and has produced millions of documents, including chat messages and documents not covered by legal privilege, in response to inquiries and litigation.
In Googles first antitrust battle with the DOJ over its search business, the judge declined to issue an adverse inference but warned that any company putting the onus on employees to identify and preserve relevant evidence does so at its own peril. Google managed to avoid sanctions in that case, but the judge cautioned that the company might not be so fortunate in the next one. This serves as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls of corporate communication practices and the importance of transparency in the face of legal scrutiny.
Login