←back to thread

156 points tysone | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
lupire ◴[] No.42193516[source]
Is this different from retention policy at any other business with competent lawyers?
replies(2): >>42197138 #>>42199291 #
1. infamia ◴[] No.42197138[source]
Yes, these are terrible policies, which has gotten Google in hot water during litigation. Overusing Attorney-Client Privilege is a good way to get it neutered/curtailed during a trial. Moreover, the company has an affirmative duty to preserve data. Leaving it up to individual employees to retain data risks adverse inferences about the lost data, sanctions, default rulings, and worse depending on the circumstances.

> It encouraged employees to put “attorney-client privileged” on documents and to always add a Google lawyer to the list of recipients, even if no legal questions were involved and the lawyer never responded.

> Companies anticipating litigation are required to preserve documents. But Google exempted instant messaging from automatic legal holds. If workers were involved in a lawsuit, it was up to them to turn their chat history on. From the evidence in the trials, few did.