Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

«‹›528 »

Abugadu: Jul 12, 2004; 1st Sgt. Matthews and the men have Procured for me a cummerbund from a traveling gypsy, who screeched Victory shall come at a Terrible price. i am Honored.

I�m on Guam, was licensed to practice in the CNMI for a bit but let that lapse.

We frequently have TSFC issues (too stupid for caselaw), and this seems dead center on that.

It�s tempting just to let it slide and let some attorney 20 years down the road have to deal w it.

# ? May 31, 2021 13:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 22:43

SlyFrog: May 16, 2007; What? One name? Who are you, Seal?

builds character posted:

Some people go crazy being “stuck” on an island.

Those people are obviously dumb.

One of the women with whom I was a summer associate had spent time living in Hawaii, and I think she referred to it as "rock fever."

# ? May 31, 2021 17:10

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Toona the Cat posted:

I passed the bar 2 years ago

I know

# ? May 31, 2021 21:23

Grip it and rip it: Apr 28, 2020

If you can't vibe with the waves then get the gently caress off my beach, haole bitch!!!

# ? May 31, 2021 21:28

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

builds character posted:

Some people go crazy being “stuck” on an island.

Those people are obviously dumb.

It makes sense for places like Guam but Honolulu is a real city and there is plenty of open countryside so I don't really get it as applied to Hawaii unless you're the kind of person who simply must live in a NYC or LA type city to be happy.

My biggest complaints would probably be the lovely produce and expensive real estate but I already deal with the second one as it is.

# ? May 31, 2021 21:28

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Ur Getting Fatter posted:

Kind of a weird question but I'm doing some research and need a real world example of how a US judge would order a forensic audit done on the electronic devices of a big company (specifically, Google). Does anyone have any precedent or articles I could look up?

The specific scenario is that some time ago the Wikipedia article (and other content that got SEOd to the top) for a local notable person got edited to say some defamatory stuff and Google's information sidebar automatically updated to reflect that info, so for a few hours if you Googled that person it would say something like "Jane Doe - C.E.Hoe of Bitch, Inc.", and now Jane Doe is suing Google for defamation, and as part of the suit has asked for a forensic audit to be conducted Google's servers to determine stuff like how many people saw the sidebar, the sources Google used, it's vetting process, etc.

I'm not counsel for either party, obviously, I'm just writing up a short blog post about it and was hoping to find some background on how an audit like that might even take place in a real country since the local judge clearly has absolutely no idea how to handle this.

I think Google would write "fishing expedition" in 48-point font on every page and any motion to compel production of *the entirety of Google's servers* would instantly fail as overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. If you haven't already looked at the Sedona Conference's website, start there.

# ? May 31, 2021 21:45

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

SlyFrog posted:

One of the women with whom I was a summer associate had spent time living in Hawaii, and I think she referred to it as "rock fever."

But she wasn't summering in Hawaii so...

Vox Nihili posted:

It makes sense for places like Guam but Honolulu is a real city and there is plenty of open countryside so I don't really get it as applied to Hawaii unless you're the kind of person who simply must live in a NYC or LA type city to be happy.

My biggest complaints would probably be the lovely produce and expensive real estate but I already deal with the second one as it is.

It's definitely a thing though. I think like so much it's probably more about the perception of control rather than anything else.

homullus posted:

I think Google would write "fishing expedition" in 48-point font on every page and any motion to compel production of *the entirety of Google's servers* would instantly fail as overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. If you haven't already looked at the Sedona Conference's website, start there.

Yeah, presumably the answer is "the judge wouldn't." At least in the US. But if they did I bet it'd be restricted to (and look, I'm guessing here. I just push money around with a broom) information that google reviewed and turned over voluntarily.

# ? Jun 1, 2021 19:28

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Extremely unlikely they'd do anything other than ask Google to produce whatever information after a big discovery fight about what's appropriate to produce. I can't imagine a circumstance in which Google would be ordered to surrender physical servers for forensic audit.

# ? Jun 1, 2021 19:35

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Ur Getting Fatter posted:

Kind of a weird question but I'm doing some research and need a real world example of how a US judge would order a forensic audit done on the electronic devices of a big company (specifically, Google). Does anyone have any precedent or articles I could look up?

The specific scenario is that some time ago the Wikipedia article (and other content that got SEOd to the top) for a local notable person got edited to say some defamatory stuff and Google's information sidebar automatically updated to reflect that info, so for a few hours if you Googled that person it would say something like "Jane Doe - C.E.Hoe of Bitch, Inc.", and now Jane Doe is suing Google for defamation, and as part of the suit has asked for a forensic audit to be conducted Google's servers to determine stuff like how many people saw the sidebar, the sources Google used, it's vetting process, etc.

I'm not counsel for either party, obviously, I'm just writing up a short blog post about it and was hoping to find some background on how an audit like that might even take place in a real country since the local judge clearly has absolutely no idea how to handle this.

they wouldn't

basically, a lawsuit where such a forensic audit was relevant would need to be filed and go to discovery. then the plaintiff would need to serve discovery on google, where they would ask for the data/access to the data. google would, in careful legalese, tell them to go gently caress themselves. they would then discuss and see if they could agree on a way to provide the plaintiffs access to the data they wanted in a way google is ok with. if they could not get to an agreement, they'd file a motion to enforce or quash the discovery, at which point the judge would give very angry looks and statements at both parties and strongly suggest they not bother him or her with this nonsense and send them away to try an agreement again or one or both parties may regret bothering the judge, since they hate discovery disputes.

if that failed, google and the plaintiff would tell the judge what they thought the appropriate procedures would be, the judge would do one of three things, based on the plaintiff's arguments why they need that data and google's argument they don't need it at all/need much less data or access than they're demanding:

1) pick one of them with no changes
2) modify one of them but largely accept that
3) come up with his or her own crazy way to do it (highly unlikely)

in reality google would almost always be obliged to turn over copies of whatever data the plaintiff got access to and unless there were extreme circumstances not actually allow plaintiff experts anywhere near their actual computers

# ? Jun 1, 2021 19:55

dpkg chopra: Jun 9, 2007; Fast Food Fight; Grimey Drawer

homullus posted:

I think Google would write "fishing expedition" in 48-point font on every page and any motion to compel production of *the entirety of Google's servers* would instantly fail as overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. If you haven't already looked at the Sedona Conference's website, start there.

thanks for this, I'll look into it!

evilweasel posted:

they wouldn't

basically, a lawsuit where such a forensic audit was relevant would need to be filed and go to discovery. then the plaintiff would need to serve discovery on google, where they would ask for the data/access to the data. google would, in careful legalese, tell them to go gently caress themselves. they would then discuss and see if they could agree on a way to provide the plaintiffs access to the data they wanted in a way google is ok with. if they could not get to an agreement, they'd file a motion to enforce or quash the discovery, at which point the judge would give very angry looks and statements at both parties and strongly suggest they not bother him or her with this nonsense and send them away to try an agreement again or one or both parties may regret bothering the judge, since they hate discovery disputes.

if that failed, google and the plaintiff would tell the judge what they thought the appropriate procedures would be, the judge would do one of three things, based on the plaintiff's arguments why they need that data and google's argument they don't need it at all/need much less data or access than they're demanding:

1) pick one of them with no changes
2) modify one of them but largely accept that
3) come up with his or her own crazy way to do it (highly unlikely)

in reality google would almost always be obliged to turn over copies of whatever data the plaintiff got access to and unless there were extreme circumstances not actually allow plaintiff experts anywhere near their actual computers

Amazing writeup, thank you!

What's happening here is that essentially the plaintiff has requested an audit be done on Google's servers as part of a pre-trial motion to secure evidence that could be destroyed or altered before the actual suit is filed.

The plaintiff audit request is extremely vague, asking for poo poo like "unrestricted access to all of the company's computer systems" and "copies to be made of any information found" which is, of course, insane. And then the judge decided to grant the request as-is despite Google's objections. Unfortunately for Google these sorts of motions are not subject to appeal (because the law was written with the assumption that, as a rule, it's better to preserve evidence than to risk it getting destroyed even if it imposes a burden on the defendant).

It's also very clear that the judge is approaching the case like Google was just a Mom & Pop shop and the auditor just needs to log in to a Windows PC somewhere in an office and make a copy of some emails, and in those cases the normal MO is to just give the auditor extreme latitude to just walk into the office and do whatever the gently caress they want, which makes sense since you don't have to worry about stuff like trade secrets, confidentiality agreements, op-sec, etc.

The plaintiff is also an influential political figure so I expect the judge is trying to not rock the boat too much and punt everything as fast possible to the higher circuits.

So Google is essentially appealing and making extremely reasonable arguments but getting hosed by outdated process and ignorant/malicious judges. Don't do business in third-world countries, kids.

In any case, thanks for all the info.

# ? Jun 1, 2021 21:28

Nice piece of fish: Jan 29, 2008; Ultra Carp

But... you're primarily addressing US lawyers, what... what else are they gonna do?

# ? Jun 1, 2021 21:43

Rabidbunnylover: Feb 26, 2006; d567c8526b5b0e

Ur Getting Fatter posted:

thanks for this, I'll look into it!
Amazing writeup, thank you!

What's happening here is that essentially the plaintiff has requested an audit be done on Google's servers as part of a pre-trial motion to secure evidence that could be destroyed or altered before the actual suit is filed.

The plaintiff audit request is extremely vague, asking for poo poo like "unrestricted access to all of the company's computer systems" and "copies to be made of any information found" which is, of course, insane. And then the judge decided to grant the request as-is despite Google's objections. Unfortunately for Google these sorts of motions are not subject to appeal (because the law was written with the assumption that, as a rule, it's better to preserve evidence than to risk it getting destroyed even if it imposes a burden on the defendant).

It's also very clear that the judge is approaching the case like Google was just a Mom & Pop shop and the auditor just needs to log in to a Windows PC somewhere in an office and make a copy of some emails, and in those cases the normal MO is to just give the auditor extreme latitude to just walk into the office and do whatever the gently caress they want, which makes sense since you don't have to worry about stuff like trade secrets, confidentiality agreements, op-sec, etc.

The plaintiff is also an influential political figure so I expect the judge is trying to not rock the boat too much and punt everything as fast possible to the higher circuits.

So Google is essentially appealing and making extremely reasonable arguments but getting hosed by outdated process and ignorant/malicious judges. Don't do business in third-world countries, kids.

In any case, thanks for all the info.

Not a lawyer, but I am an ex-Google employee. There's kind of a baseline issue if you're deadset on doing this at the level of turning over physical servers (rather than requesting documents be produced) that in order to actually produce the physical contents of say, a single person's Google Docs, you'd need like 100+ servers, shipped from three continents. You'd also need maybe a thousand servers, from every continent on earth, in order to be able to successfully power on those servers and get them in a state where you could decrypt the contents. And like 10+ engineer years of time to wire up the completely non-standard datacenter power and networking setup to get those servers to turn on and talk to each other outside of a Google datacenter. Of course, the responsive documents are only like 0.00001% of the contents of each of the servers, but fundamentally there's not like one server that's "Joe Bob's Gmail server".

I guess you could try to split the difference and demand they give the auditor sufficient credentials to use Google's tools for decrypting this data, but it's also not like you just go to "http://decryptjoebobsshit.internal.google.com/" or something.

# ? Jun 1, 2021 23:00

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Based on my experience trying to get data from Facebook and Apple, the response to even the smallest and precise of requests will be �gently caress off�

# ? Jun 2, 2021 00:38

Nice piece of fish: Jan 29, 2008; Ultra Carp

Rabidbunnylover posted:

Not a lawyer, but I am an ex-Google employee. There's kind of a baseline issue if you're deadset on doing this at the level of turning over physical servers (rather than requesting documents be produced) that in order to actually produce the physical contents of say, a single person's Google Docs, you'd need like 100+ servers, shipped from three continents. You'd also need maybe a thousand servers, from every continent on earth, in order to be able to successfully power on those servers and get them in a state where you could decrypt the contents. And like 10+ engineer years of time to wire up the completely non-standard datacenter power and networking setup to get those servers to turn on and talk to each other outside of a Google datacenter. Of course, the responsive documents are only like 0.00001% of the contents of each of the servers, but fundamentally there's not like one server that's "Joe Bob's Gmail server".

I guess you could try to split the difference and demand they give the auditor sufficient credentials to use Google's tools for decrypting this data, but it's also not like you just go to "http://decryptjoebobsshit.internal.google.com/" or something.

Holy poo poo google AI responded. How's Sea Ranch? Can lawyers live there yet?

# ? Jun 2, 2021 06:40

Toona the Cat: Jun 9, 2004; The Greatest

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Based on my experience trying to get data from Facebook and Apple, the response to even the smallest and precise of requests will be �gently caress off�

Snapchat, however, is pretty responsive.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 15:06

TheWordOfTheDayIs: Nov 9, 2009; Blessed with an unmatched sense of direction

Ur Getting Fatter posted:

Kind of a weird question but I'm doing some research and need a real world example of how a US judge would order a forensic audit done on the electronic devices of a big company (specifically, Google). Does anyone have any precedent or articles I could look up?

The specific scenario is that some time ago the Wikipedia article (and other content that got SEOd to the top) for a local notable person got edited to say some defamatory stuff and Google's information sidebar automatically updated to reflect that info, so for a few hours if you Googled that person it would say something like "Jane Doe - C.E.Hoe of Bitch, Inc.", and now Jane Doe is suing Google for defamation, and as part of the suit has asked for a forensic audit to be conducted Google's servers to determine stuff like how many people saw the sidebar, the sources Google used, it's vetting process, etc.

I'm not counsel for either party, obviously, I'm just writing up a short blog post about it and was hoping to find some background on how an audit like that might even take place in a real country since the local judge clearly has absolutely no idea how to handle this.

Some lady gets her feelings hurt by words on the internet, and wants Google to surrender all their servers without regard to the cost. Is there such a thing as an anti-Karen statute, similar to anti-SLAPP?

# ? Jun 2, 2021 16:41

dpkg chopra: Jun 9, 2007; Fast Food Fight; Grimey Drawer

TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:

Some lady gets her feelings hurt by words on the internet, and wants Google to surrender all their servers without regard to the cost. Is there such a thing as an anti-Karen statute, similar to anti-SLAPP?

To be fair it's dumb that Google just goes around automatically amplifying information with absolutely no human vetting, and they should 100% be held accountable for it, but that doesn't mean that Karen has to get root access to Google's servers.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 17:43

TheWordOfTheDayIs: Nov 9, 2009; Blessed with an unmatched sense of direction

As in-house counsel, I get weird questions sometimes. Today the question is "do I have any concerns with the GPL v3 license for open-source software?"

The gently caress?

# ? Jun 2, 2021 18:52

SlothBear: Jan 25, 2009

TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:

As in-house counsel, I get weird questions sometimes. Today the question is "do I have any concerns with the GPL v3 license for open-source software?"

The gently caress?

Just nod and say "you'd be a fool if you didn't." Then change the subject.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 20:44

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

"I have concerns about everything. Having concerns is my job. Is there something specific you're concerned about that I could discuss with you?"

# ? Jun 2, 2021 20:46

NJ Deac: Apr 6, 2006

TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:

As in-house counsel, I get weird questions sometimes. Today the question is "do I have any concerns with the GPL v3 license for open-source software?"

The gently caress?

Maybe this is :thejoke:

but the answer to this question is absolutely, unequivocally, "Yes." Your immediate follow up needs to be figuring out which GPLv3-licensed library some idiot developer included in your new commercial software release and start doing damage control (and also probably review your company policies for vetting and using open source code - you have those, right?).

This is the software-licensing equivalent of an engineer randomly dropping into your office and asking you, "Just curious, do we have any potential liability if our product explodes and kills the operator? No reason." The fact that they are asking the question should be troubling.

NJ Deac fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jun 2, 2021

# ? Jun 2, 2021 21:00

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Ur Getting Fatter posted:

To be fair it's dumb that Google just goes around automatically amplifying information with absolutely no human vetting, and they should 100% be held accountable for it, but that doesn't mean that Karen has to get root access to Google's servers.

do you know how much information Google "amplifies," and whether there have been enough humans born in the entirety of human history to actually vet all of it?

I don't know either but my guess is no on both counts

# ? Jun 2, 2021 21:01

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

NJ Deac posted:

Maybe this is but the answer to this question is absolutely, unequivocally, "Yes." Your immediate follow up needs to be figuring out which GPLv3-licensed library some idiot developer included in your new commercial software release and start doing damage control (and also probably review your company policies for vetting and using open source code - you have those, right?).

This is the software-licensing equivalent of an engineer randomly dropping into your office and asking you, "Just curious, do we have any potential liability if our product explodes and kills the operator? No reason." The fact that they are asking the question should be troubling.

[ctrl+C], [ctrl+V], [send email], [time entry: 2.15 hrs, research and advise re: GPLv3-licensed software]

# ? Jun 2, 2021 21:38

dpkg chopra: Jun 9, 2007; Fast Food Fight; Grimey Drawer

homullus posted:

do you know how much information Google "amplifies," and whether there have been enough humans born in the entirety of human history to actually vet all of it?

I don't know either but my guess is no on both counts

This isn�t just a regular search result link, this is the info boxes that Google voluntarily decides to prominently feature in its search results page.

Also, if Google created a product they can�t control without keeping their profit margins, that�s on them.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 22:02

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

blarzgh posted:

[ctrl+C], [ctrl+V], [send email], [time entry: 2.15 hrs, research and advise re: GPLv3-licensed software]

2.15 hours lol

# ? Jun 2, 2021 23:33

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Ur Getting Fatter posted:

Also, if Google created a product they can�t control without keeping their profit margins, that�s on them.

If you haven't come across the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (especially 47 U.S.C. � 230(c)(1)) in your reading, that should be your next stop, and your next Google search.

# ? Jun 2, 2021 23:44

dpkg chopra: Jun 9, 2007; Fast Food Fight; Grimey Drawer

homullus posted:

If you haven't come across the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (especially 47 U.S.C. � 230(c)(1)) in your reading, that should be your next stop, and your next Google search.

This isn�t in the US so section 230 doesn�t apply (and there�s no safe harbor equivalent), but I get your point and yes, this would be dismissed real quick in the US, even if the actual motion wasn�t a shitshow.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 00:58

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Ur Getting Fatter posted:

This isn�t in the US so section 230 doesn�t apply (and there�s no safe harbor equivalent), but I get your point and yes, this would be dismissed real quick in the US, even if the actual motion wasn�t a shitshow.

Yeah. Having that search string might get you some good comparative law articles, though. There are going to be people who think section 230 is all wrong, and will point to how other countries handle it.

I think I mentioned this before in this thread, but I did see a judge grant a motion once that ignored a recent and controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, on the basis of barely-related state law and a law review article.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 02:10

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

https://twitter.com/IanHaneyLopez/status/1400241368845279234?s=20

# ? Jun 3, 2021 03:28

Pook Good Mook: Aug 6, 2013; ENFORCE THE UNITED STATES DRESS CODE AT ALL COSTS!

This message paid for by the Men's Wearhouse& Jos A Bank Lobbying Group

In almost every situation a correct statement is "gently caress the Federalist Society"

# ? Jun 3, 2021 04:52

SlothBear: Jan 25, 2009

Zwabu posted:

https://twitter.com/IanHaneyLopez/status/1400241368845279234?s=20

Not one word of this surprises me. Although Stanford has already said they aren't doing any sort of inquiry and aren't holding the kid's diploma back.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 05:06

LionArcher: Mar 29, 2010

SlothBear posted:

Not one word of this surprises me. Although Stanford has already said they aren't doing any sort of inquiry and aren't holding the kid's diploma back.

After massive pressure online, including from a senator.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 06:31

terrorist ambulance: Nov 5, 2009

https://twitter.com/Lowenaffchen/status/1400325447695675398?s=19

# ? Jun 3, 2021 06:51

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Phil Moscowitz posted:

2.15 hours lol

Going into douboe decimals, a power move

# ? Jun 3, 2021 09:29

SlothBear: Jan 25, 2009

LionArcher posted:

After massive pressure online, including from a senator.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1400229248657469440

At least he learned to think like a lawyer.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 15:50

Nice piece of fish: Jan 29, 2008; Ultra Carp

loving l m a o

# ? Jun 3, 2021 16:02

Pook Good Mook: Aug 6, 2013; ENFORCE THE UNITED STATES DRESS CODE AT ALL COSTS!

This message paid for by the Men's Wearhouse& Jos A Bank Lobbying Group

Worst part of this is while everyone is clowning on Fed Soc dipshits, they are quietly being put on every court of consequence in the country.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 17:06

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Bahahaha

# ? Jun 3, 2021 17:07

Vox Nihili: May 28, 2008

Should've gone to a public school if you loved your precious free speech so much!!!

# ? Jun 4, 2021 02:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 22:43

Toona the Cat: Jun 9, 2004; The Greatest

Pook Good Mook posted:

Worst part of this is while everyone is clowning on Fed Soc dipshits, they are quietly being put on every court of consequence in the country.

# ? Jun 4, 2021 04:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

«‹›528 »