Technology

58315 readers

6614 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

269

Federal judge vows to investigate Google for intentionally destroying chats (www.theverge.com)

submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago (3 children)

“I am going to get to the bottom of who is responsible,” he said, adding he would pursue these issues “on my own, outside of this trial.”

I was a bit confused how a Judge would just decide to start investigating some additional matter that is not formally before them to decide.

[–] stifle867@programming.dev 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

How do judges normally treat destruction of evidence? Do they not care who committed the crime and just make a ruling on how to infer it? I feel like the court would want to know who has committed something as serious as this but I'm not sure of the actual process for it.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Don't worry about it. He'll totally deal with it outside his formal judicial capacity, after letting them off with a slap on the wrist... "in his own time" like some Hollywood renegade judge!

[–] rostby@lemmy.fmhy.net 1 points 10 months ago

I heard judge Judy likes 20’s

[–] revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 10 months ago

In federal court, a judge has a few options to deal with spoliation;

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 possible sanctions are as follows:

dismissal of the wrongdoer’s claim;

entering judgment against the wrongdoer;

exluding expert testimony; and

application of adverse inference rule.

The last of these basically allows the court to infer (or instruct the jury to infer) that the destroyed evidence was the most possibly damning thing and hold that against the party in question.

Outside of the above, destruction of evidence is a crime. The judge has no power of investigation that I'm aware of, but maybe it just means informing those who have such power.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Like a republican Karen, he's going to talk to a manager.

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 2 points 10 months ago

"Do you know who I am??"

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

All bark, no bite on the hand that will feed him after he leaves the bench (Big Capital/Big Law). See:

"And yet, the judge decided today that he would not issue a “mandatory inference instruction” — one that would tell the jury they should proceed with the understanding that Google destroyed evidence that could have been detrimental to its case.”