Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Demands $2,100 To Reveal The Emails He's Had With The MPAA

from the shake-down dept

Fri, Mar 6th 2015 9:29am — Mike Masnick

As you may know, we've been covering the story of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and his campaign against Google. A few years ago, we noted how bizarre it was that Hood and other state Attorneys General seemed to be blaming Google for all kinds of bad things online. It seemed to show a fundamental lack of understanding about how the internet (and the law!) worked. Of course, things became somewhat more "understandable" when emails leaked in the Sony Hack revealed that the MPAA had an entire "Project Goliath" designed around attacking Google, and the centerpiece of it was funding Jim Hood's investigation into Google, including handling most of the lawyering, writing up Hood's letters to Google and even the "civil investigative demand" (CID -- basically a subpoena) that he could send.

Hood lashed out angrily about all of this, even as the NY Times revealed that the metadata on the letter he sent Google showed that it was really written by top MPAA lawyers. Hood continued to angrily lash out, demonstrating how little he seemed to understand about the internet. He made claims that were simply untrue -- including pretending that Google would take users to Silk Road, the dark market hidden site that could never be found via a Google search. Hood also dared reporters to find any evidence of funding from Hollywood, and it didn't take us long to find direct campaign contributions to his PAC from the MPAA and others.

Given all of this, we filed a Mississippi Public Records request with his office, seeking his email communications with the MPAA, its top lawyers and with the Digital Citizens Alliance, an MPAA front-group that has released highly questionable studies on "piracy" and just so happened to have hired Hood's close friend Mike Moore to lobby Hood in Mississippi. Moore was the Mississippi Attorney General before Hood and helped Hood get into politics.

We've had to go back and forth with Hood's office a few times. First, his office noted that Google had actually filed a similar request, and wanted to know if we were working for Google in making the request. We had no idea Google made such a request and certainly were not working on behalf of Google in making our request -- but Hood's office helpfully forwarded us Google's request, which was actually a hell of a lot more detailed and comprehensive than our own. This actually is helpful in pointing to some other areas of interest to explore.

However, after some more back and forth, Hood's office first said that it would refuse to share the emails between Hood and the MPAA's lawyers as they "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product" and that finding the rest of the emails would... require an upfront payment of $2,103.10:

In response to your request for e-mails between this office and the Motion Picture Association of America or the Digital Citizens Alliance, we estimate it will take our IT department five hours to conduct searches for e-mails responsive to your request. The hourly figure for the lowest paid employee able and available to do this work is $30.62, for a total of $153.10.

The documents will then have to be reviewed to determine if they fall under the definition of "public records" as defined by Miss. Code Ann. §25-61-3(b), and if they are otherwise exempt from the Public Records Act. At this time, a rough estimate of the amount of time to review the requested records is thirty hours. At $65 per hour, the total, conservative estimate to review your request is $1,950. Pursuant to statute, these total estimated costs of $2,103.10 must be paid in advance. We will revise the estimate as necessary after the search is completed and we have a better idea of how many documents must be reviewed. Of course, if we are able to fulfill your request for less than the estimate, then we will refund the difference to you.

I had one further back and forth with the office, asking why these estimates seemed so high. In this day and age, how could it honestly take five hours to run a search on an email system? More importantly, how could it possibly take 30 hours of high priced time to review each document like that? I may not be a FOIA master like Jason Leopold, but I've never seen a response to a FOIA request like this. Normally, when a journalist is seeking records, it's fairly standard to exempt fees, but it seems clear that Jim Hood's office doesn't want these emails getting out, so it's not going to do that.

It also is already telegraphing the fact that it's likely not going to release any of the emails that actually matter, claiming that they are either "attorney work product" or "investigative reports." While Hood's office says there are "nearly 900 emails" responsive to my request, it expects most of them to be exempt from public records requests. Thus, all we'd end up doing is forking over $2,103.10 that we don't have to Jim Hood's office to use to further its own efforts. I have no interest in further funding Hood attempting to attack fundamentals of free speech and the internet, but this little bit of obstructionism certainly is suggestive of the way Hood's office operates, and its absolute fear of transparency.

It certainly makes you wonder why his office is so afraid to release those emails? The Sony Hack certainly revealed some questionable activities going on between Hood, the MPAA, its lawyers and the Digital Citizens Alliance. If Hood's work with the MPAA and its lawyers and partners were truly above board, and Hood were truly committed to transparency, you'd think his office would be eager to release the emails and clear up any misconception. Unfortunately, they'd rather demand thousands of dollars from a small blog. That says a lot.

Masnick Response 011615 (PDF)Masnick Response 011615 (Text)

Masnick Response 012215 (PDF)Masnick Response 012215 (Text)

Masnick Response 021015 (PDF)Masnick Response 021015 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: jim hood, journalism, mississippi, open records
Companies: google, mpaa

77 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 7:49am

Slip of the tongue?
While Hood's office says there are "nearly 900 emails" responsive to my request,

Hood's office first said that it would refuse to share the emails between Hood and the MPAA's lawyers as they "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product"

Compare the above to this, from an earlier article:

Hood said the MPAA "has no major influence on my decision-making," although he noted that content creators occasionally provide reports and advice to him. "They're just reporting wrongdoing. There's nothing unusual about that," he said. Hood said he has never asked MPAA a legal question, isn't sure which lawyers they employ, and doesn't think he's ever met the organization's general counsel.

So they've had 'no major influence on [his] decision making', and yet there are estimated to be at least 900 emails sent between the two.

In addition, despite claiming that they were 'just reporting wrongdoing', and Hood never asked them a legal question, somehow the communications between the two qualify as "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product".

One of these claims is clearly not true. Either the hundreds of emails sent back and forth had nothing to do with legal matters, in which case they would not be protected as attorney-client communications, or they were indeed legal discussions, in which case they would be.

Honestly, if he's going to lie, he could at least put some effort into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 8:05am
  
  Re: Slip of the tongue?
  It's hard to keep a coherent chain of lies normally but it's even harder when you have been cornered.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Machin Shin (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 8:25am
    
    Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
    It becomes pretty much impossible when your cornered and all of your statements are being recorded and reviewed by a large number of people. Welcome to the internet, a place that does not take kindly to someone telling lies to hide wrongdoing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
      Which might have something to do with his fondness for the idea of forcing sites to be removed simply on the say-so of him or another group, as that would make it much more difficult to keep track of all his lies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: Slip of the tongue?
  I think Hood may have just decided that since he's an Attorney General, everything he does is "attorney work product."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
    Damn, I gotta stop making comments as I'm reading, and switch to a full review of all comments before I decide to try to be clever. Sorry Ninja. But dang it, that "attorney work product" joke was just soooo tempting...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Padpaw (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
    He seems to be of the mind he should be treated as nobility, and that the serfs should stay in their place
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 9 Mar 2015 @ 4:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
      That whole "nobility and serfs" thing is becoming a real problem.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - andy, 6 Jul 2015 @ 11:00am
    
    Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
    By law in the US no politician may claim client privileged, this is a smoke screen and he will be punished for it by Google. I doubt the mpaa will want to take on Google in any arena once this case is finished and the guilty are punished.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymous me, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:49am
  
  Re: Slip of the tongue?
  "Oh, what a tangled web we weave
  when we practice to deceive."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
    "But my how we improve the score
    as we practice more and more"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: Slip of the tongue?
  It seems like the more significant scandal is that this refusal is an admission of an attorney-client relationship. Either Hood's working for the MPAA lawyers or they're working for him. Either way, Hood's only "clients" should be constituents of his state, so if the lawyers don't live in Mississippi, they shouldn't be his clients. And if he's their client, why is he using government email systems to send 900 non-work-related emails, quite likely on the public dime? It seems like he's admitting that he's accepting money from them. That right there should be enough of an ethical violation to get him indicted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:29am
    
    Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
    Those attorneys, of whom Jim Hood is supposedly a client, should be asked to present the licenses that allowed them to practice in Mississippi (that were valid at the time of the emails, of course).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:23am
  
  Re: Slip of the tongue?
  ... the communications between the two qualify as "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product"
  
  Just going by this latest lie, didn't he just admit he's working for the MPAA ("attorney-client") while serving as Mississippi's AG, or is he saying he's the client and the MPAA is his lawyer (and, if so, WTF?!?)? How can anyone reasonably expect BS like this to pass the smell test?
  
  I can tell I'm going to really enjoy reading whatever Google pries out of him. This is crazier than HRC's email problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:25am
  
  Re: Slip of the tongue?
  um, as AG of the STATE of mississippi, aren't THE PEOPLE of mississippi his 'clients' ? ? ?
  
  WTF legal business does the THE STATE'S AG have with a private korporation that there is 'attorney/client' privilege ? ? ?
  
  just who the hell is he 'representing' ? ? ?
  (rhetorical question)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 12:42pm
    
    Re: Re: Slip of the tongue?
    Actually the same answer more or less applies to them all: Korporations are people too! It is a legitimate case of pronoun confusion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 8:11am

I'm glad to see that Google is all over this (highly predictable). The MPAA has gone at least one step too far and hopefully it will speed up their demise.

As for Hood, shame on him.

it would refuse to share the emails between Hood and the MPAA's lawyers as they "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product"

The "attorney-client" claim is kind of shaky already considering the whole thing but let's not be so harsh, eh? But "attorney work product" would include virtually everything produced by his office considering he is the ATTORNEY general... But never mind.

I think this is big. Very big. I hope Google digs to the end. And if I see a crowdsourcing campaign to help dig it I will contribute for sure. It's about time the anti-piracy morons are exposed for their shady business that does not care about artists and creativity at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam V, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:39am

> Hood's office says there are "nearly 900 emails" responsive to my request

To get that "900 emails" figure, does that mean they already spent the "five hours" running the query?

Why are they charging you for work they already did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Adam V, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:40am
  
  Re:
  Oh, I see. That was "a preliminary, non-exhaustive search".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:43am

$30 an hour to run some searches and $60 an hour to read and redact some documents? Where do I sign up for this gravy train job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  You have to blow Chris Dodd to get it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baron von Robber, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:44am

$2,100?! He must have used Hollywood Accounting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  Nope, too few zeros to the right...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AH2014 (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:53am

Crowd source it
Why not crowd source the $2k and see what you get? I'd kick in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: Crowd source it
  Or you could just give the $2K to 4chan to retrieve them for you. Probably would take a lot less than 5 hours too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:01am
    
    Re: Re: Crowd source it
    Even if they didn't return a single one of the desired documents(and I really doubt they would), it would still be a better use of the money.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crowd source it
      Oh no, they already produce enough weirdness for free. Of course I may be biased due to the fact that I already visited places like /b/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Crowd source it
        But given what they do for free, imagine what they would do for money. It certainly would be more entertaining.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crowd source it
        Unless there are keks to be had, it would be far easier to train a cat to break into the office and get the documents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:55am

Explanation for 5 hours...
Time is a math based convention too and we all know how good the MPAA is at math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iolaire McFadden, 6 Mar 2015 @ 9:59am

As @AH2014 says we really just need a crowd source method to pay fees like this. I know you try to stand on your morals and not pay for things that can be free, but I'd prefer you just ask people for money and we all chip in $25 and see what comes out. This story you wrote is one we hear quite often, and rater than letting that block us let your readers pay and move on to analyzing the release.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:06am
  
  Re:
  Mike already explained why he's not interested in paying for the documents.
  
  It also is already telegraphing the fact that it's likely not going to release any of the emails that actually matter, claiming that they are either "attorney work product" or "investigative reports." While Hood's office says there are "nearly 900 emails" responsive to my request, it expects most of them to be exempt from public records requests. Thus, all we'd end up doing is forking over $2,103.10 that we don't have to Jim Hood's office to use to further its own efforts. I have no interest in further funding Hood attempting to attack fundamentals of free speech and the internet, but this little bit of obstructionism certainly is suggestive of the way Hood's office operates, and its absolute fear of transparency.
  
  Crowdfunding things like this would be nice, but in this case pointless, as it would be paying for useless information(as any damning emails would certainly be kept), and giving money to an unpleasant individual to help him with his actions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    You don't pay for the documents with the crowd sourced money. You pay for the really good lawyers to force the issue in court.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In that case you can add two zeros conservatively to the cost randomly after the 2 and before the decimal mark...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not entirely out of reach of a crowdfunding effort.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    On principle, I agree... But it would still be interesting to know just how many of the 900 they would hold back. Hey, metadata helps.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:08am

Ofcourse he does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jackn, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:10am

So Hood is now the client of the MPAA attornies?

courts generally recognize that the attorney-client privilege is established when a communication is made between privileged persons, in confidence, for the purpose of Seeking, obtaining, or providing legal assistance to the client.

I guess hood is in some sort of trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:11am

"The hourly figure for the lowest paid employee able and available to do this work is $30.62..."

I'm calling bullshit on this. There's no way that their lowest paid IT person is making $30+ an hour. It's more realistically half that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 1:09pm
  
  Re: ($30.62...)
  It is bullshit. This work would be done by a clerk, not an IT expert. I've never heard of any clerks' wage being that high, even in government service.
  
  And quite a few IT folks are on salary. IT got shafted in FLSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re: ($30.62...)
    And quite a few IT folks are on salary.
    
    That doesn't mean they wouldn't charge for the work though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:12am

Hood's office first said that it would refuse to share the emails between Hood and the MPAA's lawyers as they "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product"

This is ridiculous. The communications between Hood and MPAA's lawyers are not attorney-client communications unless one was retained as the lawyer for the other. Which, almost certainly, is not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Scote, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:19am
  
  Waiver?
  "This is ridiculous. The communications between Hood and MPAA's lawyers are not attorney-client communications unless one was retained as the lawyer for the other. Which, almost certainly, is not the case."
  
  Indeed, the emails would seem to be a clear example of a *waiver* of attorney client privileged because Jim Hood is a 3d party to the MPAA and their lawyers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:19am

Pigeon-hole him
refuse to share the emails between Hood and the MPAA's lawyers as they "constitute attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product"

Ask his office if this is confirmation that he has retained MPAA attorneys as counsel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:24am

Falsehood
Mike, there's obviously a falsehood in the article above.

Small blog? Sh'yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:20am
  
  Re: Falsehood
  Just because a business is successful does not necessarily mean that it is large. What is your definition of small?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:25am

Hey Masnick- how much will it cost to get all your emails between you and anyone associated with Google, hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:44am
  
  Re:
  Ah yes, the good old 'I can't defend the message, so I'll attack the messenger'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 12:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sometimes I'm convinced that we need an "eyeroll" button.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 1:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sometimes I'm convinced that we need an "eyeroll" button.
      
      Or a facepalm button/emoticon.
      
      Even a face-go-splat-on-desk button or emoticon would get used a lot!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:47am
  
  Re:
  My guess nothing since there aren't any.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually court documents proved Mike Masnick is a "Google shill".
    
    And here are of all you dummies defending him and a huge corporation. All so you can steal music and movies. You're a real benefit to society, guys. Nice job.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 2:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Actually court documents proved Mike Masnick is a "Google shill"."
      
      If this is true, then surely you won't have a problem pointing them out.
      
      "All so you can steal music and movies."
      
      As I suspected, you have no idea what you're talking about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Nemesh, 6 Mar 2015 @ 2:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No wonder you are posting anonymously with a statement like that!
      
      Do you REALLY prefer the MPAA actively working to corrupt our democracy? Or are you just a paid shill?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 2:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That clucking you hear? Yeah, that's inside your head.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tqk (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 3:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually court documents proved Mike Masnick is a "Google shill".
      
      I'd like to see proof of that.
      All so you can steal music and movies.
      
      Afraid not. I boycott. I look forward to watching Imaginary Property maximalists' rotting and emaciated bodies float by.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 4:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Whined the clucking fuckface.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  Well, I doubt he would claim some sort of "work product" exemption, and could search/burn-to-cd it for a lot less than $2,000...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re:
  Welcome to one of the main things that makes public work more expensive than private: Extended accountability! And there are weighty reasons for that, which you can find examples of on a daily basis on this blog...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:42am

How the Attorney-client-priviledge prevent the CLIENT (Jim Hood) from releasing the documents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:57am
  
  Re:
  It doesn't. It prevents the client from being FORCED to release the documents. The client can voluntarily release them if he so chooses but the law cannot force him to turn them over to anyone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  How the Attorney-client-priviledge prevent the CLIENT (Jim Hood) from releasing the documents?
  
  To the extent that the claim isn't complete bullshit (which I think it probably is), I would think the MPAA hired him, not the other way around. Which should be grounds for immediate prosecution IMO, but we know how likely a federal prosecutor is to pursue an AG.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:10am

You know, it would not hurt to ask about this admission of attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product", seeing as how he has already publicly stated that he sought no legal advice from the MPAA lawyers. Then follow up with another article.

I remind you that this blog is read widely and frequently by political forces in Washington, DC. Jim Hood has political foes if nothing more than the opposite political faction but could well go deeper.

Several articles on this is likely to bring the sort of embarrassing pressures that Hood would not like to be faced with, in a front page sort of news worthy event in his own state where accountability is likely to bring a Streisand landslide.

Jim Hood has put himself in a rather delicate position for a public figure. One that is beginning to sound highly fragile and needing only some small push to create a Humpty Dumpty event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
connermac725 (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:42am

Lets look some more
Maybe the NSA could fill the request wouldn't that be awesome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:47am

Jim Hood is a criminal. I think that sums it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DigDug, 6 Mar 2015 @ 12:26pm

Attorney General is a state employee...
The only client that he has is the citizens of the state he was hired to work for.

That means every citizen of that state is a client, and has the legal right to every document / e-mail / recording that this idiot has.

He has NO privacy, he's employed by the people of his state.
End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GEMont (profile), 12 Mar 2015 @ 1:06am
  
  Re: Attorney General is a state employee...
  I believe you are laboring under the false impression that the USA is still a land of Law and Order.
  
  They changed the law and now its only a land of Order.
  
  So now, all Federal Employees have civil rights and all citizens have but one right - the right to remain silent, as anything you say may and indeed will be used against you in a court of law.
  
  No Brown Shirt, no civil rights.
  
  ---
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 1:51pm

Perhaps he just wants you to pay him because that is how his office operates. You pay him and he does what you want.

If only there was a group that would investigate criminal actions like this. Peddling ones power & office to the highest bidder, seems like it should be a serious crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 2:38pm

Why the estimate was so high
"I had one further back and forth with the office, asking why these estimates seemed so high."

These days, that estimate was so high because, try as they might, Hood's office just could not find a way to justify $21,030,100.00.

I mean, seriously, what part of, "Go away," didn't you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drjimmy (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 3:57pm

To hell with the crowd sourcing, everyone should request the exact same documents from the office of the AG and see what excuses they come up with. Then it can become a class action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:44pm

As noted in previous comments, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's office needs to provide some clarification as to exactly what "attorney-client communications" or "attorney work product" means. (is this any kind of recognized legal classification, or some bullshit they just made up on the fly to try to weasel out of abiding by FOIA?) The legal concept of attorney-client privilege, at least as it applies to public officials, has been seriously knocked down in recent years:

Ironically, it was the fair-haired Republican stalwart Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr who decimated the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients - which, to paraphrase the authority Wigmore, applies when legal advice of any kind is sought by a client from a professional legal adviser, where the advice is sought in confidence.

The reason the privilege was created was to insure open and candid discussion between a lawyer and his or her client. It traditionally applied in both civil and criminal situations for government lawyers, just as it did for non-government lawyers. It applied to written records of communications, such as attorney's notes, as well as to the communications themselves.

But Starr tried to thwart that tradition in two different cases, before two federal appeals courts. There, he contended that there should be no such privilege in criminal cases involving government lawyers.

In the first case, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, former First Lady Hillary Clinton had spoken with her private counsel in the presence of White House counsel (who had made notes of the conversation). Starr wanted the notes. Hillary Clinton claimed the privilege.

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with Starr. The court held that a grand jury was entitled to the information. It also held that government officials -- even when serving as attorneys -- had a special obligation to provide incriminating information in their possession.

In the second case, In re Lindsey, Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey refused to testify about his knowledge of President Clinton's relationship to Monica Lewinsky, based on attorney-client privilege. Starr sought to compel Lindsey's testimony, and he won again.

This time, Starr persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to follow the Eighth Circuit. The court ruled that exposure of wrongdoing by government lawyers fostered democracy, as "openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Captive Audience, 10 Mar 2015 @ 8:11pm
  
  Re: Ironically, it was the fair-haired Republican stalwart Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr ...
  Excellent. So I guess at least some of these foia requests will have to be fulfilled. I'm sure Google won't have a problem coming up with the 2K.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
leehb9 (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 7:43am

locaation, location, location...
Well, it IS Mississippi y'all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- andy, 6 Jul 2015 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: locaation, location, location...
  Seems from other stories that Google is prepared to submit evidence that there are actually 40 AG's around the country that are involved with this type of action against Google also probably with evidence .
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 8:38am

outright extortion from the AG. Another fine moment in the most corrupt administration to date
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 8 Mar 2015 @ 9:07am

Yup.
However, after some more back and forth, Hood's office first said that it would refuse to share the emails between Hood and the MPAA's lawyers as they "constitute attorney-client communications"

Well, that's equivalent to "we refuse to share the emails since they are evidence of a criminal collusion between state servant Hood and the MPAA". Because a criminal collusion is the only thing which could lead to an attorney-client relationship here.

It's nice that they admit as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
andy, 6 Jul 2015 @ 10:48am

We Done Fucked UP!!!!
Eventually, the mpaa has got away with theft and probably murder and has now gained the worst enemy possible, the Goliath "GOOGLE"

Google seems to have much better lawyers who are able to show they are in the right even under the restrictive court rules, I am personally impressed with their lawyers so far and hope they continue this winning trend.

Seems like the cocaine parties have gone to MAFFIA heads as they don't make any sense when arguing this case.

Awwww shut up andy they might read this and use that as an excuse to get the case thrown out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]