MPAA Argues That Sony Emails Shouldn't Be Used As Evidence In Google Lawsuit
from the oh-really? dept
We've already covered some of the details coming out in the flurry of legal filings in the dispute between Google and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood (helped along by the MPAA which financed and ran Hood's investigation). However, there is one little tidbit mentioned towards the end in one of the MPAA's many filings resisting subpoenas from Google to turn over internal documents. The MPAA's lawyers at Jenner & Block not only argue that much of the material being requested is "privileged," and thus allowing the requests will lead to lawsuits over the legality of those requests, but further argues that the emails in the Sony hack are similarly privileged and should not be available for use in lawsuits:Quite apart from the policy concerns that arise if lawyers are allowed to use confidential documents first obtained by hackers, the fact that some privileged documents were published in the wake of the Sony hack will trigger subsequent litigation over privilege assertions. Privileged documents obtained by hackers and later published nevertheless remain privileged. Presumably, given Google’s apparent interest in the documents, Google will contest the privilege assertions.This seems like a pretty longshot legal argument. It's pretty typical in business settings that once documents are out there in the public, any legal restrictions on them vanish. The idea that these documents, widely discussed publicly and in the press, would magically be banned from use in a legal case that was brought on because of those revelations is a huge stretch.
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: evidence, jim hood, mississippi, privileged information, sony hack
Companies: digital citizen's alliance, google, jenner & block, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"stretch"
Everything else in the "reality" of the MPAA is a stretch for any normal person... why should this be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "stretch"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there is one thing Hollywood is good at is make-believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone's been taking notes
Now, in both cases, I can certainly understand why they would argue this point, as it eliminates probably the most damning information possible to bring, that being their own data and communications. Remove that and you take away a very strong pieces of evidence, damaging if not entirely eliminating cases as the central piece of evidence is barred from use.
Hopefully the judge will shoot this attempt down by reasonably pointing out that public documents are not 'privileged' ones, and that it's fair to use them as evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone's been taking notes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh WHAT?
Uh, are they privileged because the MPAA is the attorney of Hood, or is Hood the attorney of the MPAA? Both would indicate the improper collusion that Google wants to show. So this argument is of the "Your Honor, the reason this evidence cannot be admitted is because I'm guilty as charged" kind.
This is likely to go down so well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plainly the problem the MPAA now has is the further exposure of just how far the rabbit hole goes with their plotting and meddling. Especially after it's been shown they had direct involvement in the actions of that attorney general. The real issue here appears that the MPAA does not want caught in the web of it's own scheming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would cut off a significant campaign contribution flow, wouldn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The judiciary is a different branch of government. The judges do not bring cases before grand juries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To speak in zombie movie terms, this is like trying to have no brain and eat it, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please. It doesn't help things to spin wild fantasies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow
Obviously, the documents were secret and should always be secret. Just because some hackers STOLE the documents doesn't mean they're not still Sony's property and Google shouldn't be allowed to use them. If you don't agree then obviously you're a Google SHILL.
How'd I do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wow
Not terrible, but it has far too few KEY WORDS in ALL CAPS, with "phrases" followed by double-dashes -- and lots of exclamation points!!!
Still, A for effort, and it's definitely more coherent than the real thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wow
Honestly, I wish people who kick the out_of_the_dog would remember to remove his subject taglines, so all of his useless drivel need not be repeated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
then also think about the various trials the MPAA and others have been involved in and the information that they have not just asked for but DEMANDED is given to them (i seem to believe the on going case against Dotcom being one of them) so as to aid their case.
funny how the game changes when the advantage could easily be taken by the opposite side to the entertainment industries!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Honor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your Honor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome back, 4th Amendment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where privilege exists, it can usually only be waived by the privilege holder. I know there have been some Canadian cases that have held that an accidental disclosure of documents does not waive privilege over those documents. So an argument that getting hacked does not waive privilege doesn't sound THAT ridiculous.
Of course, I write this without doing any research into those specific cases or any relevant US cases on the law of privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Basically, this sounds like a last ditch effort to stay the execution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My experience on this site is that if you put forward an opposing argument that's backed with some kind of logic and/or evidence then you'll be dealt with in a polite debate, and even change some minds if your argument is convincing. The ones who get shouted down are regular trolls or people who come in here calling people names and/or blatantly lying. I think you'll be fine.
"I know there have been some Canadian cases that have held that an accidental disclosure of documents does not waive privilege over those documents"
Were those private or government documents? It varies between nations, but government documents often tend to be considered classified even after everyone in the world has read them, unless their public release was due to declassification.
But, the argument is ultimately a technical one rather than a logical one. Logic would dictate that a document can't really be considered privileged information once it's public, regardless of who released it. Legal/technical might dictate that unauthorised releases don't count against the document's status, but in reality it's public whether you like it or not.
I also don't know how the law works specifically in this example, but it depends on which side you're arguing from. Of course, the MPAA is going to argue to silliest legal definition regardless of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's really meant for situations where the opposing counsel's secretary accidentally sends something to the wrong people. When you get something like that, you're supposed to stop reading it when you realize what it is, and to tell the other side and return it.
For deliberate leaks by third parties, it doesn't provide great guidance.
You may also be interested in this: http://www.lexisnexis.com/communities/corporatecounselnewsletter/b/newsletter/archive/2013/09/02/att orney-client-privilege-in-the-age-of-digital-leaks-peeks-and-breaches.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait, is it a copy or ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wait, is it a copy or ?
I doubt that's how privilege laws work. Otherwise if the prosecution somehow got a copy of a privileged communication between defendant and attorney, they could use it at trial. I'm hoping that is not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wait, is it a copy or ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their biggest fear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privilege
LPP can only be waived by the party who enjoys the benefit of that privilege (ie the client). It cannot be waived simply because it has been leaked. That is sound law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privilege
Their own claims mean that there is no client-attorney privilege to be invoked, unless they want to admit that either Hood was working for them, or they were working for Hood, and so far they've continued to insist that the relationship between each other was casual at best, despite the evidence to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privilege
And then whine about how they were denied due process rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privilege
ooh, i see the problem, that looks bad either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rather surprised Google has only payed off 10 state ATs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the other way around. From the leaked emails, it was the MPAA that was (is?) funding multiple AG's across the country.
Jim Hood was just the most prominent. Also, at the time, Hood was the president of the National Association of Attorneys General. He set the tone for the rest of the state AG's. (His Presidential Initiative? "Protecting Our Digital Lives: New Challenges for Attorneys General.")
So, it's hardly a surprise that stat AG's would stand behind their leader.
Not only that, but state AG's have a long history of attacking Internet companies, and they don't want that to be threatened. This story has some details:
Attorneys General Close Ranks Against Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No it isn't.
You pirates are hilarious- whoring yourselves out to an Orwellian mega-corporation just so you can steal music and movies.
Are your parents aware of how pathetic you've become?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly the response I'd expect from a child. No discussion of the evidence, no counter-evidence, just idiotic ad hominems and baseless, prejudicial insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]