Google’s lawyers are asking to find Oracle’s lawyers in contempt of court
It is <i>huge</i> that a lawyer would disclose in a public setting such important confidential numbers. I even have trouble seeing how something like that could be &quot;accidental&quot;. It is basically a force of habit among experienced litigators to think and to say, in any number of contexts, &quot;I know this may be relevant but I can&#x27;t discuss it because it is the subject of a protective order&quot; or &quot;I know the attorneys know this information but it was disclosed under the protective order as being marked for &#x27;attorneys&#x27; eyes only&#x27;&quot;. In all my years of litigating, I don&#x27;t believe I have ever heard a casual slip on such information, even in otherwise private contexts (e.g., attorneys are discussing with their own client what an adverse party disclosed and are very careful not to disclose something marked for &quot;attorneys&#x27; eyes only&quot;). Certainly willful disclosures of this type can even get you disbarred.<p>But the significance of this breach is not the only thing that caught my eye.<p>These litigants have been entrenched in scorched-earth litigation for years now in which the working M.O. for both sides is to <i>concede nothing</i> and make everything the subject of endless dispute. Big firm litigators will often do this. It is a great way to rack up bills. Clients in these contexts do not oppose it and very often demand it. And so a lot of wasteful lawyering happens just because everyone understands that this is an all-out war.<p>To me, then, it seems that the big problem here (in addition to the improper disclosures of highly important confidential information in a public court hearing) was the <i>resistance</i> by the lawyers who did this to simply acknowledging that a big problem existed that required them to <i>stipulate</i> to getting the transcript sealed immediately. Had they done so, it seems the information would never have made the headlines. Instead (and I am sure because it had become the pattern in the case), they could not reach this simple agreement with the other lawyers to deal with the problem but had to find grounds to resist and fight over it.<p>I know that we as outside observers have limited information upon which to make an assessment here and so the only thing we can truly say from our perspective is &quot;who knows&quot;. Yet, if the surface facts reflect the reality, then it is scarcely believable that the lawyers could have so lost perspective as to take this issue to the mat, resulting in such damage to a party. Assuming the facts are as they appear on the surface, this would be very serious misconduct and I can see why Judge Alsup is really mad that it happened.