• Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    2 days ago

    In a bit of malicious compliance, Vivendi turned over millions of pages of Korean language documents from its local subsidiary during the discovery phase of Valve’s cybercafe lawsuit, with anything potentially useful to Valve buried under both the volume of material and a language barrier. Quackenbush turned to a summer intern identified only as “Andrew” in the documentary. A native Korean speaker who also majored in Korean language studies in college, Andrew found the needle in the haystack: An email where one Korean Vivendi executive discussed the destruction of documents related to the Valve case to their superior, with the implication that the more junior executive was ordered to do so. With this evidence in hand, Valve was able to turn the tables on Vivendi, securing a highly favorable settlement and full ownership of its IP moving forward.

    It’s not clear to me how the email described was helpful though?

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      127
      ·
      2 days ago

      Destroying evidence is a big no-no in a legal case, and would allow the judge to draw a negative inference, so I’m guessing that gave Valve the leverage to settle the case.

      • Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Destroying evidence is a big no-no in a legal case, and would allow the judge to draw a negative inference, so I’m guessing that gave Valve the leverage to settle the case.

        Ah, that would make sense. So Valve probably won more on procedural grounds then?

        “Needle in a haystack” made me assume it was something like actual contractual language forbidding Vivendi from doing what it was trying to do.

        • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          55
          ·
          2 days ago

          i mean, destroying evidence related to the case is a little more than a “procedural violation”. that’s clear cut obstruction and it’s a felony crime.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I mean, they settled as soon as they found this, as they knew how it would’ve played out in a trial. If you can show a judge that evidence was deleted, the judge/jury would need to assume that the missing evidence would show the guilt of that party.

          The needle in the haystack part was that Vivendi were trying to bury Valve in evidence, as they assumed that they wouldn’t be able to afford to hire a bunch of Korean paralegals to go through everything. A wealthy opponent will do that in order to put you in the position where you have to choose between settling or paying a fortune to go through the evidence that may or may not contain anything useful.

        • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          2 days ago

          If I’m reading this correctly, the haystack is the malicious compliance of providing all documents printed and in Korean. The needle is the document that snuck between other documents so that Valve attorneys wouldn’t find it.

        • subignition@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          2 days ago

          Sort of procedural, yes - if you are alleging something and the evidence that would support that was destroyed by the other party, the court can make an adverse inference which basically means the court assumes the destroyed evidence would have proved your point.

        • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 days ago

          (I am not a lawyer)

          To me this is what allowed them to not comb through the millions of documents. Since you have a piece of evidence they gave you admitting to destroying additional evidence, they basically can get not goodwill at all in front of a judge, so it doesn’t matter if they say “your honor everything was turned over during discovery and we’re all clear”, the instant your lawyers contact their lawyers, it’s settling time.