The fundamentals here are that California and Activision disagree as to what the law requires to be retained/turned over. You can see that with California calling what Activision claims as privileged as merely “attorney involved”.
https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1430251949849464834
Similarly, the document destruction looks bad because California is framing the documents as related to the case/complaints, but Activision’s claim is that they are not. Could Activision be lying? Absolutely, but…
…it’s important to note companies destroy documents every day for security and other good reasons, and Activision’s practice would likely be to effect such destruction. Could this be nefarious? Again absolutely, but the act of destruction itself doesn’t make that case.
And some of these questions aren’t obvious to us on the outside. For instance, CA believes that internal studies should be delivered when Activision appears to believe that only the baseline data would need to be turned over and their own internal analysis falls outside that.
Is that correct? Hard to say without looking at the materials, but it’s not definitely wrong, so it will be interesting to follow as the case proceeds and Activision mounts a defense. Always a lot going on in litigation. /FIN
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
