The federal judge appointed by Obama overseeing the historic antitrust case against Google is receiving criticism for allowing the search giant to seal a significant portion of the testimony, which is a departure from his previous practice of open-courtroom policy during Jan. 6 Capitol riot cases.
US District Judge Amit Mehta has agreed to Google’s demands, as well as demands from executives at other tech giants like Apple and Microsoft, to close off the public from sensitive testimony during the initial stages of the trial.
However, Judge Mehta took a different approach when dealing with Oath Keeper leader Stewart Rhodes and another Oath Keeper defendant, Kelly Meggs, allowing personal details about their lives to be aired, including unsealing Rhodes’ 2018 divorce filing, which revealed his troubled tendencies.
Judge Mehta, who was appointed by Barack Obama in 2014, also rejected former President Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss civil lawsuits alleging that he incited the riot, providing a thorough explanation in a 112-page ruling.
“This becomes hyper-political in my mind,” said Joel Thayer, an attorney representing two organizations that filed a motion to make all Google exhibits and Apple executive Eddy Cue’s testimony publicly available.
Thayer’s motion was denied by Mehta.
“You’re willing to open the door to your courtroom on Jan. 6 and reveal every detail about these individuals, but we can’t know anything about Google, a public company that handles all of our information? Right before a consequential election? It’s completely absurd,” Thayer told The Post.
Thayer specifically criticized Judge Mehta for allowing Google to seal or heavily redact much of the evidence in the court docket.
“Public court documents allow people to understand how the law works. If the judge is making important decisions on key points of the litigation, we should be able to know why,” said Thayer, who represents the nonprofit organizations American Principles Project and the Center for Renewing America.
“Does this mean that Google has more privacy rights than any other litigant appearing before this judge?” Thayer questioned.
The Justice Department has accused Google of paying $10 billion annually to ensure that its search engine is the default option on wireless carriers’ and smartphone makers’ devices. The government argues that Google has abused its search monopoly and some elements of search advertising.
According to reports, Judge Mehta has relied on input from US prosecutors and Google’s lawyers to determine when to close the courtroom to the media and the public.
“I rely largely on the plaintiffs, who represent the public interest, to let me know if you think it is objectionable to go into closed session,” Mehta said during Tuesday’s proceedings, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.
“I am not someone who understands the industry and the markets in the way that you do. So I take it seriously when companies tell me that disclosure will cause competitive harm.”
According to The Journal, Judge Mehta has claimed that he doesn’t have foreknowledge of the upcoming testimony and isn’t sure if the witnesses will discuss confidential business matters.
“His view that the question of sealed documents isn’t up to him and is up to the parties involved is absurd,” Thayer stated. Thayer’s law firm, Thayer PLLC, specializes in antitrust matters.
Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist confirmed that “at times, we have not objected to closing when third parties and Google have requested it. We want to state that for the public record.”
“The push for sealed evidence primarily comes from Apple, Microsoft, and DuckDuckGo because they are not being sued by the government and do not believe their information needs to be made public,” a source familiar with the matter revealed to The Post.
A spokesperson for DuckDuckGo criticized this assertion.
“It’s literally impossible for us to be the reason for ‘a lot of the secrecy,’ and what the source said doesn’t make factual sense,” the representative said. “We don’t have any special access to what the vast majority of the case is even about; we’re learning about it as it unfolds publicly, just like everyone else.
Google, Apple, and Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment.
Thayer suggested that the government has not fought harder to keep the testimony in open court because it lacks resources.
“There are only six or seven DOJ officials working on this. They are up against more than a few hundred lawyers on Google’s side,” he explained.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
