Devoted to Corporate Attorneys, Corporate Lawyers, and Corporate Counsel

We shouldn't assume that Judge Ware's opinion in Gonzales v. Google will bring an end to this litigation. The government may not let the matter drop. It might appeal. Or, the government might file a motion for reconsideration and do what it should have done in the first place--provide a reasonably detailed explanation for why it needs the information it sought in the first place. This way, the court wouldn't have to "envision" or "imagine" how the government might use the information.

Would the government then prevail? If the government can demonstrate a legitimate need for the data, that need likely would outweigh the "marginal burden" on Google of having to disclose it and the court likely would compel Google to produce it. After all, how hard can it possibly be to outweigh a "marginal burden"?

No one can deny that Google put up a good fight. Equally obvious, however, is that the government has no one but itself to blame for the court's refusal to compel Google to produce the search query data. Google advanced no argument that was as damaging to the government's case as the government's own failure to explain why it needed the data in the first place. Whether out of ineptitude or sheer arrogance the government's failure to articulate why it needed the data proved fatal. That is not to say Google did a poor job. To the contrary, I applaud its decision to fight. Google scored some points during this case. It got the government to pay for its out-of-pocket expenses; it forced the government to dramatically narrow the scope of the subpoena; it convinced a judge to reject the government's demand for search query data. Those were hard-fought victories for which Google deserves a great deal of credit.

For Google's take on this, check out this post at Google's Official Blog.