Suppose, for a moment, the judge believes that there's at least an open question as to whether the revelations were willful. Can the later conduct, in which they acted in such a way as to double down on the mistake, be used to support a finding that the conduct was willful?

Yes, the entire pattern of behavior is relevant, though I would note that judges are highly reluctant to ascribe bad motives to distinguished litigators (and the lawyer involved here fits in that category) and so I would be surprised if the judge took a super-harsh approach in spite of being upset over this. But, again, who knows?

Taking all the facts given us at face value for now, what is the range of punishments the court might impose here, along with what your gut feeling says the most likely outcome(s) are?

Based on the quotes, one thing the court appeared to contemplate was forcing them to inform all future courts of their conduct in this case.

Hard to say here. Federal courts have very broad discretion to impose sanctions for violations of their orders, including those authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and also those based on their inherent powers. We are, after all, dealing with contempt of a court order, which is very serious. I would say it is likely here that the court would refer this to the State Bar with a request that it be investigated and this would pose quite a risk for one or more of the attorneys that ethical sanctions would be imposed (these can range from private to public censure to suspension to disbarment, though here I don't think the more extreme remedies would apply unless evidence surfaced to show that this was somehow deliberate). A standing order to the firm or to one or more of the attorneys that they would have to do a formal filing in future cases (say, for a period of x years) disclosing this misconduct is also something I could envision here. This would cause large reputational harm to the lawyer(s) involved and would be fitting, doable, and probably appropriate for such a serious violation. Monetary awards/fines are also possible, though I cannot imagine an award that could reflect the actual damage caused to Google - such awards are usually limited to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in obtaining the contempt order. Discovery-related sanctions are also often imposed in live cases (e.g., limiting the use of certain evidence or treating some fact as admitted that is adverse to the party causing the violation or some such thing), but I don't think would apply here. Jailing of an offending party is also used in civil contempt but only as needed to compel compliance with an order (e.g., you will stew in jail until you disclose your non-protected sources for the facts in this story as you have been previously ordered to do) - again, these wouldn't apply here. So, I think the main sanctions would likely involve those hitting the reputations of the attorneys, either in future court proceedings or through State Bar sanctions. These, by the way, are not trivial. No matter how good a lawyer or a firm, being seen as tarnished can cost you clients, job opportunities, etc., not to mention public humiliation and embarrassment (no small thing for prominent lawyers).

My civpro prof was a collector of Rule11 stories. He liked judges who observed that the rule's "may" language doesn't forbid inventive sanctions. This isn't a rule11 situation, but if I were the judge, in exchange for not reporting the conduct to the local bar, I'd make them all go without cellphones while in the courthouse .. for a year. There are too many billions being thrown around in this litigation for any fine to matter.

The judge has already eviscerated that lawyer.

Can you point us to a source on that? Preferably the court's orders, if possible.

I'm wondering if that's on Groklaw somewhere? I've heard there's still 'invisible' activity over there regarding files getting uploaded even though PJ is gone now.

From the article:

> “Even assuming it’s a violation of the protective order...” Haag began to say, when Alsup interrupted her with an exasperated noise.

> “Your firm is one of the biggest litigators in America,” said the judge. “Next time you go into a court somewhere and you ask for confidential documents, I hope someone raises this and says, ‘Your firm violated that order, and why should we give your firm access?’”

> “She just blurted out the two numbers that mattered. She just blurted it out,” said Judge Alsup. “If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in this court right now.”

A couple of zingers, for sure, but not exactly sanctions for a serious breach of professional conduct.

But shows the judge's mind.

I agree that it's huge, but I am reluctant to agree that it's unheard of for a lawyer to disclose confidential information inside a courtroom, especially during an argument having to do with that information.

Maybe things are different in the scenario of high powered lawyers practiced in high value civil suits, but my experience is that run-of-the-mill lawyers are not polished at all in their courtroom behaviors.

Yeah, this is the sort of thing that sends clients elsewhere.

At the very least, I suspect Orrick will have some damage control to do, and I suspect this just became a career limiter for the lawyer who leaked.

Could it all have been planned, with that lawyer agreeing to whatever sanctions, punishments, etc. ahead of time; perhaps for some recompense later?

Seems unlikely. This could lose Google some money in the long run but doesn't seem to be a major blow against them. Plus it seems like a petty move with no real upside for Oracle as a company, as opposed to if it was a personal argument between two people for which emotional vindication could be a motive.

Oh, plus a lawyer would be risking his entire career too.

I am wondering if release of confidential information such that it appears in official court documents carries enough weight as to be able to impact other legal proceedings that may arise totally unrelated to this case. In other words it's one thing for $1 billion to appear in news articles (and be widely know) and another thing for it to appear in a court transcript which could then be cited as proof that the number is correct and used against the party that didn't want it disclosed (in a way that a news article can't).

Often in negotiation there is bluffing. It's easy to bluff around non-official information is what I am thinking.

Isn't that information part of the discovery process of the case, and is subject to the analysis of both Oracle and court's experts? Oracle lawyer was merely quoting those experts to establish the fact that Google did profit from the alleged violation, hence not fair use. I don't think the formula for Cola would be part of a discovery process. So the analogy would not apply.

Sure, but it has been determined that the information is confidential so it shouldn't have been blurted out in open court.

"These litigants have been entrenched in scorched-earth litigation for years now in which the working M.O. for both sides is to concede nothing and make everything the subject of endless dispute."

Sounds like Congress...

It does, but that's off-topic.

You sound like you have an axe to grind, and any vaguely-related topic gives you an excuse to do so. It tries to hijack the discussions of those topics, though, which is why the downvotes.

I have no idea why I am responding but...

I really don't have an axe to grind, I don't have major problems with congress. It was just a little joke I thought sounded funny at the time, because the idea of a scorched earth, win-at-any-cost mentality reminded me of politics. The downvotes are absolutely deserved.

I think jumping to the conclusion that I am searching for any vaguely-related topic to give me an excuse for this sort of comment is completely off base, though. You can look through my comment history to see I don't make those kinds of comments very often.

And now the conversation is wayyyyy off topic, sorry.

You'll notice that humor is not generally well received on HN. That's because most of these accounts are bots I wrote 10 years ago before I had an algorithm that could interpret jokes.

Well, this bot got quite a laugh out of your comment. :D

OK. I should have checked your comment history before accusing you of that.

I get frustrated at the style of the thing (hijacking the topic), not just at one person. So you got dumped on from my frustration at multiple people, which is unfair.

I apologize for dumping on you.

Their comment suggests this case is a symptom of a more systemic problem. That's worth some consideration.