Sony’s unlikely excuse for not providing documents is that they are in Japanese | we are xbox

In a new chapter of what is happening with the judicial control of the FTC to the company of Activision Blizzard, the Judge who is in charge of the matter has made public the improbable excuse of Sony for not providing some of the documents that Microsoft had requested to the company. The Japanese have used the language barrier as an argumentensuring that the documents of two custodians are not provided simply because they are in Japanese.

This is how we have been able to read it thanks to the document shared by @SenninSage, which has made a thread on Twitter showing some of the most relevant screenshots of the recent ruling by the federal judge in relation to Microsoft’s request that Sony provide a series of documents. As we can see in the following image, Sony’s excuse is to say that it would take a great job and a lot of money locating and translating the documents of Lin Tao, one of the company’s former custodians.

This is Sony’s unlikely excuse for not providing documents to the FTC

This argument has been rejected by the FTC, which also has rejected several of the arguments that Sony has tried to use so as not to provide the documents corresponding to Lin Tao and Hideaki Nishino. In addition, the Japanese have assured that it would be as simple as providing the documents that the current custodian has, since it would include what was in those of Tao and Nishino, something that has been rejected by the Judge for being an argument “speculative and unconvincing”.

On the other hand, Microsoft also demanded that they provide some of the documents of Greg McCurdy, the antitrust lawyer of the Japanese. However, in a new excuse from Sony that has been dismissed by the Judge, they argued that the few documents that were not of a public nature could be confidential, due to being related to legal advice. But this reason has not been enough for the Judge, forcing Sony to provide said documents.

That yes, the Judge has given the reason to Sony that you must provide documents until January 2019, and not those corresponding to the year 2012 as Microsoft had requested, since it is considered that there is no convincing justification for bringing up documents of such antiquity. In this sense, it should be noted that Sony had not opposed the delivery of said documents until 2019, but it had done so in relation to the previous date, considering that it was irrelevant information for the case.

On the other hand, Sony has been called upon to prove that the Jim Ryan’s statements to the FTC are confidential, otherwise he will have to bring them to trial. However, if it has found in the company’s favor that there is no de facto reason to provide Jim Ryan’s performance reviews or evaluations, dismissing Microsoft’s request.