But this logic can extend to any form of communication that could technically be recorded. It means that, by extension, all video calls and phone calls should be recorded too if you can afford to do so (but it's cheap, so you can). And that in turn means that the cost of remote work just exploded because many meetings that a non-remote company would have in an office, face to face, should now be recorded and preserved if any of the participants are under a litigation hold. But as the employees testified, at a big company like Google basically in a given discussion at least someone is always under litigation hold. So that means every meeting or phone call may have to be recorded. And that in turn means the discovery cost imposed on companies that allow remote work will be much higher.
Did companies just get a justification for forcing everyone back to the office? It does seem so. Maybe even for reducing the international presence of teams even when they're in the office.
The judge doesn't spell out this small extension of his argument. It seems he was mostly pissed off by Google employees obfuscating about the issue and lying to the court (no excuse for that). But having read it, where's the limit? The aspects of law they're citing talk about "electronically stored information". If not using a technical ability to record is interpreted as the same thing as destroying stored information, then the retention procedures at almost every company are going to be found in non-compliance simply because video calls, phone calls and so on are so often not being recorded.
Similarly, our legal framework around the retention of corporate communications was originally framed around only official (and relatively uncommon) communications like memos being on the record. Then email. Now chat. Soon all meetings and phone calls? Each step here is a major step-change that requires careful consideration!
Telephone conversations, or the conversation in a meeting, are not "expected" to be recorded. Yes, they could be, but they're not, so it doesn't matter. Your logical extensions are kinda irrelevant.
A chat is recorded, on the server. It isn't deleted after people receive it. Google, and lots of companies, interpret "off the record" to mean that it's deleted after a period.
Especially because off the record means there was no 24 hour retention period and the messages were never recorded to begin with. You're mixing up the default behaviour of "history on" (24 hour retention) with "history off" (no retention.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37 (A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent—or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include the following:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
(In any case, I'd refuse to answer, since that would be "practicing law without a license.")