Hold on to your seats as the latest back-and-forth between Sony and Microsoft has gotten quite ugly.
Earlier, we had reported that Microsoft subpoenaed Sony in relation to the FTC trial for their acquisition of Activision Blizzard King. Today, the FTC released documents from both companies making new demands from each other in regards to the case. This will be a lesson on how such a subpoena would work when companies call each other’s competitors to do it.
As reported by Dualshockers, Sony calls Microsoft’s demands in the subpoena as obvious harassment, and wants them to limit the scope of the subpoena. But what does Sony mean by that?
Microsoft named several people under Sony as ‘custodians’ of specific information that they want presented in court. Sony explains the scope and cost of their requests is unreasonable, and unnecessarily exhaustive for what they want. Sony says the records Microsoft requests goes as far back as 11 years and could cost Sony up to $ 2 million to produce.
But, that isn’t the obvious harassment Sony is referring to. In a redacted detail referred to as “Request 13”, Sony says that:
“Microsoft’s demand for performance reviews for SIE’s (Sony’s) leadership is obvious harassment. Even in employment cases courts require a specific showing of relevance before requiring production of personnel files.
This is not an employment case.
Microsoft speculates these documents may “candidly” discuss the performance of SIE’s gaming business, but SIE will be producing ordinary course documents that directly relate to its gaming business in the files of the Seven Custodians.”
Apparently, Microsoft is going so far to ask for performance reviews for members of Sony’s management, just one of their many requests. Sony now wants the FTC to cut down the scope of the subpoena so that they won’t have to share as many documents and information. It should be noted here Sony has yet to give the FTC and Sony any documents.
Prior to Sony’s request, Microsoft made their own request to the FTC, to deny Sony’s fourth request to delay the subpoena. Microsoft accuses Sony of generally acting in bad faith, refusing to comply with the subpoena, pointing out the three prior requests to delay. The two parties had to negotiate what information Sony would share, and they have generally not been able to agree on final terms.
But Microsoft dropped this bombshell in their request:
“SIE is refusing to produce any documents from Greg McCurdy, who has been deeply involved in SIE’s global campaign against the Microsoft/Activision deal.
SIE claims that Mr. McCurdy is a lawyer and the associated burden of reviewing his documents for privileged material is not justified. To address SIE’s concerns, Microsoft offered to limit the search of Mr. McCurdy’s files to only those documents and communications shared outside of SIE. SIE continues to refuse to collect a single document from Mr. McCurdy.”
Sony also referred to this request on their document, sharing these details:
“Microsoft originally said it wanted Mr. McCurdy’s documents because it believed he communicated with the FTC, worked [redacted] and [redacted].”
So, Microsoft believes Sony’s lawyer Greg McCurdy communicated to the FTC, and said something that could be used as evidence in this case. Microsoft is trying to force Sony to share documentation of what Greg said to prove it. Notably, Sony is openly blocking that request.
Based on the dates indicated in these documents, the two have been at this against each other since the subpoena was served in January.
