What Google did here is sanctionable. It's not something the courts tend to look favorably on and could ultimately end up getting a default judgement.
And this isn't the first case of Google burying evidence to try and complicate legal proceedings. They had, for example, the policy of "any email with sensitive stuff should cc legal" policy to try and shield potential criminal behavior with attorney client privilege.
The important part is it is only sanctionable. The boss is shown, in writing, to violate court orders, and the worst that will happen is having to pay an insignificant fee. So why not violate the court order?
So the risk is that if intent is shown the spoliated evidence is assumed to be unfavorable for the party responsible, so the court will tell the jury to consider the facts in light of the missing evidence being negative for Google. It can also result in a default judgment against Google.
What Google did here is sanctionable. It's not something the courts tend to look favorably on and could ultimately end up getting a default judgement.
And this isn't the first case of Google burying evidence to try and complicate legal proceedings. They had, for example, the policy of "any email with sensitive stuff should cc legal" policy to try and shield potential criminal behavior with attorney client privilege.