A lot of the law depends on narrow specificity. I know that as an individual I want "all the badness" uncovered, but the same rules around discovery apply to corporate entities as individuals. If you want to change this, be wary of the (law of) unintended consequences. A charge should be narrow and specific. If you get a wide warrant, then sure: all the words should be open to view. But if the problem is financial then the IPR mails are not relevant, its the finance mails you need to be shown. Hiding finance mails in IPR mails would be a crime probably. The warrant to finance probably includes these, by implication. Once you are required to present, its fair to incur a cost outcome of "how narrowly can we respond and not be in the wrong" Because we don't punish people for as-yet unknown crimes, in this process.
Attorney-Client privilege goes to asking your Attorney about how narrow the responses can be, and still be legal.
Sort-of, the underlying question is "why did we allow corporate entities to become legal 'persons' in the first place" ?
I am not a lawyer. Find a lawyer to tear this line of reasoning apart, it is probably a low-bar goal.
>I know that as an individual I want "all the badness" uncovered, but the same rules around discovery apply to corporate entities as individuals.
The point is: why? Corporate entities and individuals follow the same rules because we (read: societies, governments, parliaments) decided that would be the case. But is that the best outcome? Should we revisit that decision?
Because that was the most straightforward legal mechanism for achieving all kinds of desirable things like forming any sort of contract at all with a company as a whole rather than one of its employees or holding a company liable for damages resulting from actions of its employees.
sort of, in my mind, like why public limited companies had to emerge, in order to drive some outcomes. unlimited risk investment wasn't attractive even with upsides.
as a child, I understood "corporation" to mean "town council" and entirely wanted the products, which tended to public utility functions. I didn't actually understand corporate in any other sense for years.
Attorney-Client privilege goes to asking your Attorney about how narrow the responses can be, and still be legal.
Sort-of, the underlying question is "why did we allow corporate entities to become legal 'persons' in the first place" ?
I am not a lawyer. Find a lawyer to tear this line of reasoning apart, it is probably a low-bar goal.