I'm seeing this line of thinking a lot, and it's driving me bonkers:

> A private company under investigation that responded to regulators, or a judge, with this sort of explanation rather than producing the requested documents would rightly expect to be handed an adverse judgment or a whopping fine.

Why? Since when is the onus to disprove on the defense and the onus to prove not on the plaintiff? If you suspect a conspiracy to cover up one's tracks, you can go after the defendant additionally for that. But you still have to prove it. I'm not a lawyer but if there is any truth to this statement it is a tarnish on our judicial system. A legal system that convicts based on the possibility of IT problems is hardly reliant on surpassing "reasonable doubt."