Just to add, if it’s found that evidence was destroyed, beyond potential seperate charges for the destruction itself, a judge would also typically give an averse inference instruction to the jury. That means the jury should assume that the destroyed evidence would have been damning to whomever destroyed it.

What that tells me is, assuming google acted rationally in the destruction, either they thinks they have a reasonable chance that they can beat the evidence destruction charges, or that the evidence is so damning that the reality of the situation is considerably worse than whatever adverse inferences might be drawn.

(I am not a lawyer, so please take my interpretation with a grain of salt.)