Google lawyers are trying to wrest more information from movie studios about their relationships with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, who began investigating the search giant at the behest of the Motion Picture Association of America.

Ongoing litigation between Google and the MPAA has unearthed and made public just one new e-mail so far—and it's very revealing.

The e-mail (PDF), published in court records on Thursday, shows Hood's plan of how a media attack against Google could proceed—and how the MPAA could help out. It's a six-step plan, which begins with a call to several Google attorneys. It proceeds as follows:

A session at the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) summer meeting in which Hood's office will demonstrate illegal online purchases that begin with a Google search. The memo suggests, "Possibilities include (i) prescription painkiller that advertises with Google; (ii) an illegal drug, such as heroin; (iii) download of a currently-running R rated movie by a minor (volunteer from NAAG); and (iv) assault weapon delivered to home, in violation of federal firearm laws (taped purchase via an investigator from our office)." The buy would be followed by a "panel discussion of possible next steps for AGs."

Research into possible causes of action against Google and preparation of a memo to distribute to other AGs. Hood's attorneys had the prep for this underway at the time the e-mail was sent in 2013, and they suggested it "likely will focus on unfair trade practices."

A media campaign focusing on a Today Show segment that would show off the "live buys" of illegal goods that Hood's office performed at the NAAG summer session. The memo says, "We propose working with MPAA (Vans), Comcast, and NewsCorp (Bill Guidera) to see about working with a PR firm to create an attack on Google (and others who are resisting AG efforts to address online piracy). This PR firm can be funded through a nonprofit dedicated to IP issues... After the Today Show segment, you want to have a large investor of Google (George can help us determine that) come forward and say that Google needs to change its behavior/demand reform. Next, you want NewsCorp to develop and place an editorial in the WSJ [Wall Street Journal] emphasizing that Google's stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs and noting some of the possible causes of action we have developed."

The final two steps are:

Regulatory Action: "Following the media blitz, you want Bill Guidera and Rick Smotkin to work with the PR firm to identify a lawyer specializing in SEC matters to work with a stockholder. This lawyer should be able to identify the appropriate regulatory filing to be made against Google." AG Action: "As a final step, we propose that AGs will issue CIDs [civil investigative demands] to Google. We have researched these issues in the past and can draw from that."

Ultimately, Hood did send a CID, a subpoena-like investigative document, to Google. However, a serious wrench was thrown into the plan when the close ties between MPAA lawyers and Hood were revealed following internal MPAA e-mails becoming public after the Sony hacking attack.

Google challenged the CID in court, citing the newly public MPAA e-mails as evidence. That move caused US District Judge Henry Wingate to put Hood's investigation on ice. Now, Google is seeking more information to prove its case that the investigation should be enjoined permanently.

This latest e-mail was produced as a result of Google filing a motion to compel (PDF) in New York, in which the search company complains that its discovery subpoenas "have produced nothing" due to "meritless" objections from the MPAA. Google lawyers said there's evidence that Hood's investigation was "undertaken in bad faith and for a retaliatory purpose." They continue:

The requested documents are likely to bolster that finding by shining a light on the parties that were animating the Attorney General and other government officials. Google expects the documents will show that the Attorney General, the Subpoenaed Parties, and their lobbyists understood that his actions invaded the exclusive province of federal law. More fundamentally, the documents are likely to show that the Attorney General's investigation was intended not to uncover supposed violations of Mississippi law, but instead to coerce Google into silencing speech that Viacom, Fox, and NBC do not like (such as search results, user-generated content and advertising), in violation of Google's constitutional rights.

The motion to compel has yet to be ruled on.