Further Reading Hollywood v. Goliath: Inside the aggressive studio effort to bring Google to heel

Google has gone too far and has undertaken a "fishing expedition" in its bid to substantiate allegations the motion picture studios and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood conspired with each other as Hood probed the search giant.

That's the response from the Motion Picture Association of America's lawyers. They are trying to head off Google subpoenas in connection to Google's suit to block Hood's investigation about whether the search engine was responsible for facilitating piracy of the studios' content. According to a court filing (PDF) this week by MPAA lawyers Jenner & Block:

Google demands documents that the Attorney General never saw, and that instead include the internal deliberations of the MPAA, its communications with its members, and the legal advice of Jenner, as well as communications with others similarly aggrieved by Google’s conduct, on the misguided theory that such documents somehow are probative of Attorney General Hood’s intent. Moreover, Google’s demands impose very substantial burdens on the subpoenaed parties, not only because they require a wide-ranging search for documents, but more importantly because many of the documents are protected by the attorney-client and First Amendment associational privileges. Not only would the MPAA and Jenner be required to devote countless hours to the creation of privilege logs, but further time-consuming and expensive litigation with Google over the privilege assertions would be a near certainty. Google’s motions should be denied.

The attorneys added that Hood's investigation into Google was "entirely legitimate" and that "Google asks this court to authorize a fishing expedition at the MPAA's and Jenner's expense into documents that cannot meaningfully assist it in prosecuting its litigation in Mississippi."

Google, for its part, says the documents are necessary as part of the litigation surrounding the investigation that was exposed in the Sony hack last year:

"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 the subpoenaed parties do not like (such as search results, user-generated content and advertising), in violation of Google’s constitutional rights."

Hood's investigation was largely halted in March when a preliminary injunction was issued by a federal judge who found "significant evidence of bad faith" in a subpoena Hood sent to the company.

US District Judge Henry Wingate sided with Google on virtually every aspect, ruling Google was likely to prevail on claims that Hood's investigation violated Google's First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights. Hood's concerns about piracy were likely to fail because enforcing copyright is the federal government's domain. What's more, Hood's concerns that Google searches lead to illegal sales of prescription drugs are preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. "Google," the judge ruled (PDF) in a motion for preliminary injunction, "has submitted competent evidence showing that the Attorney General issued the subpoena in retaliation for Google’s likely protected speech, namely its publication of content created by third-parties," Wingate ruled.

Hood's investigation into Google met a firestorm after it was revealed that it was encouraged and funded in part by the MPAA. The lobbying group's attorneys also wrote draft subpoenas intended to be used by attorneys general across the nation.