• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Removing Court Case from Google Search

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

quincy

Senior Member
... I appreciate your willingness to do research on my behalf ...

... I realize the "takedown notices" you mentioned is the solution ...

... I look forward to your response & advice, when you have the time. I'll keep checking back. ...
A quick post because I didn't want you to think I had forgotten about you, susannaCO. I haven't.

I am short on time until at least tomorrow night so I will try to get back to your thread then.

Perhaps I should clarify my earlier mention of "takedown notices" now, though. These are used in the EU as part of the Data Protection Directive. There is nothing similar to this in the US* so a takedown notice would not be a solution available to you.





*the US Copyright Act does have a notice and takedown procedure that is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act statute but it is used to have an ISP remove copyright-infringed content
 


FlyingRon

Senior Member
I don't see anything referring to a pay-per-go plan?
Both Thompson and Lexis had credit card pay as you go plans years ago. FastCase is a $79/month (or $99 for the premium) subscription. This is SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper than the cheapest Lexis or Westlaw subscriber plan.
 

susannaCO

Junior Member
A quick post because I didn't want you to think I had forgotten about you, susannaCO. I haven't.

I am short on time until at least tomorrow night so I will try to get back to your thread then.

Perhaps I should clarify my earlier mention of "takedown notices" now, though. These are used in the EU as part of the Data Protection Directive. There is nothing similar to this in the US* so a takedown notice would not be a solution available to you.





*the US Copyright Act does have a notice and takedown procedure that is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act statute but it is used to have an ISP remove copyright-infringed content
Quincy, thank you for the update and the clarification on the "takedown notice." I googled it yesterday and found references to it not realizing it applied only to the EU. Based on what I read, it sounded like that notice was tied to a court order to remove content.

I appreciate how busy you are...I'm just so grateful to get the help whenever your schedule permits!
 

quincy

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Colorado

... a creditor filed a legal challenge to one of the debts. The details of that case with my full name in boldfaced caps now appears on the first page when my name is googled. The "publisher" is Leagle.com and they refuse to remove it without a court order.

... this content is devastating for my business and my reputation ... I think I have a right to privacy, especially for something that happened 34 years ago.

I understand the case cannot be removed from these legal databases, because it is part of the public record & lawyers need access to this case. But, it used to be available only to lawyers on legal databases requiring passwords. Now, these cases are dumped out on the internet for everyone to easily see. The Europeans were successful in securing the "Right to be Forgotten" law requiring Google to remove negative content. With the First Amendment protections in the US, I doubt that will happen here anytime soon.

What are my legal options for securing a court order? Is there any way to redact my name from the court case? Or, do I have grounds for invasion of privacy? ...
To address the invasion of privacy/publication of private facts tort, you have with a publication of private facts claim two elements that must be proved that you are unable to meet. What has been published has to be of a private nature, and what has been published has to be information that is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Bankruptcy proceedings are not private proceedings (with a few exceptions) and it is well-established that court records are of legitimate public interest and concern (with a few exceptions). There is no invasion of privacy/publication of private facts action available that will help you have your bankruptcy filings removed from their place online.

Back in 2000, though, President Clinton noted: "Bankruptcy records contain detailed sensitive information about debtors, including account numbers, social security numbers, account balances, income sources, payment histories ... [A]ggregation and electronic distribution of this information could lower bankruptcy costs but it could also make information easily available to neighbors, employers, marketers, and predators ..." and Clinton's concern over privacy in bankruptcy filings led to a study and some changes in the way bankruptcy filings were filed.

First, the US Office of Management and Budget conducted a study ("A Study of Financial Privacy and Bankruptcy"). The study concluded that the rights of the parties in a bankruptcy case and the fair and efficient administration of bankruptcy cases both require that certain personal information be available to the courts, the parties involved and governmental entities - but the information also needs to be made available to the general public to ensure accountability and prevent abuses of the bankruptcy system.

The Study also concluded, however, that certain personal information collected from debtors in bankruptcy proceedings is highly sensitive and, in any other context, would be protected by financial privacy laws. The recommendations made were that the right to know needed to be better balanced against the rights of privacy for the individuals filing for bankruptcy.

So changes were made.

Unfortunately, these changes - which allow for the redaction of social security numbers, the names of minor children, full dates of birth, financial account numbers, etc. - do not include (as a general rule) the ability to seal the bankruptcy documents from public access or the removal of the documents from public access sites (although Pacer no longer provides access to bankruptcy cases filed prior to 2003).

With all of THAT said, there is a motion you can make to the court for the removal of any sensitive data that was included in your 34-year-old bankruptcy documents.

Here are two links to Bankruptcy Court Rules which might provide you with information that will help you when you see an attorney in Colorado - and, yes, sorry. After speaking with a bankruptcy attorney today, both he and I agree that you will need to consult with an attorney in Colorado for a better assessment of the facts and for a review of your possible options.

Here is a link to Rule 9037, Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_9037

And here is a link to Colorado's Local Bankruptcy Rules: http://www.cob.uscourts.gov/files/master_rules_nov09.pdf

I had hoped to discover some hidden rule or regulation that could allow for the complete removal of your bankruptcy documents. I could only locate ways to get sensitive information that has been published redacted from the public records.

Perhaps the attorney you speak to in Colorado will know of something that I was unable to uncover in my (admittedly too brief) research.

Good luck, susannaCO.
 
Last edited:

susannaCO

Junior Member
To address the invasion of privacy/publication of private facts tort, you have with a publication of private facts claim two elements that must be proved that you are unable to meet. What has been published has to be of a private nature, and what has been published has to be information that is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Bankruptcy proceedings are not private proceedings (with a few exceptions) and it is well-established that court records are of legitimate public concern (with a few exceptions). There is no invasion of privacy/publication of private facts action available that will help you have your bankruptcy filings removed from their place online.

Back in 2000, though, President Clinton noted: "Bankruptcy records contain detailed sensitive information about debtors, including account numbers, social security numbers, account balances, income sources, payment histories ... aggregation and electronic distribution of this information could lower bankruptcy costs but it could also make information easily available to neighbors, employers, marketers, and predators ..." and Clinton's concern over privacy in bankruptcy filings led to a study and some changes in the way bankruptcy filings were filed.

First, the US Office of Management and Budget conducted a study ("A Study of Financial Privacy and Bankruptcy"). The study concluded that the rights of the parties in a bankruptcy case, and the fair and efficient administration of bankruptcy cases, require that certain personal information be available to the courts, the parties involved and governmental entities - and the information needs to be made available to the general public to ensure accountability and prevent abuses of the bankruptcy system.

The Study also concluded, however, that certain personal information collected from debtors in bankruptcy proceeding is highly sensitive and, in any other context, would be protected by financial privacy laws. The recommendations made were that the right to know needed to be better balanced against the right to privacy of the individuals filing for bankruptcy.

So changes were made.

Unfortunately, these changes - which allow for the redaction of social security numbers, the names of minor children, full dates of birth, financial account numbers, etc. - do not include (as a general rule) the ability to seal the bankruptcy documents from public access or the removal of the documents from public access sites (although Pacer no longer provides access to bankruptcy cases filed prior to 2003).

With all of THAT said, there is a motion you can make to the court for the removal of any sensitive data that was included in your 34-year-old bankruptcy documents.

Here are two links to Bankruptcy Court Rules which might provide you with information that will help you when you see an attorney in Colorado - and, yes, sorry. After speaking with a bankruptcy attorney today, both he and I agree that you will need to consult with an attorney in Colorado for a better assessment of the facts and for a review of your possible options.

Here is a link to Rule 9037, Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_9037

And here is a link to Colorado's Local Bankruptcy Rules: http://www.cob.uscourts.gov/files/master_rules_nov09.pdf

I had hoped to discover some hidden rule or regulation that could allow for the complete removal of your bankruptcy documents. I could only locate ways to get sensitive information that has been published redacted from the public records.

Perhaps the attorney you speak to in Colorado will know of something that I was unable to uncover in my (admittedly too brief) research.

Good luck, susannaCO.
Quincy, thanks very much for the information and links--appreciate your time & advice.

As I mentioned earlier, I've already spoken with the BK attorney who handled my BK case and the other action filed by one of the creditors. Unfortunately, he had no strategies to help me. Although there is reference to my BK case, it's the other case--and not the BK case--that appears on Leagle.com, because it was precedent-setting. No "sensitive" information is included. My hope was that my name in the headline of that case could be redacted to include only the case number, but that doesn't appear to be included in the "personal information" the Court will redact.

Do you think it's a waste of time to file a motion with the BK Court to redact my name from the creditor case?
 
Last edited:

quincy

Senior Member
Quincy, thanks very much for the information--appreciate your time.

As I mentioned earlier, I've already spoken with the BK attorney who handled my BK case and the other action filed by one of the creditors. He had no strategies to help me. Although there is reference to my BK case, it's the other case--and not the BK case--that appears on Leagle.com, because it was precedent-setting. No personal information is included. My hope was that my name in the headline of that case could be redacted to include only the case number.

Do you think it's a waste of time to file a motion with the BK Court to redact my name from the creditor case?
No. I don't think it would necessarily be a waste of time to file the motion - but I can't predict your success.

I suppose that, because there is the Fair Credit Reporting Act* that limits the amount of time a creditor can report a debt, a court action about an old debt could POTENTIALLY be seen by the court as a special privacy interest. If the debt still appeared on your credit report after all this time, for example, instead of in a court action on the debt, it would be in violation of the FCRA.

I don't know. It might be something to discuss with the attorney in your area.

If all attempts to get your case removed from the database fail, and if all attempts to get your name removed from the case fail, I would look back at the suggestions provided you earlier in this thread, on trying to bounce the information off page one on a search of your name (although I know you have tried this).



*summary of Fair Credit Reporting Act: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0096-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf
*FCRA: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/pdf-0111-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf
 
Last edited:

susannaCO

Junior Member
No. I don't think it would necessarily be a waste of time to file the motion - but I can't predict your success.

I suppose that, because there is the Fair Credit Reporting Act that limits the amount of time a creditor can report a debt, a court action about an old debt could POTENTIALLY be seen by the court as a special privacy interest. If the debt still appeared on your credit report after all this time, for example, instead of in a court action on the debt, it would be in violation of the FCRA.

I don't know. It might be something to discuss with the attorney in your area.

If all attempts to get your case removed from the database fail, and if all attempts to get your name removed from the case fail, I would look back at the suggestions provided you earlier in this thread, on trying to bounce the information off page one on a search of your name (although I know you have tried this).
I'm wondering...my name is incorrect as listed in this case. It's not my legal name & they have it hyphenated, which is incorrect. Is that a technicality I can use?

On Google, I was successful in getting the case moved down to the middle of the 2nd page after 3 months of pushing out content. But, you have to continue doing it and the Google algorithms can be mysterious. Once I let up, the case wound up on the first page again. So, I'll continue to pursue both legal & SEO options.

I really think it's going to take legislation to make a significant change. In the meantime, the Courts need to address the privacy implications of releasing public records to a broader audience.
 

xylene

Senior Member
Move to Europe. The current policy status quo serves the public interest as it is for the United States.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I'm wondering...my name is incorrect as listed in this case. It's not my legal name & they have it hyphenated, which is incorrect. Is that a technicality I can use?

On Google, I was successful in getting the case moved down to the middle of the 2nd page after 3 months of pushing out content. But, you have to continue doing it and the Google algorithms can be mysterious. Once I let up, the case wound up on the first page again. So, I'll continue to pursue both legal & SEO options.

I really think it's going to take legislation to make a significant change. In the meantime, the Courts need to address the privacy implications of releasing public records to a broader audience.
It would take Congress to provide bankruptcy filings with the same privacy protections given to, for example, tax records and Medicare records, or to allow for only limited access to the filings as they do, for example, when cases involve confidential research or trade secrets.

But the internet has created several different privacy issues for which there are no easy solutions.

If your name is incorrect in the court filings, by the way, I would think that it is to your benefit to have your name remain as is.

Continuing to flood the internet with positive content to push the unwanted court case off page one appears to be your best course of action - although admittedly it is not perfect.

Good luck, susannaCO.
 

susannaCO

Junior Member
It would take Congress to provide bankruptcy filings with the same privacy protections given to, for example, tax records and Medicare records, or to allow for only limited access to the filings as they do, for example, when cases involve confidential research or trade secrets.

But the internet has created several different privacy issues for which there are no easy solutions.

If your name is incorrect in the court filings, by the way, I would think that it is to your benefit to have your name remain as is.

Continuing to flood the internet with positive content to push the unwanted court case off page one appears to be your best course of action - although admittedly it is not perfect.

Good luck, susannaCO.
Quincy, thanks again, for your advice and good wishes. If I make any headway with the BK Court, I'll report back.
 

STEPHAN

Senior Member
Stupid question, are the search results the same for other people? Google remembers what you look at and might show different results to you as it does to others.
 
Last edited:

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Stupid question, are the search results the same for other people? Google remembers what you look at and might show different results to you as it does to others.
They are indeed dependent on context. Google keeps the rules close to their vest though as pointed out the various SEO companies claim to know how to game the system but that only lasts until Google changes their internal rules again.

Hell you can search for the same thing several times in a day and get different ordering.
 

quincy

Senior Member
They are indeed dependent on context. Google keeps the rules close to their vest though as pointed out the various SEO companies claim to know how to game the system but that only lasts until Google changes their internal rules again.

Hell you can search for the same thing several times in a day and get different ordering.
Google has "personalized" search results since 2009. Your search results can vary from that of another based on your search history.

If I search "susannaCO," my search results may come up with links to Facebook and LinkedIn and the like, while susannaCO's search results on her own name may come up with the court case from 34 years ago that my search of her name never shows. If I locate susannaCO's court case, however, and click on it, then that becomes part of my computer's personalized history and it is apt to show up on page one in any subsequent search that I do of her name.

The history of your searches kept by Google is supposedly a time-limited one and should self-delete after a certain number of days (180 days?), but Google also has an opt-out feature so that your search history is not personalized.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The history of your searches kept by Google is supposedly a time-limited one and should self-delete after a certain number of days (180 days?), but Google also has an opt-out feature so that your search history is not personalized.
One could also delete their cookies periodically...and not sign in to Google.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top