Removing Court Case from Google Search

[susannaCO]

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

Thirty-four years ago, I filed BK (due to a business failure) and 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. Google won't remove it without a court order or without a change to the content, which would prevent the pickup by Google search engines. The BK Court says it's a matter of public record. The attorney who handled the BK says he has no clue about internet-related law or how I could redact at least my name from the court case headline.

I've pushed new content out on Google for the last 3 months to push down the court case. The case moves to page 2, but then pops right back to page one. It's now in the 3rd spot on the first page of results for anyone who googles my name.

I have a successful PR consulting firm, I'm a P/T college professor & a community leader--this content is devastating for my business and my reputation. My kids didn't need to know, nor did my neighbors, or high school reunion classmates, my son's fiance & her family...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?

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Proserpina]

There was no invasion of privacy; believe it or not you're not actually entitled to privacy in the vast majority of circumstances.

You mentioned cases which were generally made available only to attorneys. Well, both Lexis and Westlaw allow anybody to register and purchase access to their databases (and have done for years); I was paying for Lexis long before I started posting on internet boards. Then you have the problem of attorneys who no longer practice, but instead start teaching... using the exact same data collection site. And their students? Uploaded as course material for the rest of the class. It goes on and on and on.

While the US has a unique emphasis on privacy, the concept of "right to be forgotten" is making enough noise these days to at least make a few heads turn in that direction.

Standby though. I have a feeling a particular poster will stop by and in my opinion his word is golden.

 

[single317dad]

The reason your case keeps jumping to the top of the search rankings is due to a practice called SEO, or search engine optimization. There is an entire industry centered around manipulating content to improve search rankings. The site you mentioned has superior SEO to any you are using, therefore they will continue to jump back to the front of the rankings. It's possible, though unlikely, that you could hire a PR team (lucky you; you're in the business!) that could handle the technical task of changing your online persona.

The basic premise is to make you a bit of an internet celebrity and overwhelm the search algorithms. In a successful endeavor, there would now be so much popular information on the internet about you that old, rarely accessed or linked information would no longer be deemed relevant. Each move you make can be countered by a determined staff of engineers on the other side, so be prepared to spend a lot of money with unknown results.

As far as removing your name from the court case, the only way to do that involves a time machine, and does not involve you filing bankruptcy, sorry.

Many websites will use public information to demand ransom from citizens for its removal. Those sites are the target of current or pending legislation in several states. The site you mentioned is not one of those.

There are many companies online that promise to protect your reputation for a fee. Do not pay them any money. Their service will not provide the results you seek.

You must admit that the record in question is representative of your actions 34 years ago. Its remaining publicly accessible is considered in the public interest and in the interest of consumer confidence.

 

[FlyingRon]

Actually neither Thompson (Westlaw) nor Lexis-Nexis have their pay as you go plan. Lexis does have a kind of "Lexis-light" called FastCase that's fairly reasonably priced (in fact it's cheaper than the pay as you go if you look up more than a few things each month).

Neither the online Westlaw or Lexis to my knowledge had access to cases unless they made it to the appeals courts. Many of rest of things are just google making the otherwise PUBLIC records easy to search. You won't have much luck changing that. Hell there are still emails I wrote in 1983 floating around in google, sixteen years before Google was founded (and prior to most of the internet existing ... the arpanet wasn't changed to TCP/IP until January of that year).

 

[quincy]

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 ...

... 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? ...

susannaCO, could you provide some more information, please?

The creditor who "filed a legal challenge to one of the debts" - was this a separate court action?

Is your social security number redacted from the court documents that appear online?

Does your bankruptcy still appear on your credit reports?

Your concerns, by the way, ARE privacy concerns certainly but there is no defamation in the accurate reporting of court cases.

 

[susannaCO]

I appreciate all your replies & advice.

When I contacted the BK Court to ask about my options, the clerk was very sympathetic and surprised this case was even available anywhere. She said paper files from 34 years ago weren't saved digitally.

I think my situation is a perfect example of why the US should have a "Right to be Forgotten" law. There is no reason why the general public needs to know about this case. Lawyers need to know; but the general public, including my friends, clients, etc. do not "need to know." What happened 34 years ago has no relevance to my life now.

I've investigated pursuing dual citizenship in order to take advantage of "Right to be Forgotten" and from what I've researched, Google has complied with this law and has promptly removed negative content, especially in the financial category. BK presumes a "fresh start" and it's removed from all credit reports after a period of time, so that it doesn't negatively impact one's ability to rebuild one's financial life. The spirit of the "fresh start" principle should be preserved and applied to all personal records, so that a BK over 10 years is "forgotten" online, as well.

If I were to pursue legal action (invasion of privacy--public disclosure of private facts?), what's my best course of action and in what court would it be filed?

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[susannaCO]

susannaCO, could you provide some more information, please?

The creditor who "filed a legal challenge to one of the debts" - was this a separate court action?

Is your social security number redacted from the court documents that appear online?

Does your bankruptcy still appear on your credit reports?

Your concerns, by the way, ARE privacy concerns certainly but there is no defamation in the accurate reporting of court cases.

Thanks for your response & follow up questions. I hope you can help me.
Yes, it was a separate court action.
Yes, my SSN is redacted from the Leagle.com online document.
No, my BK does not appear on my credit report and hasn't for 24 years.

Re/invasion of privacy, this is what I found:

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

This type of invasion of privacy claim must be weighed against the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Unlike defamation (libel or slander), truth of the disclosed information is no defense. Legal action may be taken if an individual publicly reveals truthful information that is not of public concern and which a reasonable person would find offensive if made public.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for your response & follow up questions. I hope you can help me.
Yes, it was a separate court action.
Yes, my SSN is redacted from the Leagle.com online document.
No, my BK does not appear on my credit report and hasn't for 24 years.

Re/invasion of privacy, this is what I found:

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

This type of invasion of privacy claim must be weighed against the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Unlike defamation (libel or slander), truth of the disclosed information is no defense. Legal action may be taken if an individual publicly reveals truthful information that is not of public concern and which a reasonable person would find offensive if made public.

Thank you for answering the questions I asked, susannaCO.

I am going to take some time before providing you with advice because what you want to do will not be easy to accomplish, if it can be accomplished at all. I want to spend some time doing research and I do not have the extra time available for that right now.

As a quick note on the European Union's Data Protection Directive (the "right to be forgotten"): It is not the easy solution so many in the EU thought it would be. Anyone who wishes to have links removed to protect their privacy from damaging online information must first prove that the information is no longer relevant or that the information is incorrect in some way. This has been a difficult, and often unsuccessful, hurdle for the hundreds of thousands who have sought link-removal. And it is important to note that the removing of links from Google search engines does not eliminate the source URL. ALL search engines must receive takedown notices.

Again, I will post back when the opportunity permits.

 

[susannaCO]

Thank you for answering the questions I asked, susannaCO.

I am going to take some time before providing you with advice because what you want to do will not be easy to accomplish, if it can be accomplished at all. I want to spend some time doing research and I do not have the extra time available for that right now.

As a quick note on the European Union's Data Protection Directive (the "right to be forgotten"): It is not the easy solution so many in the EU thought it would be. Anyone who wishes to have links removed to protect their privacy from damaging online information must first prove that the information is no longer relevant or that the information is incorrect in some way. This has been a difficult, and often unsuccessful, hurdle for the hundreds of thousands who have sought link-removal. And it is important to note that the removing of links from Google search engines does not eliminate the source URL. ALL search engines must receive takedown notices.

Again, I will post back when the opportunity permits.

Quincy, thank you very much! I appreciate your willingness to do research on my behalf. It's very generous of you. This means a great deal to me--I've exhausted all obvious options--and I'm certain others who are dealing with similar circumstances will also benefit from your counsel.

Your information on how the "Right to be Forgotten" law is being handled by Google is one I hadn't heard before. I thought it was more of a slam dunk for negative content removal. Thanks for sharing that POV--doesn't seem like pursuing dual citizenship is worth the effort.

I realize the "takedown notices" you mentioned is the solution. Google suggested that I ask Leagle.com to "not index the file on their servers, using a mechanism known as robots.txt.file." Other legal databases are accommodating this request, such as law.resource.org, which prevents the Google search bots from picking up the information. Leagle.com's owner, Mr. Johnson, refused to add the robots.txt file, as his competitors are doing.

I look forward to your response & advice, when you have the time. I'll keep checking back. Thanks, again!

 

[STEPHAN]

If you remove some content from the Google search in other countries, it is not removed from Google.com, only from the country specific Google website.

Why don't you stand to your problems 34 years ago? I don't believe it will have any effect on other people once you admit to yourself that this was true.

 

[Zigner]

If you remove some content from the Google search in other countries, it is not removed from Google.com, only from the country specific Google website.

Why don't you stand to your problems 34 years ago? I don't believe it will have any effect on other people once you admit to yourself that this was true.

I agree. A BK from 34 years ago shouldn't have any effect on events today, much less a "devastating" effect.

 

[Just Blue]

I agree. A BK from 34 years ago shouldn't have any effect on events today, much less a "devastating" effect.

I agree. It was the 80's and many people filed BK. One can google "recession" to find out why.

 

[Proserpina]

Actually neither Thompson (Westlaw) nor Lexis-Nexis have their pay as you go plan. Lexis does have a kind of "Lexis-light" called FastCase that's fairly reasonably priced (in fact it's cheaper than the pay as you go if you look up more than a few things each month).

Neither the online Westlaw or Lexis to my knowledge had access to cases unless they made it to the appeals courts. Many of rest of things are just google making the otherwise PUBLIC records easy to search. You won't have much luck changing that. Hell there are still emails I wrote in 1983 floating around in google, sixteen years before Google was founded (and prior to most of the internet existing ... the arpanet wasn't changed to TCP/IP until January of that year).

I don't see anything referring to a pay-per-go plan?

 

[Just Blue]

How old are you OP?

 

[susannaCO]

Thank you for answering the questions I asked, susannaCO.

I am going to take some time before providing you with advice because what you want to do will not be easy to accomplish, if it can be accomplished at all. I want to spend some time doing research and I do not have the extra time available for that right now.

As a quick note on the European Union's Data Protection Directive (the "right to be forgotten"): It is not the easy solution so many in the EU thought it would be. Anyone who wishes to have links removed to protect their privacy from damaging online information must first prove that the information is no longer relevant or that the information is incorrect in some way. This has been a difficult, and often unsuccessful, hurdle for the hundreds of thousands who have sought link-removal. And it is important to note that the removing of links from Google search engines does not eliminate the source URL. ALL search engines must receive takedown notices.

Again, I will post back when the opportunity permits.

Quincy, I look forward to your response. Thanks for your generosity and kindness.