• 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.

Need advice about incorrect info on the Web

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

Pat Graham

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

A friend of mine is devastated by information about her on the Internet and found by various search engines. Most of it is incorrect and the rest is not complete, with highly selected parts published that put her in the worst light. She has a medical license and reputation at stake and is at a loss about how to fight it. :(

Any advice I can give her to start getting the crap off the web?

Pat Graham
 


quincy

Senior Member
Hi, Pat.
Your friend should start by contacting the administrator of the site that is publishing the erroneous material (or, if known, by contacting the poster of the material), to see if it will be voluntarily pulled or deleted. Most websites will not remove content, however, without a court order to do so.

If that is the case in your friend's situation, then she will have to go to court with evidence (a print-out) of the erroneous, defamatory, or personal content published about her, and request that the court issue an order to the site to remove the material.

Courts often will not issue such an order until a lawsuit has been filed against the poster of the content first. Depending on the content published, your friend may need to file an invasion of privacy (false light) suit or a defamation (false and reputationally injurious) suit against the poster of the material. There must be adequate proof in advance that the content on the site violates, or may violate, a law, for a court to issue an order. Free speech (even derogatory speech) is vigorously protected by the courts.

If the poster's identity is not known, the suit should be filed against "John Doe" and the court order issued to the site should include the request that the real identity of the poster be revealed so that the lawsuit can proceed against him/her.

Your friend may want to contact an attorney to assist, although this is not always necessary in the initial stages of the suit, where the issuance of the order is the main goal. To continue with the lawsuit, however, an attorney's advice and direction is of major benefit.

Another potential avenue your friend could explore (and one which can save time and money) is to "flood" the internet with positive stories about herself, that will push the derogatory, defamatory material to page 2 or 3, when a search is done of her name.

Good luck.
 

Pat Graham

Junior Member
Thank You

Thank You, quincy. Your good advice gave me a starting point that I can relay to my friend. I appreciate your help.

Pat
 

quincy

Senior Member
You're welcome, Pat. :)

I did fail to mention one other possible route that your friend could take, if the identity of the poster is known. Your friend could have an attorney draft a "cease-and-desist" letter to the poster, advising that legal action may be pursued against him/her if the objectionable material is not corrected, retracted, and/or deleted from the site.

Again, good luck.
 

knowledgesearch

Junior Member
Quincy,

I have a situation that overlaps with that being discussed here.

My small business is the victim of a libel campaign on Google Reviews. I would rather not identify the business but if, for instance, it is a restaurant, the Google Reviews say false things such as "there were mouse droppings all over my food", and "when I got home after eating there I vomited so much I had to go to the hospital, " and "we filed a complaint with the Health Department the place was so filthy," and "DO NOT EAT IN THIS RESTAURANT UNLESS YOU WANT TO BECOME VERY, VERY SICK." The restaurant is new and the postings were up for about six months until I discovered them. We have never had complaints about any of these things, and no visits from health inspectors since we opened.

I wrote to Google reviews explaining that the statements were defamatory and demanded that they be removed, but Google refused explaining that it doesn't remove postings from Reviews unless copyright violations, spam or hate speech.

So I posted my own review, explaining that the negative postings were false and encouraging customers to come in and see our place. Meanwhile, a customer posted a positive review.

A day after this positive posting appeared, Google removed my posting and the positive posting. (I have adobe files proving this.)

I wrote to Google and demanded they put these two postings back up and demanding an explanation for why they removed them, particularly since they explained their policy is not to remove postings. They put the posting back up but never responded to me.

Meanwhile I filed a John Doe lawsuit in local court and issued a subpoena to Google to get the identifying info for the three libel postings. Google's privacy policy states that they comply with subpoenas and upon receipt of one like mine, they send it to the account holder to give them a chance to go to court to block the subpoena. (Perhaps Daniel Ellsburg would have had justification to do this if he was posting the Pentagon Papers online, but in my case I didn't think the poster would try this.) Meanwhile, the fact that Google did this resulted in two of the three libel postings being removed. Probably the person or persons who did this removed them, knowing I was trying to ascertain their identities and that they libeled me. I am guessing the third one - the most provable libel - is not removed because the poster lost his password for this account.

However, I then got a letter from Google explaining that they will only respond to subpoenas issued by the Santa Clara Superior Court, as they are located in Mountain View, CA and under no obligation to respond to a subpoena from another state.

As I see it they are partly right, i.e. they don't have to respond to a subpoena from an out-of-state court. But I think they are partly wrong in that if I file my John Doe lawsuit in federal court I think they will have to respond to a subpoena issued by a federal court.

Also, I think at this point I will make Google a defendant also, since in violation of their own rules they removed my posting and the other positive posting, exacerbating the libel to which my restaurant was exposed.

I would appreciate your thoughts on my planned choice of forum.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Knowledgesearch, although your questions are connected to the questions asked by Pat in the original post, you probably should have started your own thread. :)

First, federal civil subpoenas are valid if they are issued and served within the state where the federal court is located. Federal criminal subpoenas have no jurisdictional restrictions and service may be rendered anywhere in the U.S.

I am assuming you filed a civil defamation action, therefore you would need your subpoena issued by a court in California. For both civil and criminal subpoenas in a state, any state court can issue the subpoena.

For federal subpoenas, some courts hold that there must be personal hand delivery to the person named. Other courts allow for service by certified mail. This is true for both civil and criminal cases.

For a defamation suit, you would be wise to avoid naming Google as a defendant. The Communications Decency Act protects online service providers and users from actions against them for actions taken by others. "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In other words, the Act provides immunity from prosecution to ISPs and other service providers from torts committed by users over their systems, even when the provider fails to take action against the user after notice.

Google escapes liability for not only restricting access to certain material, and therefore would not be held liable for removing your positive review, Google also escapes liability for not removing the defamatory reviews, and therefore would not be held liable for the defamatory postings by the reviewer.

Any defamation action you are considering would be against the reviewer of your restaurant for the defamatory reviews.

You will need to have a subpoena issued by a California court to Google, to have the identity of the reviewer revealed. The reviewer will have the opportunity to address the court and present reasons why his/her identity should not be revealed (the review is pure opinion, the review is true, etc) prior to Google answering the subpoena and releasing the reviewer's identity.
 

knowledgesearch

Junior Member
Thanks, Quincy. But what a drag to have to file in California as this will cost me attorney fees that I had avoided by filing here.

But at this point I have no choice. Even if I want to ignore the damage that may have been done by the two negative reviews that were removed, there remains one negative review containing false statements. I must seek a court order instructing Google to remove it. Of course, if they fight against this, I will lose as they have bigger guns than me and I am suing on their turf.

I agree with you that Google has no liability under the CDA for posts made by others, but why do you think that they have no liability for removing two positive posts? Their company policy is that they do not remove posts, yet when I complained about libel they took off a post that explained the libel and to some degree contained it and another positive post. (Probably on second thought I will not bother to make Google a defendant for this as they will surely beat me up, but I ask to know the legal issues here.)

I also note that their company policy is that they comply with all court orders and subpoenas, but they slyly fail to mention that this only applies if they come from a court in Santa Clara County, CA.

I wonder how all this squares with their motto: "Don't be evil."
 

knowledgesearch

Junior Member
I just searched the Superior Court in Santa Clara's database. I expected to see hundreds or thoudands of John Doe cases where Google was named in order to get a subpoena. After all, I know human nature and I know technology and what with all the harm people do to others online I figured surely my situation is not an isolated one.

But to my great suprise there are only a handful of such cases. It just doesn't make sense to me that there would be so few instances like mine.

Well, at least I know who to contact: the lawyers who did these cases.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
There are profound identy protections to those who post from California. You may have found so few, because the wall to getting the information is so high.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Knowledgesearch, you failed to name your state. This could make a difference and, even if it doesn't, that information is requested of all posters here. :)

What you will be looking at is getting a subpoena duces tecum, which is the subpoena most commonly used in John Doe cases - used to obtain the IP address assigned to the poster during the pertinent session online, the poster's email address (if available) and the poster's true identity. You can still bring suit against this "John Doe" in your home state, as the state where the tort injury occurred can generally show jurisdiction. You will only need a contact in California to obtain the subpoena to serve on Google.

Then Google will respond to the subpoena within X amount of days, after notifying the poster of the pending action against him. Google will allow for the poster to send notice to them that a motion to quash the subpoena has been filed, prior to responding to the subpoena. If no notice is received, Google will release the identifying information so your lawsuit can proceed.

Depending on your state of residence, it may be possible for you to ask the court in your state, where you have filed suit, to have your court ask the court in California to issue the subpoena. If this is possible in your state, there will be direct communication from the court in your state to the out-of-state, California court, eliminating the need for an out-of-state attorney.

Or, again depending on your state, Google may have an agent for service in your state, eliminating the need for an out-of-state attorney.

Otherwise, you should get a California attorney (perhaps through a large law firm in your area that has offices in California, which can save on the expense) to get the subpoena issued and served.

Once you obtain the poster's identity, you should probably investigate whether the poster can pay damages, should he lose any defamation action. You may find that a public retraction benefits you more than an award of damages that cannot be collected. ;)

Good luck.
 
Last edited:

knowledgesearch

Junior Member
I have a lot of reason to believe that the libel is an organized campaign by a competitor here in Colorado. So to respond to Tranquility, the postings were likely made here. And to respond to Quincy, if I am correct this competitor has plenty of assets.

But I will research the rules here to see if a Colorado court can ask a California court as Quincy suggested. Frankly, I had never heard of this kind of court to court interaction, but it is worth checking into.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Your greatest difficulty may very well be serving the subpoena on Google, then, if it is found to be your local competitor who is the poster of the defamatory reviews. An in-state action is certainly easier and cheaper to manage than one where the defendant resides in another state.

Whatever the case, I wish you good luck with the subpoena and the suit.
 
Last edited:

knowledgesearch

Junior Member
California court rules will allow me to file the case in California pro hac vice. However, I must be associated with a California attorney. If any CA attorneys are reading this and are willing to help (and possibly be a backup if I need it), please send me a private email.

Rule 9.40. Counsel pro hac vice

(a) Eligibility

A person who is not a member of the State Bar of California but who is a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States, and who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending in a court of this state, may in the discretion of such court be permitted upon written application to appear as counsel pro hac vice, provided that an active member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Knowledgesearch, maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but are you saying you want to refile your defamation action in California? You have already filed it in Colorado, right?

If you believe the person who defamed your business resides in Colorado, and you reside in Colorado, then you probably want to handle your defamation suit in Colorado. To do otherwise will ratchet up the costs of your suit considerably. Colorado can be shown easily to have jurisdiction over the matter, because it is where your business is located.

All you need to do in California is get a subpoena issued and served on Google, so that your lawsuit in Colorado can go forward against an identified person. To do that, you need an attorney from the district where the subpoena needs to be issued (the Superior Court of Santa Clara) or, the attorney does not need to be a member of the bar in that district, as long as the attorney is authorized to practice in the district where the action is pending (Colorado) and has a Commission (or mandate or writ or letter Rogatory) to allow him to issue the subpoena in California and make the subpoena valid.

Attorneys can issue subpoenas in the name of any court where they are authorized to practice - and, in the case of a "production" subpoena from another district, in the name of the court where the production is to take place (your Colorado court). The subpoena is ISSUED from the district court where it will be served (California), but the top of the subpoena reflects the name of the district where the production of the documents will be made (Colorado) and will include the name and the civil case number where the case is actually pending (Colorado).

There are numerous forms to fill out for an out-of-state subpoena to be valid in California. And a subpoena from another state must have a specific court order submitted with it to be valid (you can receive a court order from the judge where you filed the defamation action in the name of "John Doe" - the judge will issue the order for Google to produce the identity, etc, of the poster so that the action can proceed). You will need this court order.

Again, if I am reading all of your posts correctly, you will want to continue your defamation action in the state where you reside (to save costs) and only have a California attorney involved for the issuance and service of the subpoena on Google. It is certainly easier if you can contact a firm in Colorado that has offices in California, so you can handle everything from Colorado.

If you are planning on handling your lawsuit itself "pro se", I really recommend you, at the very least, sit down with an attorney in Colorado to discuss it all and to get help with the subpoena. As for an attorney search, you can check out this FreeAdvice site - there is a Find a Lawyer section, a Find an Attorney at the bottom of each post, and ads for attorneys everywhere.

Approved court forms are available online for the subpoena and all of the required papers (notice to consumer, civil case cover sheet, etc). You may want to check out http://www.courtinfo.gov/forms/documents/982a155.pdf for California information on out-of-state subpoenas. And you may want to review California Rules of Civil Procedure, sections 2016-2036.

(by the way, issuing subpoenas is not something I do, nor is this an area where I have any expertise, so what I have posted above may need to be checked for accuracy ;))
 
Last edited:

knowledgesearch

Junior Member
Quincy,

Here is the first thing that popped up when I searched on rogatory. If the author is correct, using this procedure is not the best way for me to proceed as this could easily take months or forever:

Lawmall(tm) Court Reform Proposal - Eliminate Letters Rogatory and Commissions
For example, when I bring an action in New York with witnesses in New York and California, it is easy to serve and enforce a subpoena in New York (the forum state). I merely fill out the form of subpoena, give it to a process server, and wait for the process server's return of service (stating under oath that the subpoena was served on a particular person at a specified time, date and place).

However, in the case of one or more California witnesses, I have to do the following (and sometimes have to do the following more than one time in a single action) to obtain and enforce letters rogatory or a commission (to obtain issuance of the needed subpoenaes):


1. Prepare a proposed motion to be made in the New York court requesting the Court to enter an order appointing me or someone else (or even multiple persons) as a "commission" or recipient(s) of "letters rogatory" to go to the California Courts and under the doctrine of "comity" between the two state court systems issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum at the request of the commission or holder of the letters rogatory. Such motion would normally consist of
(i) a notice of motion,

(ii) one or more supporting affidavits or affirmations showing the need for the issuance of the requested California subpoenaes and the names of the persons in whose favor the commission or letters rogatory is to be issued by the New York court, including any supporting exhibits,

(iii) a form of proposed commission or letters rogatory,

(iv) a memorandum of law in support of the motion (prepare your own based on the relevant state law),

(v) a form of court order for the judge in New York to sign,

(vi) appropriate blue backs and covers, and

(vii) an affidavit of service for such motion papers on the opposing lawyer in the New York action (a simple document not necessary to provide herein).

The length of time to do this is often weeks, months or never, because of the requirements which follow. Let's assume that we decide to obtain the California subpoena on January 1st, and that in one week (i.e., by January 8th) I have figured out (through legal research and asking other lawyers) what to do and have discussed and obtained approval for the comparatively high costs of the procedures involved.


2. Consulting with the clerk of the appropriate court in New York to decide what the clerk's (or judge's) requirements are for such a motion, to avoid having to come back again. This can take about 4 hours' time, especially when it is felt necessary to take a trip to the New York court to obtain a copy of the (almost inadequate, irrelevant, obsolete) form which the court clerk (thankfully) makes available to you. I don't have the luxury of a managing clerk's office or paralegal staff to do my running around therefore I have to wait a week before I can take off several hours to go to court. This step (which is intertwined with the activities in step 1 above) takes me up to January 15th.

3. Preparing and sending a letter to the opponent, together with a copy of the foregoing motion papers, requesting that the opponent consent to the proposed motion and suggest any changes in the motion papers which he/she may wish in order to obtain the opponent's consent in advance to the motion. Obtaining this consent and any requested changes can take anywhere from one week, to several months, to never (which means that the party seeking the California subpoena is much better off making the motion without sending an advance copy of the motion papers to the opponent and making his/her apology to the opponent for "forgetting" to do so at a later time). Although the letter and copy of motion papers would be sent on January 9th, the opponent may well take one month to respond (i.e., to throw a deliberate delaying block into my efforts to hopefully prevent the California subpoena and deposition in its entirety). Thus, this step may well be completed on February 15th.

4. Updating the motion papers with new dates and any corrections or changes (considered appropriate by myself and/or my opponent) and serving a copy of such papers on my opponent by hand (to cut down the waiting period by 5 days which occurs when motion papers are mailed instead of hand-delivered). This step could be completed one week later (due to other things I have to do with higher priority), or by February 22nd. See NY CPLR Rule 2103(b)(2) for the 5-day rule.

5. The motion itself has to be noticed in the New York Courts to be heard by the Court at least 5 business days after the date of service upon the opponent (or 10 actual days if the motion is served by mail). Also, the specific judge assigned to the case (if any) may have motion requirements which require the motion to be made (even without mailing) about 10 days after the date the motion is ready to be served. Also, the opponent and even myself may not be able to go to court on the earliest date available under the rules of the Court and any specific judge assigned to the case. With all these problems of motion timing, I assume that the motion will actually be heard, after one adjournment (sought for no good reason by the opposing party) in one month after the date of service on the opponent, or on March 22nd, or if this is the first time for any judicial involvement in the case, and other papers have to be prepared, served and filed seeking judicial intervention, and the judge has to be appointed, with all of the necessary delays to accomplish this, and for the motion papers to actually reach the newly-assigned judge, the motion will probably be heard on April 22nd, which is the date I will use hereinafter.

6. After the lawyers for the parties have appeared in Court to argue the motion for the issuance of a commission or "letters rogatory", the Court takes whatever time it wishes to take in deciding the motion (even if the motion is consented to by the opposing party). Thus, the judge might take 30 to 60 days to actually read the motion papers (because he has hundreds of others to decide before he gets to this motion), which means that we get our (hopefully favorable) decision on the motion on June 22nd.

7. After the parties obtain a copy of the decision, I have to prepare, serve and file a notice of entry of order (to start the time running for any interim appeal by the opponent as to the assumed grant of the order by the court) and prepare and obtain a certified copy of the Court's order, for use in the California courts. I assume this will take me another week, or by June 29th.

8. After the order is prepared, I have to hire and (either I or the client has to) pay for an attorney in California to represent my client and me (as holder of the commission or letters rogatory) to assist me in obtain the appropriate order(s) from the California court. This will take about 2-3 weeks, often because of the insistence of the California law firm in having a fee agreement signed by me as well as my several clients, which is time-consuming, including the need by California counsel for an original copy of the fee agreement signed by all of my clients. Thus, the date at which we have local counsel is by July 20th.

9. Meanwhile, I haven't been wasting time. I have been looking up California law and have been preparing a set of motion papers (to be reviewed and approved by California counsel) which would request the California court to order issuance and service of the subpoenaes upon one or more California witnesses. This paperwork will be done as much as I can do without aid of California counsel by July 20th.

10. Now, my California counsel take my papers, do any legal research they need to do, and make suggested changes in my proposed motion papers, and finally, within two weeks or so have the motion papers drafted and presented to me for review. This is done by August 3rd, I assume.

11. I review these papers, and suggest any changes, and obtain whatever signatures on affidavits which are needed for the California courts, and get these papers (in their original form) back to the California counsel, in 2 weeks, or by August 17th.

12. The California counsel then ...
13. The return date for the motion is August 31st, I assume.

14. There will probably be no opposition to the motion or application,

15. I will be advised on September 14th that we can proceed with issuance of the subpoena on the California witness(es), and either I or the California counsel will prepare a California subpoena, give it to a local process server in California for service, and wait for the return of service. This should take place in 2 weeks, or by September 28th.

16. The noticed deposition (or at least the 1st noticed deposition) will have been scheduled for October 10th or so, but the witness and/or his lawyer will not be able to make this date, or the next date, and the deposition, if we're lucky, will take place on November 10th, almost 10-1/2 months from the day I decided to take the California deposition.
17. Another time-consumer is the provision in the Clerk's form of order which requires that documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum outside the State of New York be produced to the Clerk of the Court in New York, who then presumably forwards such documents to the party seeking the out-of-state discovery. I shudder to think how long this might take, but let's say that we can expect to get the documents by December 31st, exactly one year after we decided to take the deposition.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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