In Decastro v. Kavadia (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2004), defendant in the long-closed case asked the Court to "'remove [] posts' about this case from the New York Post's website and online legal databases such as Justia, eDiscovery Assistant, Casetext, and Leagle," on the grounds that "these posts are 'damaging [his] name' and 'affecting [his] life and career.'" No, said Judge Jesse Furman (S.D.N.Y.):
To the extent that Kavadia asks the Court to order that public reporting about this case be removed from the Internet, such an order would blatantly violate the First Amendment. To the extent that Kavadia's request can be construed as a request to seal the record of this case, it is without merit, both because the proverbial cat is well out of the bag and because Kavadia's embarrassment does not overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access that applies here…. "Generalized concerns of adverse publicity do not outweigh the presumption of access." …
Quite right, and I think clearly so under U.S. law, though some court decisions in past cases had granted such remedies (at least initially), see, e.g., here, here, and here. Here is a taste of the factual backstory in the case, from the opening paragraph of the Casetext opinion:
At the heart of this case, which was tried to a jury in March 2017, lies a dispute over the ownership of fourteen uncut diamonds. At the time of trial, the parties apparently believed that the diamonds, purportedly of museum quality, were worth approximately $35 million, but it now appears that they are worth a small fraction of that amount. Now pending is a narrower dispute over who has priority with respect to proceeds from the sale of the diamonds. The issue arises because, on November 11, 2017, the Court granted the unopposed motion of Matthew Harris, Esq., to withdraw as counsel to Plaintiffs …. On March 11, 2018, Harris filed a motion to enforce an attorney's charging lien against DeCastro pursuant to Section 475 of the New York Judiciary Law, essentially arguing that he should be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the diamonds before anyone other than the third-party custodian that has been holding the diamonds at the Court's direction….
And here is the core of Kavadia's request; as you might gather, he is not represented by counsel here:
[T]he case is still showing on Google and on justia and this is damaging my name and I cannot do anything after so many years.
Sir this case shows that there was 35 million dollars worth of diamonds that I scammed from an African mining company.
Sir, as per the judgment also the total diamonds value was not more than 40000$.
Also my company has paid over us$400000 to this mining company and they have given these diamonds to us that were not even worth 40000$ when liquidation.
Sir we lost over 400000.00 plus it appears that I scammed 35 million as per the allegations and press release and till today this is affecting my life and career .
Sir I humbly request please issue an order to remove these posts from the websites so I can live peacefully and can build my career.
I have no other lawsuits and judgements against me and this is affecting my life miserably. The African company was defaulter and was the biggest fraud and left the country and has no existence in the USA anymore….
The post No Right to Be Forgotten for Defendant in Civil Case appeared first on Reason.com.
