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:
