From Weiler v. Google LLC, decided yesterday by the Ohio Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Emanuella Groves, joined by Judges Michelle J. Sheehan and Sean C. Gallagher:
Shawn Weiler … appeals the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Google LLC …; Portfolio Media, Inc., Justia, Unicourt Inc., Free Law Project, and Casetext, Inc., on his claim for libel.
On October 23, 2017, Weiler sued the Internal Revenue Service … in a dispute over his federal income tax. The records pertaining to the lawsuit were publicly available on Pacer, the federal court’s electronic filing system. Weiler subsequently appealed the decision from his federal suit on August 1, 2019. During the four years that followed, Weiler had difficulty finding employment. He eventually learned from a job recruiter that a potential employer refused to hire him because an internet search of his name revealed the lawsuit and appeal against the government.
Weiler conducted his own internet search of his name, utilizing the Google search engine. The search returned the results of his federal lawsuit on several websites. Weiler attempted to remove any reference to the lawsuit from online public access….
In pertinent part, Weiler alleged that Google recklessly indexes websites with no regard for the consequences of its search results. Weiler claims that Pacer allows Google to return search results from its website without his permission, allowing access to his personal, sensitive information. As a result, Weiler’s reputation has been damaged and he has been unable to obtain suitable employment….
Here, the subject of Weiler’s libel claim are the court documents regarding his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. Notably, case documents are generally open to the public. Weiler claims public access to this information has affected his employment prospects. Due to the widespread public access to his lawsuit information, Weiler argues that falsity is not required to prove his libel claim. We disagree.
“‘Truth is an absolute defense against a claim of defamation.'” … [F]acilitating public access to Weiler’s information that may be unfavorable, although truthful, is not defamation. Given Weiler’s failure to allege any false statement made by Appellees, his claim of defamation fails….
Since Weiler failed to allege falsity, he cannot prevail on his underlying claims. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied Weiler’s motion for a temporary restraining order….
Defendants were represented by Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP and James A. Wilson; Karey E. Werner, Raymond V. Vasvari, Jr., and K. Ann Zimmerman (Vasvari | Zimmerman); Erin E. Rhinehart and Raika N. Casey (Faruki PLL); and Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP, and John C. Greiner.
The post No, Court Won’t Order Removal of Online Copies of the Decision in Your Online Case, Even if appeared first on Reason.com.
