Texas Appeals Court Vacates Order Commanding Google To Hunt Down Third Party Content And Destroy It

from the violating-both-due-process-and-the-realm-of-possibility dept

Tue, Jun 10th 2014 10:09am — Tim Cushing

Back in April, a Texas district court judge (well, a "visiting judge") ordered Google to do the following:

The gag order, signed by visiting San Antonio Judge Richard Price in February 2013, forces Google and other search engines to wipe out all record of the allegations from the Internet. It also compels the search engine to find third parties who posted the information to get it back and destroy it.

This was to be done on behalf of Calvin C. Jackson, an attorney who was accused of forging signatures on court records. It's unknown whether the judge actually read what he was signing or if he did, whether he recognized how completely ridiculous the request was. Google may index the web and hold a commanding lead in the search engine market, but it certainly doesn't have the ability to demand third parties turn over and/or destroy content.

That the whole thing took place under seal and out of the public eye made it even more ridiculous. The court order demanding the impossible was also placed under seal, presumably to protect Jackson from being further linked to the allegations he was trying to bury. We can all see how well that worked out.

Now, a Texas appeals court has released Google from having to do things it's not capable of. The court decision isn't predicated on Google's inability to carry out Jackson's demands. Instead, it hinges on the fact that Google should never have been part of the whole debacle.

The order identified Google as an entity to whom the order must be sent. The order further required all identified recipients to expunge or destroy all records relating to the action other than certain, specifically identified records….

Constitutional due process requires a party to be served with process and to receive notice of an action to which it is an interested party. A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void…

It is clear from the record that Google was never named as a party to the suit, was never served with process, never waived or accepted process, and never made an appearance in the suit before the expunction order was entered. Nothing in the record establishes that Google stands in privity to the commission or to Jackson. Accordingly, we hold that Google was not a party to the suit and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders against Google.

As Eugene Volokh notes, this seems obvious enough. But it wasn't obvious to the lower court which ordered Google to go door-to-door around the internet with a paper shredder in tow.

Beyond the normal First Amendment ramifications, there's also the fact that Jackson was effectively asking the court (and Google by extension) to destroy public records. The allegations against Jackson weren't simply blog posts or newspaper articles. These allegations were part of a lawsuit brought against the attorney (the same lawsuit that didn't include Google). Public records can be expunged, but that's limited to what the court itself directly controls. Anything already posted to the internet is out of its reach. Calvin Jackson's quest for an allegation-free existence is futile, and every additional legal effort seems to place it just that much further out of reach.

Googleexpunctionorder (PDF)Googleexpunctionorder (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: calvin c. jackson, calvin jackson, richard price, right to be forgotten, texas, third parties
Companies: google

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

S. T. Stone, 10 Jun 2014 @ 10:22am

Perhaps he should sue Barbara Streisand next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2014 @ 10:25am
  
  Re:
  That bitch has a nasty effect! I say go for it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 10 Jun 2014 @ 10:26am

"visiting judge"
Well, I suppose if the judge is visiting from the EU, they may think it's possible for Google to make things disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2014 @ 10:27am

This was to be done on behalf of Calvin C. Jackson, an attorney who was accused of forging signatures on court records. It's unknown whether the judge actually read what he was signing or if he did, whether he recognized how completely ridiculous the request was.
Obvious question: is it at least known that the judge signed the order, as opposed to Calvin C. Jackson forging a judge's signature on the order? If he is already allegedly forging signatures on court records, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who cares (profile), 10 Jun 2014 @ 10:49am

Can someone take a trip to the EU
There is a court here that needs to be explained that they did something like that with their mind boggling implementation of the right to be forgotten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2014 @ 11:01am
  
  Re: Can someone take a trip to the EU
  At least the EU court ordered Google to do the possible, not link to identified URLs. That is infinitely more doable that going round the world and ordering that the pages linked to by the URLs are removed from the web.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2014 @ 3:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Can someone take a trip to the EU
    Just wait until the Streisand Effect search engine appears. It compares all Google EU results to Google US results and highlights the differences removed by the forgotten in the EU.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digital Droid, 10 Jun 2014 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re: Can someone take a trip to the EU
  Leave it to the EU to complicate things. Remember their cookie directive?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorrykb (profile), 10 Jun 2014 @ 10:56am

One point for Sanity
It's a pity the ruling didn't incorporate the fact that Google is not the internet. But, still, a victory.

On an unrelated note...
ordered Google to go door-to-door around the internet with a paper shredder in tow.
[knock] "Land Shark! I mean, Google!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 10 Jun 2014 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: One point for Sanity
  They cannot just "rule" that Google isn't the internet. That would be like ruling that the Earth is not round or that James Clapper is not a liar.
  
  Rulings cannot change reality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - S. T. Stone, 10 Jun 2014 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re: One point for Sanity
    In what reality do you live in where Google controls the entire Internet?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 10 Jun 2014 @ 11:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: One point for Sanity
      Google controls the entire Internet
      
      That's not what I said. I said Google IS the Internet. Get it straight - one in the same - live with it.
      
      When did everyone's sarcasm meter break?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jackn, 10 Jun 2014 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One point for Sanity
        Meters are working fine. Perhaps your sacasm generator is broke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Bergman (profile), 10 Jun 2014 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One point for Sanity
        Perhaps because you used the word "isn't" in your pist, which has the opposite meaning from the word "is" that you now claim you used?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorrykb (profile), 10 Jun 2014 @ 11:15am

Michael wrote:
They cannot just "rule" that Google isn't the internet.

I was thinking (wishfully) more along the lines of a "BTW, idiots..." about facts included along with the ruling on law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka (profile), 10 Jun 2014 @ 11:32am

Doesn't Calvin C. Jackson realize that he has now enabled the Streisand Effect which will prompts everyone with access to the internet to start posting the 'allegations' on as many websites as they possibly can?

LOLS

STREISAND EFFECT IS A GO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2014 @ 11:39am

Due Process

" A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void� "

Hmmm...where else might this be appropriate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2014 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re: Due Process
  " A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void� "
  
  That depends upon how much process you are "due", which depends nowadays on how deep your pockets are. Google has deep pockets. Myself, not so much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 10 Jun 2014 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re: Due Process
  waterboarding is a process, isn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2014 @ 8:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Due Process
    "waterboarding is a process, isn't it?"
    
    Ah, now I understand the new "government lawyer approved" meaning of "due process".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Cressman, 10 Jun 2014 @ 12:23pm

John
"Calvin Jackson's quest for an allegation-free existence is futile, and every additional legal effort seems to place it just that much further out of reach."

Unless he lives in Europe! Home of Nazi's, Book burnings, Inquisitions and... Google Gags!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2014 @ 8:25pm
  
  Re: John
  "Unless he lives in Europe! Home of Nazi's, Book burnings, Inquisitions and... "
  
  Those are things I would imagine plenty of Europeans want forgotten. Expect them to soon start demanding that Google delete links to sites mentioning those things. It's their right now!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - kenichi tanaka (profile), 11 Jun 2014 @ 4:06pm
    
    Re: Re: John
    AC, that wouldn't work because the request for a link to be removed must be a link in reference of a specific person. NAZI links regarding the Holocaust cannot be removed, to do so would encourage many to believe that the Holocaust didn;t actually happen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2014 @ 7:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: John
      "NAZI links regarding the Holocaust cannot be removed, to do so would encourage many to believe that the Holocaust didn;t actually happen."
      
      I see. So to make a something that Google cannot remove, all you have to do mention NAZI and Holocaust in and it will be bulletproof. Interesting theory you have there. Got anything to back it up?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
KRA, 10 Jun 2014 @ 3:01pm

Is it me or are lower court judges generally provincial and/or ignorant about the law and/or flagrantly corrupt with no fear of consequences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bergman (profile), 10 Jun 2014 @ 4:27pm

To comply with the order Google would have had to violate the CFAA too -- wouldn't being ordered to commit hundreds if not thousands of felonies void the order?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]