By Weiler v. Google LLCdecided 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 from 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 defamation claim.
On October 23, 2017, Weiler sued the Internal Revenue Service in a dispute over his federal income taxes. The documents related to the lawsuit were publicly available on Pacer, the federal court’s electronic filing system. Weiler subsequently appealed the decision of his federal lawsuit on August 1, 2019. During the four years that followed, Weiler had difficulty finding work. Ultimately, he learned from a recruiter that a potential employer declined to hire him because an Internet search for his name revealed the lawsuit and appeal against the government.
Weiler conducted his own Internet search for his name, using 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 relevant part, Weiler alleged that Google recklessly indexes websites without considering the consequences of search results. Weiler claims that Pacer allows Google to return search results from its website without his consent, thus granting access to his personal, sensitive information. As a result, Weiler’s reputation has been damaged and he has been unable to find a suitable job….
The subject of Weiler’s defamation claim here are the court documents relating to his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The procedural documents in particular are usually public. Weiler claims that public access to this information has affected his employment prospects. Due to widespread public access to his lawsuit information, Weiler argues that falsity is not required to prove his defamation claim. We disagree.
“’Truth is an absolute defense against a claim of defamation.’”… [F]facilitating public access to Weiler’s information that may be unfavorable, while truthful, is not defamation. Since Weiler fails to allege a false statement by Appellees, his claim of defamation fails….
Because Weiler has failed to allege the falsity, he cannot prove his underlying claims. Therefore, the court did not err when it denied Weiler’s request 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. Rijnhart and Raika N. Casey (Faruki PLL); and Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP, and John C. Greiner.