|
|
|
The Lawzilla Blog contains thousands of posts - mostly court rulings.
Although the rulings and other information obtained from the courts are public records, we have had a couple people ask that posts be removed because they did not like what happened in their case.
In one case the court had made the first ruling in the state we were aware of about a new law, and it cost her attorney about $144,000 in fees.
In the other case the person sued, received a massive lawsuit in response, and ended up paying six figures in damages, punitive damages, and then had a criminal action filed against them.
Both requests seemed especially newsworthy and we do not want to be caught-up in ongoing battles between people already fighting in court, so we have created this FAQ page and policies.
Where does the information on the blog come from? Public government and court records. The information we post on our blog is copied from files that are already a public record. We do not have any special access to information that you do not have. The information is not confidential or private. Our reporting and publication of government records is protected by the First Amendment.
What about the European Union GDPR - General Data Protection Regulation? It does not apply. We publish records from government entities in the United States and not EU data. European citizens cannot demand that their information be removed from United States courts. Even in the EU the GDPR does not require that information in official government records be expunged or prohibited from republication.
What about the California Consumer Privacy Act? - It does not apply. The Lawzilla.com website is not registered in the United States and its server is not located in California. We do not meet the financial requirements (eg large corporations) the law targets. We do not buy or sell any consumer data. Most importantly, we do not collect personal information from California consumers. The fact your name or information about you is included in a court order or government website means that information is public. The California law does not give anyone the right to demand the government delete information about you and it does not grant a right to demand anyone delete a copy of government information. The CCPA does not give individuals the right to sue for damages. The First Amendment also preempts any attempt to use the privacy law as a tool for censorship.
Why was my case chosen? We are publishing government records. The value of our compilation grows as more data is added for research purposes, to see how laws are enforced, to identify legal trends, uncover bad attorneys, judges making bad rulings, and so on.
How can I prevent the government from releasing my information? If you are concerned about what information government entities have and publicly release, our value is highlighting what is available, and you can seek to make changes in the laws. For example, we are appalled by pervert judges who publicly report rape victims names and intimate details of their sexual assault in graphic detail, and would like to see more protection of sex crime victims.
If you believe information in a public government court record is private then you should consider applying to the court to have it sealed.
What is an "unpublished" ruling? Some appellate rulings in California are important enough that they are published in "official" books and given citations so they can be referenced as the law in future cases. Most rulings do not create new law and instead of having thousands of opinions saying the same thing they are "unpublished". They are still public opinions, publicly available, part of the public case record and 'published' in the ordinary use of that word, but they are not certified to be printed in official books. Although not given a unique citation for use in other cases, unpublished opinions can still be a valuable legal research tool and give insight into how appellate judges may rule in similar cases. As stated by the Judicial Council of California:
The Unsettled Law of Forcing Signed Medical Release Forms
In Los Angeles County a judge sanctioned an attorney because he brought a motion to require a party to sign a medical records release. The judge said forcing someone to sign a release is not an authorized form of discovery in California, and it was sanctionable conduct to try and do that. See order in Villasenor case.
About two weeks later a different judge in another case involving the same issue reached the opposite conclusion, and ordered the party to sign a document releasing their medical records. Ironically, that order by implication included potential sanctions if the medical release form was not signed. See Jane Doe case.
Another Los Angeles judge said sometimes an authorization can be compelled, but not always, and sanctioned the plaintiff for blocking records by not signing an authorization. See Baty case.
What is going on? Discovery issues rarely are appealed so the appellate courts have not addressed the issue. The Los Angeles County trial judges may not even know they are reaching different opinions on the same issue. It was only through our continual review of court records this discrepancy became apparent.
Sanctions Vary by County
In Sacramento County if a discovery motion is not opposed the judge will refuse to award sanctions. Sacramento judges rule sanctions are not permitted in this situation.
On the other hand, in literally every other county where we have seen sanctions motions the judge will award sanctions against the party not opposing a motion. It is tantamount to a concession their conduct was improper.
What is going on? Again, discovery issues are rarely appealed so this major discrepancy has arisen between counties about the handling of discovery motions.
Some Attorneys are Sanctions Machines
We have been surprised at how often the same attorneys are repeatedly sanctioned. Not just sanctioned, but sanctioned for the same misconduct over and over.
As a result we started compiling attorney pages and have seen some lawyers repeatedly being sanctioned.
If you are looking to retain an attorney you may want to ask how often they have been sanctioned before the judge where issues in your case may be decided.
$1021.50 per Hour is a Reasonable Attorney Fee
How would you like to get paid $1021.50 per hour?
In this case that is what an attorney charged and the judge said it was a reasonable amount.
Few Women Have Drunk Driving Cases
We have been compiling criminal cases, in particular drunk driving matters, and an issue that quickly arose from the data is how few cases involve women.
Although a slight majority of the population is female, an overwhelming large percentage of drunk driving arrests involve men.
Gender data is not included in the criminal records, but from reviewing names which are typically considered female versus male it appears 80 percent or more of drunk driving / driving while intoxicated cases involve males.
So far our data, though, only encompasses one California County and is from the year 2000. It may be old but we need a baseline to eventually compare current statistics.
Many Drunk Drivers are Driving on a Suspended License
Using our criminal case compilation of drunk driving cases we have been putting data in a spreadsheet for further analysis. One surprising data point is the number of persons charged with drunk driving and driving on a suspended license.
A small data sample revealed more than 20 percent of drunk drivers were driving while their license was already suspended. However, virtually all of these drivers pled no contest to a charge of driving under the influence and in return the government dismissed the suspended license charge.
Plaintiff Attempts to Scam Court With Fake Proofs of Service on Defendants
A plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident sued in small claims court but it was dismissed. She then filed a lawsuit in Yolo County but the case was dismissed for lack of service. She then sued in Sacramento County and craziness ensued.
In a series of a half-dozen orders the Sacramento judge indicated proofs of service of the lawsuit on defendants were likely fake and fabricated. Someone had used information about real process servers they found on the Internet and used it to create fake but valid looking proofs of service. The judge said declarations from the so-called process servers were unworthy of any credence, contained typos of their own name, could not describe the claimed service, claimed to have used a $5 service on Fiverr, etc. The judge put the names in declarations plaintiff provided from process servers in quotes to suggest they were not real. One sample ruling from the judge.
Since some have wanted to have their public case information removed from our site we have created this policy.
Lawzilla does not remove public court records from our site, or any site. We also do not care to be drawn into ongoing battles between litigants where case comments become an extension of lawsuit claims.
Lawzilla used to have an "Own the Page" policy which could be used to remove some cases or comments, but instead of seeking a reasonable compromise idiots would rather be idiots. It isn't worth our time so public information is not removed.
Please Don't Be a Jerk
Sometimes a person does not like how a judge ruled and they threaten us for publishing the judge's ruling.
Chill. Don't blame us. The court has already publicly published the ruling.
If you are abusive we may block your access to the website.
Be careful. You could end up on the wrong end of a criminal or civil lawsuit for threats, wrongful access to the website, or other claims.