The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Free Speech

Overbroad Injunction Used to Try to Vanish Articles About Daughter's Property Lawsuit Against Father

A court order, in Kelly Hyman v. Alex Daoud, on its face seems to command all Internet services to remove material that mentions the daughter (Kelly Hyman), or her husband (retired federal bankruptcy judge Paul Hyman).


Alex Daoud had been mayor of Miami Beach from 1985 to 1991, but was then convicted of bribery and various other charges. Some years later, he arranged a real estate deal together with his daughter, Kelly Hyman (a lawyer and occasional political commentator)—but that went bad, and led her to sue him. The case dragged on for years, and unsurprisingly got a good deal of media coverage, such as in the Miami Herald, on the local CBS affiliate, and in the Real Deal (South Florida Real Estate News).

Hyman also alleged that Daoud or people working with him had posted various derogatory things about Hyman and her family (which includes her husband Paul Hyman, a retired federal bankruptcy judge), at sites named "," "," "," and the like. As a result, the parties entered into an Agreed Order to Take Down Internet Posting Related to Kelly Hyman, Paul G. Hyman, Jr., [and other family members], in which Daoud was ordered to remove such posts.

So far, that's fine; parties are generally entitled to enter into such agreements. But here's the twist: After imposing the obligations on Daoud (who was a party to the agreement), the order went on to purport to bind third parties, who weren't parties (and to my knowledge weren't even notified that their rights were being adjudicated):

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that within ten (10) of being furnished a copy of this Order any internet-related services, internet service provider, host provider and/or search engine shall

remove and cause to be removed from any Site (including the web sites themselves and all URLS and links, even if they change) all statements, posts, social media, or videos or documents related to directly or indirectly to this lawsuit, and/or [the Hymans] and/or any website or posting defamatory, slander, or any statements against [the Hymans] … including, but not limited to the Sites [listed earlier in the order].

remove and cause to be removed any derogatory references to Kelly Hyman including, but not limited to any reference to Hyman as an "adulteress," "blackmailer," "whore," "despicable," "liar," and/or any derogatory and/or negative comment about Kelly Hyman.

remove or cause to be removed any derogatory reference to Paul G. Hyman, Jr., including, but not limited to any reference to him as "prenup paul," any judicial complaint and/or any derogatory comment about him including but not limited to any alleged misconduct.

remove and cause to be removed statements, documents, videos, and/or postings about this lawsuit, Kelly Hyman v. Arnold Daoud; related to the house located at 1750 Michigan Ave, Miami Beach, Florida; any communication between Kelly Hyman and Arnold "Alex" Daoud; and/or any libelous, defamatory, and/or slanderous websites, videos, internet posts and/or social media posts about [the Hymans], which was or is created directly or indirectly by Daoud.

And Google has indeed been asked, on the strength of this order, to deindex not just items that may have been posted by Daoud, but also mainstream media articles (see here and here):
https ://

And Google was also asked to deindex two items that criticize Judge Paul Hyman, which do not appear to be linked to Daoud, and which in any case consist of copies of documents filed in other matters:

This appears to be the court's fully approving an order proposed by Ms. Hyman's lawyers.

I expect that Google will see through this, and will realize that it's not actually bound by the order (despite what the order says), because it had never been made a party to the case (and wasn't acting in concert with a party). And I expect that Google will also conclude that it shouldn't deindex the mainstream media pages (and the criticisms of Judge Hyman) even voluntarily, because there's no basis for thinking that there's anything false and defamatory there.

Still, I think the court erred in approving the overbroad agreed order, which on its face purports to bind entities that had never agreed to it. (I have e-mailed Kelly Hyman and her lawyers to get their side of the story, but haven't heard back from them.) [UPDATE: See here for an odd response I got from one of the lawyers after I put up this post.]