Someone Trying to Vanish My Post About a No-Pseudonymity Decision
[1.] First, the backstory: In December, I posted an item about a decision by Judge Jeannette Vargas (S.D.N.Y.) in Finley v. Przybylowski:
Plaintiff and Defendant are attorneys who met seven years ago as summer associates at different prominent law firms in New York City…. [Plaintiff] alleges that Defendant violently raped and sexually assaulted her on the night they met, causing her physical, professional, and psychological damage. Defendant denies all allegations of nonconsensual conduct…. Defendant claims that he and Plaintiff engaged in consensual sexual activity in May 2018. Defendant attests that he was "terminated from [his] employment with a top law firm on October 13, 2025 as a result of the Plaintiff's Complaint and false allegations," and that he fears that it would be "nearly impossible" to obtain employment with his name attached to this lawsuit, He also claims to fear that his physical safety could be placed at risk….
Defendant sought to proceed under a pseudonym, but the court said no:
[T]he economic and reputational harms that Defendant has faced and may face as a party to this action, substantial though they may be, are outweighed by the public interest in access to judicial proceedings….
I excerpted more of the opinion, which you can read here. Naturally, one can agree or disagree with the court's decision to deny pseudonymity, but in any event, my post passed along that decision.
[2.] Then, on July 22, Przybylowski's lawyer (a partner at a small but prominent law firm) sent a letter to Reason, with a "demand" that the post be removed:
Following publication of the Article, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the underlying action with prejudice. In light of the sensitive nature of the allegations, the Court also ordered that the filings containing those allegations be sealed. A copy of the Court's order is enclosed as Exhibit B. Because the allegations referenced in the Article have been dismissed with prejudice and the underlying filings have been sealed by the Court, they are no longer part of the public record. Nevertheless, the Article continues to republish and disseminate those allegations, causing ongoing harm to our client.
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE that you remove the Article and all statements referencing the dismissed and sealed allegations in their entirety no later than July 27, 2026. While our client hopes this matter can be resolved promptly and amicably, he is prepared to pursue all available legal remedies to mitigate and remedy the harm caused by the continued publication and dissemination of these allegations, including seeking appropriate injunctive relief and recovery of all damages and other relief available under applicable law.
But while the District Court did order (incorrectly, I think) the sealing of some of the court filings, it expressly refused to seal its orders and opinions, including the opinion that I was quoting:
[T]he motion to seal the docket in its entirety would have the Court shield from public view decisions already rendered by this Court, which are at the core of the performance of the judicial function. The parties' privacy interests are insufficient to justify the sealing of judicial orders and opinions.
I therefore promptly and amicably declined to go along with counsel's demand. Even if the opinion had been retroactively sealed, I believe I would have been within my rights to keep up my post quoting the opinion, under cases such as Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989). But given that the opinion wasn't sealed—again, the court expressly declined to seal it—it's hard to see how I could be subjected to an injunction or damages by keeping up a post that was reporting on its contents. (Note that the judge had struck from the docket one opinion that she had released on April 15, because she had learned the same day that the parties had "agreed to a settlement in principle" the day before; but that is not the opinion that I was quoting.) And indeed no "legal remedies" have been sought against me since my refusal.
[3.] But someone (I don't know who) has sought to do something else about my post since that refusal: A few days ago, the Lumen Database reported that Google had received a request that it "deindex" various web pages, which is to say remove them from its search results. Those pages include my post about the case, a Bloomberg Law article about the case, and several pages that archived opinions about the case or dockets for the case:
- https://app.midpage.ai/case/finley-v-[REDACTED]-11062084
- https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv04383/643215/26/0.pdf
- https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv04383/643215
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv04383/643215/28/
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv04383/643215/39/
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv04383/643215/45/
- https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/ex-pomerantz-associate-denied-anonymity-in-rape-suit-against-him
- https://reason.com/volokh/2025/12/15/no-pseudonymity-for-civil-defendant-accused-of-sexual-assault/
- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.643215/gov.uscourts.nysd.643215.28.0.pdf
- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/69e3b6332e996410bea78ed5
- https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1-25-cv-04383/Finley_v_[REDACTED]/
- https://www.law360.com/cases/6830d818a5043482d2376c05
- https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20260317c21
- https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20260416d22
- https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/58203472/Finley_v_[REDACTED]
There is of course no legal basis mandating the removal of these materials, nor do I see any justification in Google policies for its deindexing those sites voluntarily (as it is generally free to do). And to my knowledge, the attempt to vanish those sites has failed: I don't think Google has indeed deindexed them.
Again, the Lumen entry does not indicate who submitted the deindexing request. Still, someone did submit it, and it strikes me as a helpful illustration of how people, whoever they may be, try—even if often without success—to get matters (even matters of public record) hidden from online viewers. For more posts on this general subject, see here.
I e-mailed Przybylowski's lawyer (see item 2 above) Thursday night and again Sunday to ask whether he, his colleagues, or his client had a statement on the matter. I have not heard back from them; if I do hear something, I'll update the post accordingly.