Court Vacates Order That Apparently Called for Vanishing of My (and Others’) Posts About Hyman v. Daoud
From today’s Order Vacating in Part and Clarifying Order of Mar. 13, 2024 (responding to a motion filed Friday on my behalf by Marc Randazza and Kylie Werk of the Randazza Legal Group, PLLC):
ORDER VACATING IN PART AND CLARIFYING ORDER OF MARCH 13, 2024
This action came before the Court on NON-PARTY EUGENE VOLOKH’S MOTION [D.E. 48] TO INTERVENE AND FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER.
The Motion is granted. The order docketed March 13, 2024 is hereby vacated to the extent it can be read or interpreted to apply to anyone other than the parties to this action. It is expressly vacated to the extent it purports to order Mr. Volokh to take any action—or to refrain from taking any action. The order shall be interpreted to only apply to Defendant Arnold Daoud, or anyone acting at his direction. The order does not apply to anyone who is not a party to this action; to be clear, this includes any non-party who has or may write about this action or the filings docketed in this action, or both.
The March 13 order had said, among other things,
1. This order requires the taking down or deletion or deindexing the following links on the internet:
http://conlinpa.com/2016/04/03/hyman-v-daoud/
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/notorious-father-faces-eviction-by-daughter/
Hyman v. Daoud: A family feud over corporate ownership and control
[Many more URLs, including several of mine. -EV] …
2. Within ten (10) days of being furnished a copy of this Order, any internet-related services, internet service provider, host provider and/or search engine shall
i. remove and cause to be removed and/or deindexed from the internet the links above; and/or
ii. 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 Kelly Hyman, Paul G. Hyman, Jr., Kaylee Hyman and Zachary Hyman and/or any website or posting defamatory, slander, or any statements against Kelly Hyman, Paul G. Hyman, Jr., Kaylee Hyman and Zachary Hyman on the internet, television, radio, print or any other forms of media including, but not limited to the Sites.
[Three other such requirements omitted. -EV]
3. Daoud, directly or indirectly, shall not create any new alias, nor use any old alias, to post, host, or make available any statement regarding Kelly Hyman, Paul G. Hyman, Jr., Kaylee Hyman and Zachary Hyman via the internet, television, radio, print or any other forms of media.
4. This Order does not modify or alter the settlement agreement of the parties or any prior order of this Court, and that the settlement agreement and all prior orders of this Court remain in full force and effect. This order along with any court documents related directly or indirectly to this matter is prohibited from being posted including, but not limited to any website, and/or social media and/or internet. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this order.
I learned about the order from this e-mail that I got Oct. 17:
[Subject] Request for Link Removal as per Court Order
Hello,
I am reaching out to request the removal of the following link from your website, as per a court order:
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/24/an-odd-response-from-one-of-the-lawyers-in-the-kelly-hyman-v-alex-daoud-case/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/14/attempt-to-vanish-my-article-about-attempt-to-vanish-my-article-about-attempt-to-vanish-other-articles/
I’ve attached a copy of the court order for you to look over. Please proceed with removing the links at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for taking the time to look into this matter.
Sincerely,
Angelina
For the reasons given in this morning’s post about the motion, I think the order couldn’t have applied to me (given Florida law) and would have been unconstitutional if it did apply to me (given the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment). But I wanted to have that made clear. Many thanks to Marc Randazza and Kylie Werk for their representing me pro bono in this case, and for getting such prompt results.
The post Court Vacates Order That Apparently Called for Vanishing of My (and Others’) Posts About <i>Hyman v. Daoud</i> appeared first on Reason.com.
