# Remove Court Records Online: What Is Possible Remove court records online: what a court can seal, redact or anonymize, what search engines only de-index, and what stays. US, England, Wales, Australia. --- You can remove a court record from the internet only by changing what the court itself holds or publishes, or by getting a site that republishes it to drop it. A court order to seal, redact or anonymize is the strongest tool, because it changes the source. Everything a search engine does is weaker: it can stop showing a page, but the record stays where it is. Court records are public by default in the United States, England and Wales, and Australia, and each system lets a judge depart from that default only on stated grounds. So the real question is which part of the file a court can restrict, who republishes it, and what each of them needs from you. This guide answers that record by record and says plainly where the answer is nothing. Rules differ by country, by state and by court, and one court's page is never the universal rule. This is information, not legal advice: a lawyer admitted where the case sits decides what to file.
The short version
## Court records are public by default, and that decides every route A court file is open to the public unless a rule or an order closes part of it. This default is called open justice, and it is why a lawsuit, a judgment or a criminal docket can turn up in search results years later. In the US federal courts, the Supreme Court has said that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute, and that a court may deny access when files could become a vehicle for improper purposes, and that courts have refused to let their files be used "to gratify private spite or promote public scandal" (Nixon v. Warner Communications, 1978, read on Justia). The judge exercises that power case by case. Records travel. A document filed in a federal court is available through PACER, the federal courts' electronic access system, which charges $0.10 per page with a $3 cap per document (PACER pricing page). Cheap access makes copies easy, and legal databases and aggregators republish what they collect. That is why the work has two layers: the court, then the republishers.
Fivefindings a California court must make before it seals a record
6 yearshow long a County Court judgment record is kept in England and Wales, per GOV.UK guidance
A court orderwhat CourtListener says it requires before removing a public document

California Rules of Court rule 2.550(d); GOV.UK guidance on County Court Judgments; Free Law Project's CourtListener content removal policy. All read for this guide.

## Four different outcomes get called "removal", and they are not the same Sealing, redaction, anonymization and de-indexing change different things, and mixing them up leads to the wrong request. **Sealing** removes a document or a whole case from public access. The court holds it, but non-parties cannot see it. Under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_5.2), a court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction, and may later unseal it or order a redacted version for the public record. **Redaction** hides specific items inside a public document. The rest of the document stays visible. A filing can show only the last four digits of a Social Security number, the year of birth, a minor's initials and the last four digits of a financial account number, unless the court orders otherwise (Rule 5.2(a)). **Anonymization** keeps the case public but removes the identity of a party or witness. In England and Wales, CPR 39.2(4) says the court must order that a person's identity not be disclosed if, and only if, it considers non-disclosure necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and to protect the interests of any person. In Australia, suppression and non-publication orders do the same work under different statutes. **De-indexing** leaves the page online and asks a search engine to stop listing it. [Google's own help page](https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/9109) says it cannot remove content from the web because it does not own the sites it lists, and that people can still reach the page by typing the URL, through social media or through other search engines. Its suggested route is to talk to the website owner. The order of strength is therefore: change the court's record, then the republisher's page, then the search result. Working only at the third level gives a smaller result than the word "removal" suggests. ## US federal courts: redaction is the filer's job and sealing needs a reason In a federal case, the privacy rules apply at the moment of filing, not afterwards. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and its criminal twin, Rule 49.1, list the identifiers that must be reduced in a public filing. The criminal rule adds the home address, which may show only city and state. First, the duty to redact belongs to the filer. The committee notes say the clerk is not required to review filings for compliance, and the District of South Carolina's public-access page says counsel and parties are solely responsible for it. Second, filing your own identifiers unredacted and unsealed waives the protection for that information (Rule 5.2(h)). A sealing or protective order is a separate request with a different test. Third, the judge has tools beyond the list. For good cause, the court may require redaction of additional information or limit or prohibit a non-party's remote electronic access to a filed document (Rule 5.2(e)). The Rule 49.1 committee note adds that certain criminal materials, such as juvenile records, presentence reports and sealed documents, should not be publicly available online or at the courthouse. Some documents are carved out: Rule 5.2(c) limits remote access in Social Security and immigration cases, and Rule 49.1(b) exempts items such as charging documents and arrest and search warrants from redaction. For a document that is already filed and visible, the practical route is a motion in that case. State what is sensitive, why the harm is specific, and why redaction would not be enough. ## US states: the same record can be closed in one state and open in the next State courts hold most of the records people want removed, and each state sets its own rules for who sees what online. California is a useful contrast, and it is only one state. California Rules of Court rule 2.550(c) starts from the presumption that court records are open unless the law requires confidentiality. Under rule 2.550(d), a court may seal a record only if it expressly finds facts showing five things: an overriding interest that outweighs the public's right of access, that the interest supports sealing, a substantial probability that the interest would be harmed without sealing, that the sealing is narrowly tailored, and that no less restrictive alternative exists. California also limits remote access to whole categories. Under [rule 2.503(c)](https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=two&linkid=rule2_503), a court may not offer public remote access to Family Code proceedings such as dissolution and custody, juvenile matters, guardianship and conservatorship, mental health proceedings, criminal proceedings, and several protective-order categories. Under rule 2.503(e), a judge may allow remote access to records in an individual criminal case only where requests for access are extraordinarily high and responding would significantly burden the court, after an individualized determination and five days' notice. Courthouse electronic access remains where feasible. Other states set different thresholds and portals, so read your state's court rules and the court's own access policy first. The transferable structure is a presumption of openness, a stated test for sealing, and separate rules for remote access. A scenario with invented parties shows the difference. A consultant is a defendant in a contract dispute that settles, and the public complaint accusing the consultant of fraud ranks under the consultant's name. In a state with a test like California's, an unflattering accusation is not an overriding interest, and a settlement does not by itself remove the complaint. The workable targets are narrow: a confidential settlement figure, a customer's account details, a medical exhibit. ## England and Wales: access rules, anonymity orders and the published judgment The civil courts of England and Wales start from open justice too. Three rules matter for a record that appears online. **Who can obtain documents.** Under [CPR 5.4C](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/rule/5.4C), a non-party may obtain a copy of a statement of case (the claim form, particulars of claim or defence), subject to conditions about the stage of the claim, but not the documents filed with or attached to it. A non-party may obtain a copy of a judgment or order made in public. Any other document needs the court's permission. On application by a party or a person named in the statement of case, the court may bar non-parties from obtaining a copy, limit who may obtain one, allow copies only if edited as the court directs, or make any other order it sees fit. The application is made under Part 23. **Hearings and identity.** CPR 39.2 says the general rule is that a hearing is in public. A hearing, or part of one, is private only if the court is satisfied that one of the listed grounds applies and that privacy is necessary for the proper administration of justice. The grounds include protecting a child or protected party and damage to confidential information, including personal financial matters. Anonymity has its own necessity test in CPR 39.2(4). Unless the court directs otherwise, a copy of a private-hearing or anonymity order is published on the Judiciary of England and Wales website, and a non-party may apply to attend the hearing, or to set the order aside or vary it. **Published judgments.** The National Archives, which runs Find Case Law, states in its privacy notice that it cannot and will not take down a judgment without instruction from the court or tribunal, and that changes to a published judgment must also come from the court or tribunal. Concerns about personal data in a judgment go to the court that issued it. The notice does not address search engine indexing. Two registers sit beside the courts. GOV.UK guidance says records of County Court Judgments are kept for 6 years unless the full amount is paid within a month, and that a judgment can be set aside in some cases, such as when you did not receive the claim. For bankruptcy, GOV.UK says the Individual Insolvency Register is updated within 3 months of discharge and that a bankruptcy can stay on a credit reference file for 6 years from its date. The guidance read does not say how long a discharged entry stays visible on the register, so confirm that before relying on a date. ## Australia: non-party access is controlled and suppression orders are statutory Federal, state and territory courts each run their own record systems, so the first step is to identify the court. The Federal Court of Australia and New South Wales are worked examples below, and neither is the rule for Queensland, Victoria or any other jurisdiction. **Access.** The Federal Court's [access practice note (GPN-ACCS)](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-accs) says non-parties can see unrestricted documents listed in rule 2.32(2) of the Federal Court Rules, such as originating applications, pleadings and reasons for judgment. Any other document is restricted, and a non-party always needs leave to inspect it. Access to any document before the first directions hearing or hearing also needs leave. Leave is ordinarily granted once the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to apply for a suppression or non-publication order, and the Court expects parties to apply promptly. **Orders.** Part VAA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 deals with suppression and non-publication orders. In the Act as enacted in 2012, section 37AE tells the Court to treat safeguarding open justice as a primary objective, section 37AF lets it prohibit or restrict publication of information that tends to reveal the identity of a party, witness or related person, and section 37AG lists the grounds: that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, to protect national or international security interests, to protect the safety of any person, or to avoid undue distress or embarrassment to a party or witness in a criminal proceeding involving a sexual offence. Each order must specify its ground (section 37AG(2)). The grounds above are as enacted and as quoted in a 2021 Federal Court judgment; the Act may have been amended since, so check the current text. **A state example.** In New South Wales, the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 uses a similar structure. Per the Judicial Commission's bench book, section 8 grounds include preventing prejudice to the proper administration of justice, protecting the safety of any person, and a public interest that significantly outweighs open justice. Under section 12 an order should last no longer than reasonably necessary and end at a fixed or ascertainable date or event. In both lists, embarrassment appears only for criminal proceedings involving a sexual offence. A request that rests on safety, confidentiality or a protected category has a path. A request that rests on bad press does not. ### The three systems side by side
QuestionUS federalEngland and WalesAustralia (Federal Court)
DefaultOpen, with filer-side redaction rulesPublic hearings, non-party access rulesOpen, with leave for restricted documents
Main orderSeal, redact, protective orderCPR 5.4C restriction, anonymity orderSuppression or non-publication order
TestGood cause; common-law balancingNecessary for the proper administration of justiceStatutory grounds, each order names one
Who must applyBy motion in the caseA party or a person named, by Part 23 applicationA party, promptly, before access is given
## Which route fits which record: a decision table Use the table as a first pass, then confirm with counsel in the court that holds the file.
Record typeBest routeWhat it can changeWhat usually stays
Identifiers in a filing (birth date, account number, minor's name)Motion to redact or correct the filingThe item in the public documentThe case and the rest of the filing
A sensitive exhibit or affidavitMotion to seal that documentPublic access to that documentThe docket entry showing it exists
A party's identity in an ongoing caseAnonymity order or suppression orderThe name in later documents and judgmentsEarlier copies already republished
A closed civil case with a settlementMotion to seal specific papers, or agreed termsConfidential terms and attachmentsThe existence of the case and the judgment
Family, juvenile or protective-order filesCheck the court's remote-access rules firstOnline visibility in some systemsCourthouse access for those entitled
A final public judgmentAppeal, set-aside or correction where the law allowsThe judgment itself, if it is overturnedThe published decision in most cases
A copy on a legal database or aggregatorRemoval request with the court order attachedThat site's pageOther sites and the court's own file
The row people most often wish were different is the final public judgment. It is the court's own act, and Find Case Law will not change it without the court's instruction. The work on such a record is accuracy, context and what ranks beside it. ## After the order: republishers, aggregators and search engines An order helps only once it reaches every place that holds a copy.
Carrying an order to every copy
  1. Get the order in usable formAsk counsel for a certified copy of the operative order, with the public text separated from anything that is itself sealed.
  2. Map the copiesSearch your name, case number and the opposing party's name across search engines and legal databases. List every URL and every site, not only the first page of results.
  3. Write to each republisherSend the order with the exact URLs. Free Law Project's CourtListener policy says it will not remove a public document without a court order, and that an order requiring expungement or redaction is generally met by anonymizing the case, for example with initials or black boxes.
  4. Ask for the search block as wellWhere a site refuses deletion, its policy may still allow it to stop search engines indexing the page. CourtListener says it generally does this with a robots meta tag or header, which hides the page from search results but does not delete it.
  5. File with the search engine lastOnce the source has changed, ask the search engine to refresh or remove the outdated result. Google's help page describes a removal request for content the owner has already changed or removed but that still shows in results.
Two cautions apply to the search layer. First, Google's personal-information removal page lists contact details, government ID numbers, bank and card numbers, images of a signature or ID, private records such as medical records, and credentials. It also says Google might not take down content about something newsworthy. As of the page read, a public docket is not on that list. Second, a site that charges a fee to remove a record falls under Google's separate policy on exploitative removal practices, which has three conditions and removes only the listing, not the page. Free Law Project also says it will generally remove sealed content from the RECAP Archive on receipt of a valid sealing order, or once the item is removed from PACER. Items that are newsworthy or widely noticed may face a higher bar, and sealed content is reported to it through the CourtListener contact form. ## A realistic timeline from filing to search results Timelines depend on the court's calendar, whether the other side opposes, and how many republishers hold a copy. The ranges below are our experience, stated as "usually", and none is a promise.
Typical sequence for a motion to seal or anonymize
  1. Weeks 1 to 2: audit and counselCollect every filing, docket entry and republished copy. Counsel confirms the court, the case status and the test that applies.
  2. Weeks 2 to 6: motion drafted and filedThe motion identifies the specific documents or identifiers, the ground and the narrower alternatives considered. Notice to other parties may be required.
  3. Weeks 4 to 16: decisionA contested motion usually takes longer than an agreed one. In the District of South Carolina, documents that are the subject of a motion to seal are unavailable until the court rules.
  4. Weeks 1 to 4 after the order: republishersEach site responds on its own schedule.
  5. Weeks to many months: search resultsCourtListener's policy warns that search engines may not drop a blocked page "for many months, if at all".
## What does not work, and what it costs when you try **Writing to the clerk.** A clerk can correct a clerical error. A clerk cannot decide that a record should be closed, because that is a judicial decision made on a motion. **Asking a legal database to delete without an order.** Some will block indexing as a courtesy. Others state they will not remove a public document without a court order. A polite email is worth sending, but it is not a plan. **Threatening the site.** A demand letter with no legal basis can lead to a public refusal or a posted copy of your letter, and a second page about the attempt then ranks beside the record. **Filing a motion on thin facts.** A refused motion can create its own public record. File the strongest, narrowest request, not the broadest. **Presenting accurate public-interest records as if they could be hidden.** Where the record is accurate, lawful and of public interest, the honest advice is that it will stay. The work then moves to context: accurate owned pages that sit beside it. That is suppression, which adds content rather than hiding any. ## The next step: identify the layer you can change Start with the file, not the search results. Find out which court holds the record, the case status, whether the item is an identifier, an exhibit, a party's name or a final judgment, and which sites have copied it.
If this is happening to you now

A private audit maps the court record, every republisher and the search results in one pass, and tells you which of the routes above applies to your file. Reputation Partners starts there, then works with your counsel on the orders and with each site on the follow-up. Request a private audit.

Once an order exists, the [removal service](/remove-negative-content) covers the republisher and search engine work that follows it. Where the record is accurate and stays, [suppression](/suppress-negative-results) builds the accurate pages that sit beside it. ## Questions people ask ### Can I get a court record removed because the case was dismissed? A dismissal ends the case, but it does not by itself remove the docket or the pleadings from the public file. It is a reason to ask a court for a specific remedy, such as sealing or a correction, and the court will apply the local test. Without that order, republishers usually keep their copies. ### Is embarrassment enough to seal a record? Usually not. The tests read for this guide ask for an overriding interest, a safety risk, a protected category of information or harm to the proper administration of justice. Reputation alone is not on those lists, so a request needs to name a specific, documented harm and show that a narrower step would not protect against it. ### Can a lawyer take a document off PACER or a court portal? No. Only the court that holds the file can change it, and it does so by order. A lawyer can file the motion, serve the order and write to the republishers. The clerk then updates the file, and each outside site updates its own copy on its own schedule. ### Do family court and criminal records appear online? It depends on the court. California bars public remote access to family, juvenile and criminal proceedings, with a narrow exception, but courthouse access remains. Other courts and countries make different choices. Check the rules of the court that holds your file. ### Will a search engine remove a court record on request? Not as a matter of course. Google's policies read for this guide cover personal identifiers, private records and sites that charge for removal, and say newsworthy content may stay. A lawfully public docket usually fits none of them. An order that has changed the source is the strongest basis for a follow-up request.