In paragraphs 42 of the statement of claim and paragraphs 150 of the plaintiff's affidavit, it is claimed that the proceeding related to a road accident that occurred to the plaintiff during his work. The plaintiff further claimed that medical documents, quotes from opinions in the plaintiff's case, and protocols of medical committees were uploaded to the Net-HaMishpat website. The plaintiff did not attach to the statement of claim and did not submit the documents that were published, according to the claim.
- In paragraph 18 of its statement of defense, the Courts Administration denied the plaintiff's claim that the Net-HaMishpat website contains medical documents, opinions or minutes of medical committees. According to her, the file was opened as a paper file and when it was uploaded to the Net-Mishpat system, no documents were scanned into the file. According to the claim, in the case there are only decisions and a judgment, and motions that were filed after the judgment was rendered.
- To the statement of claim and his affidavit, the plaintiff attached only a request for a gag order that he submitted to the Jerusalem Regional Labor Court on 27.1016. In this application, it is claimed that the file contains personal medical details, and their publication in legal databases violates the plaintiff's privacy and causes him damage. The request was granted, and on October 31, 2016, an order was issued as requested (Appendix 7 to the statement of claim).
- The defendant denied that she had published documents from this file. Indeed, Appendix 3 to the statement of claim is the page that bears the plaintiff's name as a litigant, and it details 11 proceedings in which the plaintiff was a litigant. The aforementioned procedure is not one of them.
Documents from the National Insurance Institute 10243/10 It
is not clear what the purpose of this file is, what documents were published from it, if any, and what the violation of privacy involved in these documents is. All that is known from the statement of claim and the plaintiff's main witness affidavit is that on September 28, 2016, the plaintiff requested a gag order in the case, and on October 2, 2016, a gag order was issued (paragraphs 61-62 and Appendix 17 to the statement of claim, paragraphs 197-199 of the affidavit of December 16, 2024).
- The court administration did not deny in its statement of defense that the proceeding was conducted in a "public open" status and that it remained so until a gag order was issued in the case.
- The defendant denied that she had published documents from this file. Here, too, the proceeding number is not indicated on the page bearing the plaintiff's name in Appendix 3 to the statement of claim.
Documents from D.M. 9713-10-16