Strike 3 holdings, LLc v. Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-00648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe asks Judge Karas to allow confidential filings identifying the defendant to be filed under seal.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, the unidentified defendant whose identity the filing seeks to protect, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.197.138.248, Strike 3 asked to file unredacted versions of its proposed amended complaint, summons, and service paperwork under seal. The filings would include the defendant’s name, address, and other identifying information.
Strike 3 argued that the defendant’s privacy interests outweighed the public’s access to those identifying details, at least temporarily. It said the protection would allow the defendant to receive notice, become a party, and ask for stronger privacy protections if desired.
The provided document is Strike 3’s supporting memorandum, not an order deciding the motion. It therefore shows no disposition by Judge Kenneth Karas.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 holdings, LLc v. Doe · No. 7:24-cv-00648
- Kenneth Karas
- June 20, 2024
Document and procedural posture
The provided text is a memorandum submitted by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC in support of its motion for leave to file unredacted versions of its First Amended Complaint, proposed summons, and return of service under seal. It is not the court’s ruling on that motion. The text refers to an earlier June 4 court order directing Strike 3 to provide legal authority explaining why the requested protective order would be consistent with the First Amendment and the common-law right of access to court filings.
Strike 3’s request
Strike 3 asked to file publicly redacted versions while filing unredacted versions under seal. The redactions would conceal the defendant’s name, address, and other information that could identify him. Strike 3 stated that, after obtaining the subscriber’s identity from the internet-service provider, it had a good-faith basis to identify someone other than the subscriber as the alleged infringer. It said it intended to amend its pleadings to replace the John Doe party and add evidence identifying the defendant as the alleged infringer.
Strike 3 requested, at minimum, provisional protection of the defendant’s identifying information. It argued that this would allow it to serve the defendant and make him a party while giving him an opportunity to obtain counsel and present privacy concerns, including a request for a more extensive protective order.
Legal arguments described in the memorandum
The memorandum discussed the common-law and First Amendment presumptions favoring public access to judicial documents. It argued that those presumptions are not absolute and must be weighed against competing interests, including privacy. Strike 3 characterized the allegations involving adult works as matters involving inherently private conduct and argued that the case did not involve an issue of national or statewide importance.
Strike 3 also argued that publicly filing the unredacted amended complaint and related documents could disclose intimate details before the defendant had notice of the case or an opportunity to seek protection. It asserted that the public could still access the rest of the matter through the docket if only the defendant’s identity were withheld.
Disposition
The provided opinion text contains Strike 3’s request and arguments but does not contain a ruling granting, denying, or otherwise disposing of the motion. Accordingly, no court holding or disposition can be stated from this text. The judge identified in the supplied case information is Kenneth Karas.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.