Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-02502
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Schofield denied without prejudice a sealing application and required a corrected, supported filing.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC must comply with the court’s instructions if it renews its request to file the documents under seal. The defendant identified as John Doe remains affected by the temporary sealing of the document at Docket Number 19 and by the handling of identifying information.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued a defendant identified as John Doe after investigating internet activity connected to an Internet Protocol address. The company asked to file unredacted versions of its amended complaint, proposed summons, and return of service under seal because they contained the defendant’s name, address, and other identifying information.
The court denied the application without prejudice to renewal. It ordered Strike 3 Holdings to refile by November 19, 2024, any request to keep material sealed, submit an unredacted version under seal with redacted portions highlighted, and explain the basis for each redaction or sealing request. The document filed at Docket Number 19 was to remain sealed for the time being.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the November 14, 2024 order in Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe. The order addressed only the sealing request and did not decide the underlying infringement allegations.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-02502
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 14, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asked for permission to file unredacted versions of its First Amended Complaint, proposed summons, and return of service under seal. The company said those documents contained the defendant’s name, address, and other factual information that it considered central to its infringement claim. The case caption used “John Doe,” although the company stated that it had learned the subscriber’s identity after subpoenaing Spectrum, the internet service provider assigned to Internet Protocol address 66.65.32.20.
The application was based on the company’s stated concern about the defendant’s privacy. Strike 3 Holdings said it had recorded allegedly infringing activity involving its works on the BitTorrent network and had investigated the subscriber after receiving Spectrum’s subpoena response.
Ruling
The court denied the application without prejudice to renewal. This means the court did not grant the sealing request but allowed Strike 3 Holdings to submit a renewed request.
The court ordered the plaintiff to refile, by November 19, 2024, any motion seeking to keep material under seal. The plaintiff also had to file an unredacted version under seal with the redacted portions highlighted and support each request to redact or keep material sealed with the reason for the request. Counsel was directed to review the court’s individual rules concerning sealing. The court ordered that the document at Docket Number 19 remain under seal at that time.
Effect of the Order
The order concerned filing and sealing procedures. It did not resolve whether the defendant infringed Strike 3 Holdings’ works or otherwise decide the underlying copyright dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.