Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.63.133.173
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-03856
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe, Judge Chesney denied Strike 3’s request to seal identifying filings because no anonymity motion was filed.
Strike 3 must file the amended complaint, proposed summons, and any return of service publicly if it continues the case; the unidentified defendant’s requested anonymity was not supported on the record described by the court, and the public will have access to those filings.
What happened
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 73.63.133.173, Strike 3 asked to file unredacted versions of its amended complaint, proposed summons, and future return of service under seal. Strike 3 said this would protect the defendant’s privacy while allowing a redacted version to remain public.
The court explained that an earlier protective order barred public disclosure of information released by the internet service provider for a limited period. That order gave the defendant 30 days after disclosure to ask to proceed anonymously. More than 30 days had passed without such a motion, so the court found no basis to conclude that the defendant had an interest in anonymity that outweighed the public’s right to open courts.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied Strike 3’s motion. The court said that, if Strike 3 wished to proceed with its amended complaint, it had to file the complaint, proposed summons, and any return of service in the public record.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.63.133.173 · No. 3:24-cv-03856
- Maxine Chesney
- Dec. 5, 2024
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged in its First Amended Complaint that the defendant was downloading and distributing Strike 3’s adult motion pictures without authorization. Strike 3 asked for permission to file unredacted versions of the amended complaint, a proposed summons, and a future return of service under seal, while keeping a version of the complaint with the defendant’s name and other information redacted in the public record. Strike 3 stated that it was concerned about the defendant’s privacy and believed anonymous litigation served the parties’ interests.
Before this ruling, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman had allowed Strike 3 to serve a summons on an internet service provider to obtain the identity of the person associated with the relevant internet protocol address. The protective order issued with that permission required Strike 3 to keep information released by the provider confidential for a limited time. It prohibited public disclosure until the defendant had an opportunity to ask to proceed anonymously and the court ruled on that request. The order said it would expire if the defendant did not file an anonymity motion within 30 days after the information was disclosed to Strike 3’s counsel.
Court’s analysis
The court noted that Strike 3 did not state when the provider disclosed the defendant’s name. But the disclosure could have occurred no later than November 4, 2024, when Strike 3 filed its sealing application, and more than 30 days had passed without the disclosed individual filing a motion to proceed anonymously. The court therefore had no basis to conclude that the individual had an interest in anonymity, much less that the interest outweighed the public’s right to open courts. The court also found that Strike 3 had identified no independent interest supporting sealed filings.
Ruling
The court denied Strike 3’s application. It stated that, if Strike 3 wished to proceed on the claims in the amended complaint, it had to file the amended complaint, proposed summons, and any return of service in the public record. The opinion addressed sealing and anonymity only; it did not decide whether the alleged copyright infringement occurred.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.