Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that copyrighted adult motion pictures were downloaded and distributed through the BitTorrent network using IP address 108.54.228.49. On August 16, 2024, the court allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Verizon Online LLC, the internet service provider, to identify the subscriber assigned that IP address. The court also ordered that the information not be disclosed to anyone other than Strike 3 and its counsel without further court permission.

After receiving the subpoena response, Strike 3 said it investigated the subscriber and publicly available information and identified another person residing in the subscriber’s home as the true infringer and defendant. Strike 3 filed a First Amended Complaint against that person while keeping the defendant’s identity out of the public caption. Strike 3 said the body of the amended complaint contained the defendant’s name, address, and other information linking the defendant to the alleged infringement.

Request

Strike 3 asked for permission to file unredacted versions of its First Amended Complaint, proposed summons, and return of service under seal. It sought to keep the identifying information from the public docket on a provisional basis, allowing the defendant to become a party and be heard about privacy interests before any public disclosure. Strike 3 alternatively asked the court to vacate or modify the earlier restriction on publicly disclosing the defendant’s identity.

The request discussed the public’s presumptive right to access judicial documents and the need to balance that interest against privacy concerns. Strike 3 also proposed prohibiting the filing of documents containing the defendant’s name or address on the public docket unless the court expressly authorized it.

Ruling

The court denied without prejudice the request to file a redacted version of the amended complaint, proposed summons, and return of service. The court cited Strike 3’s failure to comply with Individual Rule 4(A) of the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. That rule requires a party seeking to redact information from a filed document to electronically file an unredacted copy under seal with the proposed redactions highlighted.

The court stated that any renewed application must comply with the Individual Rules. The order addressed the filing and sealing procedure and did not decide whether the defendant was responsible for the alleged infringement or whether the documents should ultimately remain sealed.