Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 107.131.126.182

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that the defendant anonymously downloaded and distributed its adult motion pictures through BitTorrent. The complaint initially identified the defendant as John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 107.131.126.182. The court later allowed Strike 3 to subpoena the defendant’s internet service provider, which identified the subscriber and provided a residential address.

Strike 3’s investigation indicated that the defendant lived at the address during the alleged infringement and that the defendant’s spouse was the only other occupant. Strike 3 also alleged that the same internet address was used to download other apparently copyrighted files related to the defendant’s career. Strike 3 then filed an amended complaint with the defendant’s identity redacted and obtained permission to file an unredacted version under seal. The defendant did not respond or appear.

Strike 3 moved to vacate the protective order so it could file default papers on the public docket using the defendant’s unredacted name.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the motion to enter default as a non-dispositive motion, meaning it did not itself decide the underlying copyright claim. The court therefore applied the less demanding “good cause” standard for sealing. That standard required a particularized showing of harm and a balance between the public’s interest in access and the private interests affected by disclosure, including whether redaction could protect sensitive information.

The court concluded that the evidence supported a reasonable inference that the defendant was the person who downloaded the infringing material. The court relied on Strike 3’s allegations that the defendant used BitTorrent to download files related to the defendant’s career and that the same internet address was associated with the adult-film downloads. The court said this was enough at the early stage of the case, although Strike 3’s investigation was not exhaustive.

The court nevertheless found good cause to keep the defendant’s identity sealed. Publicly associating the defendant with consuming adult films was likely to cause embarrassment, humiliation, and reputational damage. Strike 3 had not sufficiently explained why the public needed to know the defendant’s identity at this stage. The court also noted that exposing identities in cases of this type could be used to pressure defendants into settlements, including defendants who might have valid defenses. Redacted filings without the defendant’s name were sufficient to protect the public interest in the litigation.

Disposition

The court denied Strike 3’s motion to vacate the protective order. The opinion does not state that the underlying copyright claims were resolved or that default judgment was entered. The result concerned only whether default papers could publicly identify the defendant.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it resolved an ancillary filing and sealing issue without deciding the underlying copyright-infringement claim.