Strike 3 Holdings v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 74.72.57.220

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed this matter against a subscriber identified in the caption as JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 74.72.57.220. In the November 18, 2025 letter reproduced in the opinion text, Strike 3’s attorney asked Judge Loretta A. Preska for permission to file unredacted versions of the First Amended Complaint, a proposed summons, and a return of service under seal.

Strike 3 states that it owns adult motion pictures distributed through several websites and DVDs. It says it recorded alleged infringing activity involving the listed internet address within the BitTorrent network. The court had previously permitted Strike 3 to serve a subpoena on Spectrum, identified as the internet service provider, to discover the identity of the subscriber assigned to that address.

Strike 3 says that, after receiving the subpoena response and conducting further investigation using publicly available resources, it identified the subscriber as the alleged infringer. It says it filed a First Amended Complaint and intends to replace the John Doe designation, subject to a protective order, while adding evidence that it says links the defendant to the alleged infringement.

Requested sealing order

Strike 3 says it knows the defendant’s identity but chose to keep the defendant’s name out of the case caption because of privacy concerns. It acknowledges that the body of the amended complaint contains the defendant’s name, address, and other identifying information. Strike 3 asks to file those portions, and the related unredacted documents, under seal on a provisional basis.

Strike 3 proposes that no document containing the defendant’s name or address be filed publicly unless the court expressly authorizes it. According to Strike 3, this temporary arrangement would allow the defendant to become a party and be heard about privacy interests before the identifying information is disclosed publicly.

Legal framework discussed

The letter discusses the presumptive public right of access to judicial documents. It also explains that the presumption can be overcome by competing considerations, including privacy interests. The weight of the presumption depends on the material’s role in the exercise of federal judicial power and the value of the information to people monitoring the federal courts.

Strike 3 notes that courts have taken different approaches in similar cases: some have allowed pseudonymous litigation and sealing, some have rejected that relief, and others have allowed provisional sealing until the defendant has an opportunity to be heard.

Disposition

The provided text ends with an “ORDERED” notation, but it does not clearly display the operative language stating whether Judge Preska granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request. The disposition therefore cannot be determined from the provided opinion text.