Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 5, 2024

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.112.153.102

Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Docket
0:23-cv-03268
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe Subscriber, Judge Foster temporarily sealed filings and kept the defendant pseudonymous until further order.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unidentified subscriber assigned IP address 68.112.153.102; the order also directs the Clerk of Court to maintain the John Doe caption and sealed filings.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued the unknown subscriber assigned IP address 68.112.153.102, alleging that copyrighted adult movies were infringed through that address. The court had allowed Strike 3 to subpoena the internet provider for the subscriber’s identity, but the subscriber had not been served and was not yet a party.

Strike 3 asked to keep its amended complaint, proposed summons, and future proof or waiver of service under seal temporarily and to keep the defendant identified as John Doe temporarily. Strike 3 said the defendant should have an opportunity to request privacy protections before the court decided whether permanent sealing or pseudonymous litigation was appropriate.

Judge Foster granted the motion. The listed documents and any future proof or waiver of service must remain sealed until further court order, and the clerk must keep the caption using a John Doe pseudonym until further court order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.112.153.102 · No. 0:23-cv-03268
Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Date
June 5, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC owns adult motion pictures protected by copyright. It alleged that infringing transactions involving its copyrighted works came from IP address 68.112.153.102. On October 25, 2023, Strike 3 sued the subscriber assigned that address as an unknown John Doe defendant.

On December 6, 2023, the court allowed Strike 3 to serve a subpoena on Comcast Cable, the internet service provider, to learn the subscriber’s identity. Strike 3 later determined the identity of the person using the IP address. The person had not been served and, under the court’s discussion, was not yet officially a party to the case.

Motion

Strike 3 filed an amended complaint and proposed summons under seal, along with public redacted versions. It then moved to keep those documents sealed temporarily, to file any proof of service or waiver of service under seal temporarily, and to keep the case caption using a John Doe pseudonym temporarily.

Strike 3 took no position on whether permanent sealing or pseudonymous litigation should be allowed. It supported a temporary approach so the identified defendant could appear and be heard about any privacy interest before the court decided whether those protections were appropriate. The court noted that the allegations involved sensitive matters and that the person using the IP address could possibly be a juvenile.

Court’s analysis

The court recognized a common-law right of public access to judicial records but explained that the right is not absolute. Courts must balance public access against legitimate interests in keeping information confidential. The court also noted that pseudonyms may be appropriate when litigation would require disclosure of highly intimate or sensitive personal information.

Because the defendant had not yet appeared and therefore had not had an opportunity to assert privacy interests, the court found good cause for temporary sealing and temporary use of a pseudonym. At this stage, the court concluded that the defendant’s interest in confidentiality outweighed the public interest in access to the information.

Disposition

Judge Dulce J. Foster granted Strike 3’s motion. The amended complaint, proposed summons, and any future proof of service or waiver of service must be filed under seal and remain under seal until further order of the court. The clerk must maintain the case caption with a John Doe pseudonym until further order. The order did not decide whether permanent sealing or continued pseudonymous litigation would be appropriate after the defendant appeared and had an opportunity to be heard.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.