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 74.38.33.32

Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Docket
0:23-cv-02956
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, the unidentified subscriber assigned IP address 74.38.33.32, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed filings or the subscriber’s identity.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued the unknown subscriber assigned IP address 74.38.33.32, alleging that copyrighted adult motion pictures were infringed through that address. After learning the subscriber’s identity but before serving the subscriber, Strike 3 asked to keep certain documents sealed and the defendant identified as John Doe temporarily.

The court agreed that the defendant should have an opportunity to raise privacy concerns before the identity was made public or the case caption changed. It granted Strike 3’s motion on a temporary basis.

Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered that the amended complaint, proposed summons, and any future proof or waiver of service remain under seal until further order. The Clerk was also ordered to keep John Doe in the case caption until further 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 74.38.33.32 · No. 0:23-cv-02956
Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Date
June 5, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that copyrighted adult motion pictures were infringed through transactions connected to IP address 74.38.33.32. It initially sued the unknown subscriber assigned that address as a John Doe defendant. The court later allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast Cable, the Internet service provider, to identify the subscriber.

Strike 3 then determined the identity of the person using the IP address, but that person had not been served and was not yet a party to the litigation. Strike 3 filed an amended complaint and proposed summons under seal, filed public redacted versions, and moved to keep the documents sealed temporarily and to keep the defendant identified by a John Doe pseudonym temporarily. Strike 3 took no position on whether permanent sealing or pseudonymous litigation should be allowed, but supported provisional protection so the defendant could be heard first.

Court's reasoning

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

Because of the sensitive nature of the allegations, the court found good cause for temporary sealing and pseudonymous identification. Until the defendant appeared and could assert privacy interests, the court determined that confidentiality outweighed the public interest in access to the information.

Ruling

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 from the court. The Clerk of Court must maintain the caption using a John Doe pseudonym until further order. The order did not decide whether permanent sealing or continued pseudonymous litigation would be appropriate.

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.