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 98.61.38.80

Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Docket
0:23-cv-02955
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 case documents and kept the defendant’s John Doe pseudonym pending the defendant’s appearance.

Who this affects

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and the unserved defendant identified in the caption as the Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.61.38.80; the clerk’s handling of the case docket is also affected.

What happened

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued the subscriber assigned IP address 98.61.38.80, alleging that copyrighted adult motion pictures were infringed through that address. Strike 3 identified the subscriber but had not yet served the defendant, who therefore had not officially become a party.

Strike 3 asked to keep its amended complaint, proposed summons, and future proof or waiver of service under seal temporarily. It also asked the court to keep the defendant identified as John Doe temporarily. Strike 3 took no position on whether permanent secrecy or pseudonymous litigation was appropriate, but supported allowing the defendant to be heard first.

Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the motion. The court ordered the listed documents and any future proof or waiver of service to remain sealed until further order, and directed the clerk to keep the John Doe pseudonym in the caption until further order. The court did not decide whether permanent sealing or anonymity would be appropriate.

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 98.61.38.80 · No. 0:23-cv-02955
Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Date
June 5, 2024

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed an amended complaint and proposed summons under seal, along with public redacted copies. It then moved to keep those documents sealed temporarily, to allow any proof of service or waiver of service to be filed under seal temporarily, and to require the clerk to keep the defendant identified by a John Doe pseudonym temporarily.

Strike 3 owns adult motion pictures protected by copyright and alleged that infringing transactions involving its works came from IP address 98.61.38.80. The case was originally filed against the unknown subscriber assigned that address. The court previously allowed Strike 3 to subpoena Comcast Cable, identified in the order as the Internet Service Provider, to discover the subscriber’s identity. Strike 3 stated that it had since determined the defendant’s identity, but the defendant had not been served and was not yet a party to the case.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the public has a common-law right to access judicial records, but that the right is not absolute. Courts must 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.

The court found the allegations sensitive and concluded that temporary protection was appropriate while the defendant remained absent and unable to assert any privacy interests. It agreed with Strike 3’s proposed approach of providing provisional protection before deciding whether permanent sealing or use of a pseudonym would be appropriate.

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 sealed until further order from the court. The clerk must maintain the John Doe pseudonym in the case caption until further order. The order did not decide whether the documents should remain sealed permanently or whether the defendant may litigate under a pseudonym permanently.

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.