Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. v. Defcad, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-08704
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Everytown v. Defcad User Freeman1337, Judge Gardephe struck Freeman1337’s dismissal motion, denied other sanctions, denied sealing, and ordered a show-cause hearing.
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc.; anonymous defendant Defcad User Freeman1337; defendant Philip Royster, also identified as “xYeezySZN,” whose home address remained redacted; and the public, because several court filings were ordered made visible.
What happened
In Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. v. Defcad User Freeman1337, Everytown alleged that Freeman1337 used its trademarks on files for 3-D-printed firearm parts. Freeman1337 did not comply with court orders requiring disclosure of his identity and address, and his lawyer later withdrew.
Everytown asked the court to strike Freeman1337’s motion to dismiss, enter a default judgment, and impose a permanent injunction. The court found that Freeman1337 knowingly disobeyed its orders, but it did not enter a default judgment at this stage because he had not received adequate warning of that possible penalty.
Judge Gardephe granted Everytown’s sanctions motion in part and denied it in part by ordering Freeman1337’s motion to dismiss struck and requiring him to show cause why default judgment should not be entered. The judge also denied Everytown’s sealing motion, except that one declaration could remain redacted as to a home address.
The detailed version
- Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. v. Defcad, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08704
- Paul Gardephe
- Sept. 27, 2023
Background
Everytown brought claims under federal trademark law, New York law, and common law against several defendants, alleging that they used Everytown’s trademarks on files for 3-D-printed firearms or firearm parts. Most defendants settled with Everytown. The order concerns anonymous defendant Defcad User Freeman1337; another anonymous defendant also remained in the case.
The court had previously ordered Defcad and third-party service providers to provide information identifying the anonymous defendants. After further proceedings, the court ordered the anonymous defendants to provide their true names and addresses so it could evaluate whether it had authority over them. Freeman1337 did not comply. His former lawyer reported that Freeman1337 had stopped communicating with counsel and had provided false information to counsel and the court. The lawyer was later allowed to withdraw, and no replacement lawyer appeared for Freeman1337.
Freeman1337 had filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. He did not respond to Everytown’s sanctions motion. Everytown asked the court to strike that motion, enter a default judgment, and permanently prevent Freeman1337 from engaging in the alleged conduct.
Sanctions ruling
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), a court may impose sanctions when a party disobeys a discovery order. Available sanctions include striking pleadings and entering a default judgment, which is a judgment entered because a party has failed to defend rather than after the claim has been tested through ordinary litigation.
The court found that Freeman1337 was aware of the lawsuit and deliberately provided false information to his lawyer and the court. It also found that he willfully refused to obey the court’s orders. The court concluded that a sanction less severe than striking his motion to dismiss would not be effective because the missing identity information was necessary to evaluate his personal-jurisdiction argument. The court also considered the length of the noncompliance and the prior warning that disobedience could lead to sanctions.
The court therefore ordered the Clerk of Court to strike Freeman1337’s motion to dismiss. It did not enter a default judgment immediately. Because Freeman1337 was proceeding without a lawyer, the court determined that he had to receive adequate notice before such a judgment could be imposed. The order notified Freeman1337 that the court would enter a default judgment unless he provided his name and address to the court and Everytown by October 4, 2023, and appeared at the scheduled show-cause hearing.
Sealing ruling
Everytown asked to redact identifying information in papers opposing the motion to dismiss. The court explained that documents filed in court are generally presumed accessible to the public and that a party seeking secrecy must show that sealing is necessary to protect an important interest and is narrowly limited.
The court found that the parties had not provided enough information to justify most of the proposed redactions. It concluded that only the home address of defendant Philip Royster, also identified as “xYeezySZN,” could properly remain redacted. The court rejected redaction of the online identifier “Ivan the Troll” because that identifier did not reveal the actual person behind it. A protective order alone also did not justify keeping the documents sealed.
The court denied Everytown’s sealing motion and ordered the specified filings to be made public, with the exception that the xYeezySZN declaration could be filed with only Royster’s home address redacted.
Disposition
The court granted Everytown’s sanctions motion in part and denied it in part: it directed the Clerk to strike Freeman1337’s motion to dismiss and otherwise denied the sanctions motion. The court denied Everytown’s letter motion to seal documents. It scheduled a show-cause hearing for October 11, 2023, on whether default judgment should be entered against Freeman1337. The order did not decide the merits of Everytown’s trademark claims or Freeman1337’s personal-jurisdiction defense.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.