MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. DOE
1:13-cv-00669
S.D. Ind.Sep 20, 2013Background
- Malibu Media, LLC sues an unidentified John Doe by IP address for copyright infringement.
- Movant sought to proceed anonymously under Dkt. 24 and previously filed Motions to Quash and to Dismiss (Dkts. 20, 25).
- Order to Show Cause required movant to identify himself (Sept. 11, 2013).
- Movant complied with identifying himself; court now rules on the Limited Motion to Proceed Anonymously.
- Court analyzes the six anonymity factors and public openness considerations under Seventh Circuit and Southern District precedent.
- Motion to Proceed Anonymously DENIED; movant must identify himself within seven days; failure to do so may lead to dismissal or quash being struck; seal on the motion is lifted for non-compliance with Local Rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does movant may proceed anonymously given the public policy of openness? | Malibu argues anonymity is unwarranted; public access favors identification. | Doe argues privacy protections justify anonymity under Rule 26(c). | Denial of anonymity; identification required. |
| Do Rule 26(c) protective orders shield anonymity in this civil case? | Malibu relies on Rule 26(c) to seek protective measures for embarrassment. | Doe contends Rule 26(c) applies only post-identification and cannot override Rule 10 openness. | Rule 26(c) not a shield against Rule 10 disclosure; anonymity denied. |
| Do factors 1-6 of the anonymity test support anonymity here? | Only factor 2 (embarrassment) may favor anonymity. | Factors 1,3,4 do not apply; factor 2 insufficient to overcome openness. | Factors 1,3,4 inapplicable; embarrassment alone insufficient; anonymity denied. |
| What procedural steps follow the denial of anonymity? | Not applicable beyond seeking anonymity. | Identify for the record within seven days; otherwise show cause on dismissal/quash. | Movant must identify within seven days; failure leads to show-cause on dismissal/quash. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1997) (publicness and identification in litigation; anonymous proceeding disfavored)
- Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2005) (public interest in openness; anonymity not favored without strong privacy rights)
- Doe v. Ind. Black Expo, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 137 (S.D. Ind. 1996) (six-factor privacy-anonymity test in SD Ind.)
- Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2011) (mere embarrassment not sufficient to warrant anonymity)
- Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarm Sharing Hash File, 821 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D. Mass. 2011) (embarrassment not sufficient to override public access)