Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 1:16-cv-01067

Malibu Media sued the John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.122.116.114 for alleged copyright infringement (downloading/distributing ~55 pornographic videos).
Defendant (Doe) is proceeding pro se, filed an answer, and moved to proceed anonymously.
Malibu Media does not oppose Doe’s motion and has the defendant’s personal information needed to prosecute.
Doe seeks anonymity to avoid shame, embarrassment, and social stigmatization from being publicly linked to alleged downloading of pornography.
The court found that disclosure of Doe’s name would not advance the public’s ability to scrutinize the issues and that anonymity would not prejudice Malibu Media.
The court vacated the hearing and granted Doe leave to proceed as “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.122.116.114.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a party may proceed anonymously	Malibu Media did not oppose anonymity; asserted it has plaintiff’s needed info and would not be prejudiced	Doe argued anonymity is necessary to avoid shame/embarrassment and stigmatization from porn-download allegations	Granted: anonymity allowed where privacy interest in sensitive matter outweighs public interest and prejudice is minimal
Applicability of Ninth Circuit test for anonymity	Implicitly agreed court should apply Advanced Textile balancing test	Asked court to apply the test, stressing privacy exception for sensitive matters	Court applied Does I–XXIII v. Advanced Textile balancing framework and found anonymity appropriate
Public’s interest in disclosure vs. defendant’s privacy	Public disclosure generally valuable but Malibu Media conceded no need to unmask	Doe argued public interest is outweighed by privacy concern and potential for extortionate settlements	Court held public interest did not outweigh Doe’s privacy; disclosure not necessary for public scrutiny
Prejudice to plaintiff from anonymity	Malibu Media argued it would not be prejudiced and has all necessary identifying info	Doe contended anonymity prevents reputational harm without impairing plaintiff’s prosecution	Court found no prejudice to Malibu Media and allowed anonymity

Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) (sets test for permitting party anonymity in judicial proceedings)
Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 158 (N.D. Cal. 1981) (recognizes avoidance of social stigmatization as compelling basis for anonymity)