STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.53.79, 2:21-cv-15681-WJM-AME

Strike 3 Holdings, owner of registered adult-film copyrights, sued a John Doe tied to IP address 96.242.53.79 for allegedly using BitTorrent to download and distribute 27 of its films.
Strike 3 used its VXN Scan system and .torrent/info-hash comparison to identify the defendant's alleged sharing of files matching its works.
Strike 3 served a subpoena on the ISP, obtained the subscriber identity, amended the complaint to name the defendant, and effectuated service in January 2022.
The defendant did not answer; the Clerk entered default in April 2022 and Strike 3 moved for default judgment in May 2022 seeking a permanent injunction, deletion of files, statutory damages, and costs.
The Court found jurisdiction, adequate service, and that Strike 3 stated a legitimate copyright-infringement claim.
The Court granted default judgment: awarded a permanent injunction, statutory damages of $20,250 ($750 per infringement), costs of $507, and ordered the defendant’s identity unsealed for enforcement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment is proper	Strike 3: service/jurisdiction are proper; complaint states cause of action; defendant defaulted.	No response from defendant.	Granted: service, jurisdiction, and sufficiency satisfied; default judgment appropriate under Chamberlain factors.
Whether a permanent injunction is warranted	Strike 3: ongoing BitTorrent use causes irreparable harm; money alone is inadequate; injunction and deletion allowed under Copyright Act.	No response.	Granted: court found irreparable harm credible in default context, balance of hardships and public interest favor injunction.
Proper measure of damages (statutory)	Strike 3: seek minimum statutory damages $750 per work (27 works = $20,250).	No response.	Granted: court awarded $20,250 (minimum statutory damages).
Recovery of costs and unsealing identity	Strike 3: requests $507 in filing/service costs and unsealing to enforce judgment.	No response asserting anonymity interest.	Granted: $507 costs awarded; court ordered pseudonym removed and previously sealed documents unsealed (defendant offered no reasonable fear of severe harm).

Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984) (district courts should prefer merits dispositions when practicable).
Anchorage Assocs. v. V.I. Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168 (3d Cir. 1990) (default-judgment procedural standards and service/personal-jurisdiction principles).
Polidoro v. Saluti, [citation="675 F. App'x 189"] (3d Cir. 2017) (accept well-pleaded allegations in default but plaintiff must prove entitlement to damages).
Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142 (3d Cir. 1990) (on default, allegations as to damages are not taken as true).
Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2000) (factors for granting default judgment).
Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (elements required to show copyright infringement).
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (four-factor equitable test for permanent injunctions).
Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2011) (standard for proceeding anonymously: fear of severe, reasonable harm).
In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019) (compelling countervailing interests required to keep records sealed).
United States v. $55,518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1984) (definition of a meritorious defense for default-judgment analysis).
TDBankN.A. v. Hill, 928 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2019) (clarifying irreparable-harm analysis post-eBay).