Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.174.19.33
5:25-cv-00143
| M.D. Fla. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed a copyright infringement action against an individual identified as "John Doe," based on evidence traced through the defendant's IP address.
- Plaintiff used a third-party subpoena to obtain identifying information about the defendant from the internet service provider.
- Plaintiff wishes to proceed by filing unredacted documents (naming the defendant) under seal due to the adult nature of the copyrighted works at issue.
- The First Amended Complaint was initially filed with redactions of the defendant's name, address, and factual information linking the defendant to the alleged infringement.
- Plaintiff asserts that public disclosure would embarrass the defendant given the adult content involved, referencing other cases where protective orders have been granted.
- The court scrutinized whether the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings could be overcome in this instance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff may file unredacted complaint and related documents under seal to protect defendant's identity | Signature 3 argues embarrassment justifies sealing due to adult content and references similar protective orders in related cases | No defendant argument presented (John Doe, not yet formally identified in open record) | Motion to file under seal denied; embarrassment alone insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992) (presumption of openness in judicial proceedings; anonymity reserved for exceptional cases)
- Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981) (factors for anonymity in judicial proceedings)
- Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2011) (balancing test for anonymity; embarrassment alone not sufficient)
- Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2001) (granting anonymity in highly sensitive matters like abortion proceedings)
- Doe v. Neverson, [citation="820 F. App'x 984"] (11th Cir. 2020) (personal embarrassment doesn't justify pseudonymity)