Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.223.125.160
5:18-cv-05998 | N.D. Cal. | Jun 17, 2019
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6 SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.18-cv-05998-VKD
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO PROCEED
10
ANONYMOUSLY
11 JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP
ADDRESS 73.223.125.160, Re: Dkt. No. 42
12
Northern District of California
Defendant.
United States District Court
13
14 Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3”) sues for alleged infringement of copyrights
15 Strike 3 says it holds for several adult films. At the outset of this litigation, this Court prohibited
16 Strike 3 from publicly disclosing the Doe defendant’s identity, absent defendant’s consent or leave
17 of court. Dkt. No. 9. After Strike 3 obtained early discovery identifying defendant, the Court
18 provisionally granted Strike 3’s motion to seal defendant’s name and other personal identifying
19 information. Dkt. No. 16. If defendant wished to proceed anonymously in these proceedings, the
20 Court stated that he would be required file a motion seeking such relief. Id.
21 Defendant has answered the complaint, denying liability (Dkt. No. 29), and now moves to
22 proceed anonymously (Dkt. No. 42). Although Strike 3 does not agree with all of the assertions
23 defendant makes in that motion, Strike 3 does not oppose the requested relief. Dkt. No. 43. The
24 matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral argument, and the July 2, 2019 hearing is
25 vacated. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).1
26
27
1
28 All parties have expressly consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally
adjudicated by a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
1 Although the use of fictitious names in judicial proceedings is at odds with the public’s
2 right of access to judicial proceedings, the Ninth Circuit permits a party to preserve his or her
3 anonymity “special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the
4 opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Does I thru XXIII v.
5 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058" date_filed="2000-06-02" court="9th Cir." case_name="Does I Thru Xxiii v. Advanced Textile Corporation">214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68(9th Cir. 2000). Thus, parties are permitted to
6 use pseudonyms in the unusual case when nondisclosure of the party’s identity is necessary to
7 protect that party from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment. Id. Courts in this
8 district have recognized that “[a]n allegation that an individual illegally downloaded adult motion
9 pictures likely goes to matters of a sensitive and highly personal nature, including one’s
10 sexuality.” Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 19-cv-01666-LB, 2019 WL 1865928, at *3 (N.D.
11 Cal., Apr. 25, 2019).
12 Upon consideration of defendant’s moving papers, the current state of the record, and the
Northern District of California
United States District Court
13 applicable legal standard, the Court finds good cause to permit defendant to proceed anonymously
14 at this time. Defendant’s motion is granted as follows:
15 1. Defendant is permitted to proceed anonymously in this matter and shall be referred to
16 in all court filings as “John Doe.”
17 2. Other than defendant’s IP address, Strike 3 shall not disclose defendant’s name,
18 address, telephone number, email, social media username, or any other personal
19 identifying information that it may now know or may subsequently learn.
20 3. All documents containing defendant’s name or other personal identifying information
21 shall be filed under seal. The parties are instructed to follow the procedure outlined in
22 Civil Local Rule 79-5 for documents they seek to file under seal. Redacted copies of
23 such documents must also be filed in the public record, redacting only defendant’s
24 name and any other personal identifying information in a way that defendant’s identity
25 cannot be discerned from the redacted public filings.
26 4. This order shall remain in effect unless and until the Court orders otherwise, and only
27 after defendant has had a fair opportunity to challenge the disclosure of any identifying
28
2
1 information.
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Dated: June 17, 2019
4
5
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
6 United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
Northern District of California
United States District Court
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3