Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe infringer identified as using IP address 68.101.221.150
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court considered an unopposed motion by the plaintiff to seal the unredacted complaint, proposed summons, and return of service, which contained the defendant's identity in a copyright infringement case involving adult motion pictures. The court granted the motion, ordering the documents filed under seal and requiring the plaintiff to file redacted versions on the docket.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Plaintiff's Complaint, Proposed Summons, and Return of Service Under Seal“Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to seal. (Doc. No. 5). The Seal Clerk is ORDERED to file these documents UNDER SEAL. Further, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file redacted versions of these documents on the docket.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's 'compelling reasons' standard for sealing judicial records. It identified the specific privacy interests at stake (the defendant's identity in a case involving adult content) and balanced them against the public's right of access, concluding that the privacy interests outweighed the public interest in this specific context. The order is procedurally sound and consistent with established case law in the district. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review (compelling reasons) from binding Ninth Circuit precedent. It explicitly performs the required balancing test between the public's right of access and the defendant's privacy interests. The factual basis for the privacy interest (identity in an adult film copyright case) is sufficient to support the finding of compelling reasons. The order is complete and follows the law.
Opinion
7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 20-cv-00309-AJB-MDD 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 13 LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S JOHN DOE infringer identified as using 14 COMPLAINT, PROPOSED IP address 68.101.221.150, SUMMONS, AND RETURN OF 15 Defendant. SERVICE UNDER SEAL 16 (Doc. No. 5) 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is an unopposed motion to seal filed by Plaintiff on March 20 25, 2020. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff’s motion requests the following documents to be filed 21 under seal: 22 • Plaintiff’s Unredacted Complaint (Doc. 6);
23 • Plaintiff’s Proposed Summons; and 24 • Plaintiff’s Return of Service. 25 Plaintiff contends that these documents contain Defendant’s name, address, and additional 26 factual information which directly links the Defendant to the infringement in this case. 27 (Doc. No. 5 at 2.) 28 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 1 ||records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 2 || Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 3 || ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a “strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 4 || Kamakana vy. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 5 ||v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 6 || overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 7 || compelling justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. 8 || See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] 9 competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 10 ||records secret.” Jd. at 1179 (citation omitted). 11 After a careful examination of the document, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and 12 that despite the generally recognized right to inspect records and documents in this 13 |}country, Plaintiff has overcome this strong presumption of access by providing compelling 14 ||/reasons to seal. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 & n.7; see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 15 || 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a “compelling reasons standard applies 16 ||to most [motions to seal] judicial records.”’) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the 17 documents Plaintiff wish to seal include information regarding Defendant’s identity. (Doc. 18 || No. 5 at 2.) Given the subject matter of the infringement is adult motion pictures, there are 19 || valid privacy concerns for Defendant. Accordingly, balancing the need for the public’s 20 access to information and Plaintiff’s interest in keeping this information private weighs 21 ||strongly in favor of sealing. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to seal. (Doc. 22 ||No. 5). The Seal Clerk is ORDERED to file these documents UNDER SEAL. Further, 23 || Plaintiff is ORDERED to file redacted versions of these documents on the docket. 24 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: March 30, 2020 © 26 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 27 United States District Judge 28