Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Case Number: 22cv00133-LL-JLB limited liability company, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S v. COMPLAINT, PROPOSED 14 SUMMONS, AND RETURN OF 15 JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP SERVICE UNDER SEAL address 70.95.28.162, 16 Defendant. [ECF Nos. 4, 5] 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Plaintiff”) 20 brings this action for copyright infringement against John Doe, a subscriber assigned IP 21 address 70.95.28.162 and sued pseudonymously (“Defendant”). ECF No. 1. Before the 22 Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File the Complaint, Proposed Summons, and 23 Return of Service under seal (the “Motion”). ECF No. 4. After considering the papers 24 submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 25 II. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is an egregious infringer of its registered adult 27 motion picture copyrighted works and has infringed on at least 32 of those works over an 28 extended period of time. ECF No. 1 at 1-2, ¶¶ 2-4. 1 On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant alleging one claim 2 for relief for copyright infringement. ECF No. 1. On February 1, 2022, the summons 3 issued. ECF No. 3. On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. ECF Nos. 4, 5. 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Except for certain documents “traditionally kept secret,” federal courts begin a 6 sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. 7 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to 8 seal a judicial record must “articulate [] compelling reasons supported by specific factual 9 findings,” id., that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 10 disclosure, such as the “public interest in understanding the judicial process,” Hagestad v. 11 Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court “conscientiously balance[s] . . . 12 the competing interests” of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 13 records secret. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. After considering these interests, if the Court 14 decides to seal certain judicial records, it “base[s] its decision on a compelling reason and 15 articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” 16 Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434; see also Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 17 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying compelling reasons standard to dispositive motions). 18 A party must satisfy the compelling reasons standard even if the motion, or its 19 attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136 20 (“[T]he presumption of access is not rebutted where . . . documents subject to a protective 21 order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion.”). A party’s failure to 22 meet the burden of articulating specific facts showing a “compelling reason” means that 23 the “default posture of public access prevails.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. In ruling on 24 motions to seal, courts recognize that “compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the 25 public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files 26 might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 27 IV. DISCUSSION 28 Plaintiff states that although it is aware of Defendant’s identity, it is sensitive to ! || Defendant’s privacy concerns, and therefore, opted to file this suit against Defendant 2 pseudonymously within the caption. ECF No. 4 at 2,46. The information redacted from 3 Il the complaint is limited to identifying information, such as Defendant’s name, address, and 4 || additional factual information directly linking Defendant to the infringement in this case. > at 2,47. Plaintiff asks the Court to file the unredacted version of the complaint 6 containing this identifying information under seal. /d. at 2,98. Plaintiff also advises that 7 |lits counsel has spoken with Defendant’s counsel, who agrees with filing the requested 8 || documents under seal. Jd. at 2,4 10. 9 “Tt is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and 10 copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. 1! |! Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnotes omitted). “It is 12 uncontested, however, that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.” 13 Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. As pertains to this case, other courts within this 14 || District have granted similar motions also brought by Plaintiff in other cases. See, e.g., 15 |! Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:20-cv-02117-TWR-LL, 2021 WL 1165108, at *1-2 16 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2021) (granting a motion to file information regarding the defendant’s 17 identity, including the amended complaint, under seal). Thus, given other district courts 18 || have lodged under seal the very type of documents at issue here and the confidential nature 19 || of the information involved, compelling reasons exist for the Court to exercise its discretion 20 || and inherent authority to similarly lodge these materials under seal. See Kamakana, 447 21 ||F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED as set forth below. 22 CONCLUSION 23 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to File the Complaint, 24 ||Proposed Summons, and Return of Service. Redacted versions of the aforementioned 25 ||documents have been filed on the public docket. The Clerk is directed to file unredacted 26 || versions of the documents and exhibits lodged at ECF No. 5 under seal. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 || DATED: April 14, 2022 <P 3 _ HON. LINDA LOPEZ —