The question of sealing the identity of defendants sued by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is now a thing. Strike 3 has settled with anonymous defendants in several recent cases in which the defendants are known only by their IP addresses. The issue in all of these cases is whether the defendant can remain pseudonymous, that is, known only by the pseudonym such as "John Doe subscriber assigned IP address [fill in the blank]."
Two cases decided one day apart will illustrate the issue. The question was presented "by way of a joint motion to seal" pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3 in the case of Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.11.13.20, No. 1:21-cv-17860-NLH-MJS, 2022 WL 2274473 (D.N.J. June 23, 2022) [hereinafter "Strike 3 v. IP address 108.11.13.20"]. (Local Rule 5.3 in the District of New Jersey merits further comment in another article, to be posted here.) Strike 3 is described in that case as "the purported owner of copyrights in 'adult motion pictures'[.]" Strike 3 v. IP address 108.11.13.20, 2022 WL 2274473, at *1.
In a case decided the day before in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District Judge wrote that the same "Strike 3 Holdings, LLC produces and distributes pornographic films." Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.52.236.56, No. 21-5178, 2022 WL 2276352, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 22, 2022) [hereinafter "Strike 3 v. IP address 108.52.236.56"].
To say again, these two cases illustrate the issue of pseudonymous defendants sued by Strike 3 for their "embarrassing" use of porn such that they settled with Strike 3 and sought to seal their identities because they would be embarrassed if they were identified to the public.
The District Court in New Jersey stated and applied the same Third Circuit law that governed the decisions and led to the same result in both cases. In the New Jersey case, the parties jointly moved to seal the defendant's identity after they settled the plaintiff's claim, whereas in the Pennsylvania case the plaintiff filed the motion to seal after the parties settled.
The reasons the parties gave for sealing court records in the New Jersey case are typical: The parties alleged that "present and prospective employers" might potentially discover the defendant's involvement in the case "resulting in adverse employment consequences," irreparably tarnishing the defendant's reputation, "and financial losses." The parties did not identify what "consequences," reputational hits, or "financial losses" they had in mind in requesting that the defendant's identity be sealed from public view in the amended complaint, the civil cover sheet, a return of summons, and "a declaration of John Doe," the defendant. The parties' supports were simply not enough to make the required showing to seal even these documents. Strike 3 v. IP address 108.11.13.20, 2022 WL 2274473, at *2.
What is required to seal any document in a court file is specificity. Mere recitations of embarrassment are not ordinarily enough under Third Circuit case law. In the New Jersey case, therefore, "[t]he generality of this harm is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of access to court records." Strike 3 v. IP address 108.11.13.20, 2022 WL 2274473, at *2.
The result in the Pennsylvania case was the same under Third Circuit case law and a similar record. See Strike 3 v. IP address 108.52.236.56, 2022 WL 2276352, at *2 ("Potential embarrassment is not enough.").
Please read the disclaimer. ©2022 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments