1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-03856-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX 9 v. PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 10 JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.63.133.173, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC's ("Strike 3") "Ex-Parte 14 Application for Leave to File Unredacted Versions of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 15 ["FAC"], Proposed Summons, and Return of Service Under Seal," filed November 4, 16 2024. Having read and considered the Application, the Court rules as follows. 17 In the FAC, Strike 3, which owns "adult motion pictures" (see FAC ¶ 2), alleges 18 defendant "is committing rampant and wholesale copyright infringement by downloading 19 Strike 3's motion pictures as well as distributing them to others" (see FAC ¶ 4). In its 20 Application, Strike 3 seeks leave to file under seal an unredacted version of its First 21 Amended Complaint, and to maintain in the public record a version of said pleading in 22 which defendant's name, along with certain other information concerning defendant, has 23 been redacted; Strike 3 also seeks leave to file under seal a proposed summons. 24 Further, once defendant has been served with process, Strike 3 seeks leave to file under 25 seal the anticipated return of service. In each instance, Strike 3 seeks such leave 26 because, it asserts, it "is sensitive to [d]efendant's privacy concerns and otherwise 27 believes that allowing [d]efendant to proceed anonymously serves the parties' interests." 1 In support of its Application, Strike 3 states, without citation to any such order, that, 2 "in prior similar cases, this Court entered protective orders precluding [Strike 3] from 3 publicly disclosing defendants' identifying information." (See id. ¶ 8.) To the extent Strike 4 3 may be referring to the type of limited protective order previously issued in the instant 5 action (see Doc. No. 10), said order was for a limited duration, and, as set forth below, 6 the circumstances warranting the order no longer pertain. 7 In particular, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman, on August 5, 2024, granted Strike 8 3's motion for leave to serve a summons upon an internet service provider ("ISP"), from 9 which Strike 3 sought to learn the identity of the person associated with the ISP number 10 Strike 3 believes has been used to infringe. In so doing, Magistrate Judge Illman issued 11 the following protective order:

12 Any information regarding the Doe defendant released to Strike 3 by the ISP will be treated as confidential for a limited duration. Strike 3 must not 13 publicly disclose that information until the Doe defendant has had the opportunity to file a motion with this court to be allowed to proceed in this 14 litigation anonymously and that motion is ruled upon by the court. [The] Doe defendant may move to file such a motion under seal pursuant to Civil 15 Local Rule 79-5. If the Doe defendant fails to file a motion for leave to proceed anonymously within 30 days after his or her information is 16 disclosed to Strike 3’s counsel, this limited protective order will expire. 17 (See id. at 3:12-22.) Although Strike 3's Application does not state the date on which the 18 ISP provider disclosed defendant's name to Strike 3, such disclosure could have 19 occurred no later than November 4, 2024, the date on which Strike 3 filed the instant 20 application,1 and more than thirty days have passed since that date, without the disclosed 21 individual having filed a motion for leave to proceed anonymously. Under such 22 circumstances, the Court has no basis upon which to conclude the disclosed individual 23 has an interest in proceeding anonymously, let alone that such interest outweighs the 24 "public's right to open courts." See Doe v. Kamehameha Schools,

, 1042 25 1 In all likelihood, the disclosure was made significantly earlier than November 4, 26 2024, in light of Strike 3's allegations that, after the disclosure was made, it engaged in further investigatory steps, such as reviewing social media sites and other publicly 27 available information, to determine whether the disclosed individual is the individual 1 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding "normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real 2 || names"; explaining "presumption is loosely related to the public's right to open courts").” 3 Lastly, to the extent Strike 3 may be suggesting it has some interest, independent 4 || of any potential interest said defendant may have in proceeding anonymously, no such 5 || interest has been identified. 6 Accordingly, Strike 3's motion is hereby DENIED, and, if Strike 3 wishes to 7 || proceed on the claims in the FAC, it shall file the FAC, as well as the proposed summons 8 || and any return thereof, in the public record. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 || Dated: December 5, 2024 ; . MAXINE M. CHESNEY 12 United States District Judge

13

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > The presumption is also "loosely related" to "the right of private individuals to confront their accusers,” see id., a concern raised where, unlike here, the plaintiff seeks 2g || to proceed anonymously.