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. 23-cv-03761-BLF

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 10 v. EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNREDACTED 11 JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP VERSIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST ADDRESS 67.170.192.129, AMENDED COMPLAINT, PROPOSED 12 SUMMONS, AND RETURN OF Defendant. SERVICE UNDER SEAL 13 [Re: ECF 17] 14 15 This is one of many copyright actions that Plaintiff has filed for infringement of its rights 16 in its adult motion pictures. Plaintiff’s original complaint identified Defendant as “John Doe.” 17 See Compl., ECF 1. Plaintiff subsequently discovered Defendant’s identity, and has filed a first 18 amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging Defendant’s name, address, and other identifying 19 information. See FAC, ECF 16. Plaintiff redacted Defendant’s personal identifying information 20 from the FAC filed on the public docket, and then filed the present Ex Parte Application for Leave 21 to File Unredacted Versions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Proposed Summons, and 22 Return of Service under Seal. See Ex Parte Applic., ECF 17. Plaintiff asserts that the requested 23 sealing is necessary to protect Defendant’s privacy. See id. The motion is brought ex parte 24 because Defendant has not yet been served. See id. 25 Documents that are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case may be sealed 26 only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 27 LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). Moreover, in this district, a request for sealing must be 1 The Court concludes that the requirements for sealing are met here. Given that the 2 || allegedly infringed works are adult motion pictures, the Court finds that privacy concerns 3 || regarding Defendant’s identifying information constitute “compelling reasons” for sealing. 4 || Plaintiffs sealing request is narrowly tailored to address Defendant’s name and identifying 5 || information. At least one other district court in the Ninth Circuit has granted an identical sealing 6 || request by this Plaintiff, reasoning that in the early stage of the litigation the defendant was not in 7 a position to assert the defendant’s own privacy interests. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. 8 || Doe, No. 20-CV-2117 TWR (LL),

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2021). The 9 district court ordered the parties to file a renewed motion to seal thirty days after the defendant 10 || entered an appearance. See

11 Accordingly, Plaintiff's ex parte application is GRANTED, and the parties will be directed 12 || to file arenewed motion to seal after Defendant has entered an appearance. 5 13 ORDER 14 (1) Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Unredacted Versions of 3 15 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Proposed Summons, and Return of Service 16 under Seal is GRANTED; 3 17 (2) The parties SHALL file a renewed motion to seal after Defendant enters an 18 appearance; and 19 (3) This order terminates ECF 17. 20 21 Dated: March 1, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28