Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.61.38.80

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota June 5, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, Case. No. 23-cv-2955 (PJS/DJF)

Plaintiff,
v.

Doe Subscriber assigned IP address ORDER
98.61.38.80,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Strike 3”) filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19)
and proposed Summons (ECF No. 20) under seal on June 3, 2024 (ECF No. 19), along with public
redacted copies of the documents (ECF No. 21). On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Maintain Documents Under Seal on Temporary Basis and Maintain Pseudonym Identifier in Case
Caption on Temporary Basis (“Motion”) (ECF No. 24). Strike 3 asks the Court to: (1) maintain
its Amended Complaint and proposed Summons under seal on a temporary basis; (2) allow Strike
3 to file any Proof of Service or Waiver of Service under seal on a temporary basis; and (3) direct
the Clerk of Court to maintain the caption for this matter with a John Doe pseudonym on a
temporary basis. (Id.)
Strike 3 owns adult motion pictures that are protected by copyright. It identified infringing
transactions concerning its copyrighted works emanating from IP address 98.61.38.80. On
September 25, 2023, Strike 3 filed suit against the IP address subscriber as an unknown “John
Doe” defendant. (ECF No. 1.) On December 6, 2023, the Court granted Strike 3’s motion for
leave to serve a subpoena on the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), Comcast Cable, to discover the
identity of the subscriber assigned to the IP address. (ECF No. 12.) Strike 3 has since determined
that Defendant is the party using IP address 98.61.38.80, but Defendant has not yet been served
and is not a party to this litigation. Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.,

526 U.S. 344, 350

 (1999) (“[O]ne becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only 
upon service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the 
party served must appear and defend.”).                                   

    Based on the nature of the allegations, Strike 3 asserts that although it is aware of 
Defendant’s identity, it is sensitive to the fact that Defendant may later request: (1) sealing any 
court documents that identify him or her; and (2) litigating under a pseudonym in this matter.  
Strike 3 acknowledges this relief would be rendered moot if Strike 3 filed its Amended Complaint 
or other case-initiating documents in unredacted form on the public docket before Defendant is 
served and has an opportunity seek relief.  (ECF No. 25 at 2.)  Strike 3 takes no position on whether 
such relief should be granted, but advocates for a balanced approach, permitting provisional relief 
so that Defendant may be heard regarding any asserted privacy interest before the Court decides 
whether permanent sealing or the use of pseudonyms is appropriate.  (Id. at 3-5.)  The Court agrees.  
    “There is a common-law right of access to judicial records.”  IDT Corp. v. eBay,

709 F.3d 1220

, 1222–23 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

435 U.S. 589, 597

 (1978)).  
Notwithstanding, the right of access is not absolute and requires courts to balance the competing 
interests of public access against the legitimate interests of maintaining confidentiality of the 
information sought to be sealed.  Id. at 1123.  Further, “[t]hough neither the Supreme Court nor 
the Eighth Circuit have directly addressed pseudonymous litigation, both courts have allowed 
parties to use pseudonyms.”  Doe v. Innovate Fin., Inc, Civ. No. 21-1754 (JRT/TNL),

2022 WL 673582

, at *3 (D. Minn. Mar. 7, 2022).  For example, use of a pseudonym may be appropriate 
when prosecution of the suit would compel disclosing information of the utmost intimacy, or the 
litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal matter.  Id.1 
    Noting the sensitive nature of this matter, the Court finds good cause to seal the Amended 
Complaint and related documents temporarily  and permit the use of a pseudonym pending 

Defendant’s  appearance  and  an  opportunity  for  Defendant  to  be  heard  on  the  question  of 
anonymity.  Until Defendant appears and can assert his or her privacy interests, Defendant’s right 
to maintain confidentiality outweighs any public interest in access to this information.  IDT 
Corp.,

709 F.3d at 1123

ORDER

    Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, 
LLC’s Motion to Maintain Documents Under Seal on Temporary Basis and Maintain Pseudonym 
Identifier in Case Caption on Temporary Basis (ECF No. [24]) is GRANTED as follows: 
    1.   The Amended Complaint (ECF No. [19]) and Proposed Summons (ECF No. [20]) 
and any future Proof of Service or Waiver of Service shall be filed under seal and remain under 

seal until further Order from the Court; and                              
    2.   The Clerk of Court shall maintain the caption for this matter with a John Doe 
pseudonym until further Order from the Court.                             
Dated: June 5, 2024      s/ Dulce J. Foster                              
                         DULCE J. FOSTER                                 
                         United States Magistrate Judge                  



    1 A real possibility exists that the individual who allegedly violated Strike 3’s copyright 
interest will turn out to be a juvenile user of the IP address whose identity should not be 
compromised.