Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 20-CV-1605-BEN-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF 14 JOHN DOE infringer identified as using PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, IP address 70.95.2.212, 15 PROPOSED SUMMONS, AND Defendant. RETURN OF SERVICE UNDER 16 SEAL 17 18 Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Unredacted 19 Versions of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Proposed Summons, and Return of Service under Seal 20 (“Motion to Seal” or “Motion”). (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff filed its Motion on October 8, 2020. 21 (Id.) On October 22, 2020, Judge Benitez referred the Motion to this Court for adjudication. 22 Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s submission, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 23 Motion to Seal. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff is the owner of certain adult films. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges John 26 Doe (“Defendant”) infringed on Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. Specifically, Plaintiff 27 contends Defendant impermissibly downloaded over 60 adult films Plaintiff owned and 28 that Defendant distributed such films to third parties without Plaintiff’s consent. (Doc. No. 1 1, 2:7-11.) Plaintiff obtained Defendant’s identity after subpoenaing Defendant’s Internet 2 Service Provider (“ISP”) for the IP address from which Defendant downloaded and shared 3 Plaintiff’s works. Plaintiff’s subsequent investigation led it to confirm Defendant’s true 4 identity. On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff proceeded with filing the operative Complaint with 5 redactions applied throughout in an effort to protect Defendant’s true identity from public 6 disclosure. (Doc. No. 1.) The pending Motion to Seal followed on October 8, 2020. (Doc. 7 No. 4.) The Motion seeks leave of court to file under seal the Complaint, proposed 8 summons1, and return of service and represents “Plaintiff is sensitive to Defendant’s 9 privacy concerns and otherwise believes that allowing Defendant to proceed anonymously 10 serve the parties’ interests.” (Id., 2:8-10.) 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 Civil Rule 2.2 of the Local Rules of the Southern District of California provides, “a 13 document may not be filed under seal unless authorized by an order entered by the judge 14 before whom the hearing or proceeding related to the proposed seal document will take 15 place.” Civ. L.R. 2.2. As a foundational matter, there is a strong presumption in favor of 16 public access to court records. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th 17 Cir. 2002). At the same time, “access to judicial records is not absolute.” Kamakana v. City 18 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the Ninth Circuit has 19 not yet decided whether the “compelling reasons” standard or “good cause” standard 20 applies to a complaint’s sealing, “district courts considering the issue generally conclude 21 that the ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies.” Mendoza v. Electrolux Home Products, 22 Inc., 2020 WL 5847220, at *2 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2020) (citing Harrell v. Cal. Forensic 23 Med. Grp., Inc., 2015 WL 1405567, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2015) amongst other decisions 24 from the Southern, Northern, and Eastern Districts of California); Wasito v. City of San 25 26 1 The Court observes a factual discrepancy between the Proposed Complaint and the Proposed Summons. 27 While Defendant’s address as set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Proposed Complaint matches the address listed in the Proposed Summons, the Proposed Complaint and Proposed Summons bear two different 28 1 Diego, 2019 WL 6877554, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (“The Ninth Circuit has not 2 explicitly stated the standard—good cause or compelling reasons—that applies to the 3 sealing of a complaint, but ... courts have held that the compelling reasons standard applies 4 because a complaint is the foundation of a lawsuit”); Ojmar US, LLC v. Sec. People, Inc., 5 2016 WL 6091543, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016) (applying the compelling reasons 6 standard to motion to seal portions of amended complaint); In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative 7 Litig., 2008 WL 1859067, *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (“[A] request to seal all or part of 8 a complaint must clearly meet the ‘compelling reasons’ standard and not the ‘good cause’ 9 standard”). 10 To meet the compelling reasons standard, a movant must “present articulable facts 11 identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and to show that these specific interests 12 [overcome] the presumption of access by outweighing the public interest in understanding 13 the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Generally, sufficiently compelling 14 reasons justifying the sealing of court records arise when “court files might become a 15 vehicle for improper purposes such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote 16 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Mack v. Dearborn 17 National Life Insurance Company, 2014 WL 12572866, at *1 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2014) 18 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 589 (1978)). “Broad allegations 19 of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” are insufficient. 20 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). “The mere fact 21 that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or 22 exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” 23 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. More is needed to establish sufficient grounds to seal a 24 complaint; the showing must be “particularized.” Mack, 2014 WL 12572866, at **1-2. 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 The Court finds Plaintiff has made an adequate showing of compelling reasons to 27 justify the sealing of the Complaint, proposed summons, and return of service. As a 28 threshold matter, Plaintiff observes there is detailed, sensitive information about Defendant 1 which is entitled to protection from public view, namely Defendant’s identifying 2 information, including his full name and home address, his personal preferences in adult 3 film content, and the frequency of his interactions with Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. 4 However, as noted above, Defendant’s anticipated privacy concerns alone are not sufficient 5 to meet the compelling reasons standard. In addition, Plaintiff cites to the Parties’ shared 6 interest in reaching resolution without the possibility of Plaintiff using as “settlement 7 leverage the threat of publicly revealing that [Defendant] has downloaded adult content 8 films.” (Doc. No. 1, 3:7-9.) Plaintiff avers it will not engage in the unscrupulous act of 9 driving “a so-called ‘shame settlement’” and that its Motion to Seal is a gesture of its will 10 to litigate and potentially settle this dispute in good faith. (Id.) 11 The Court finds Plaintiff’s proffered interest in eliminating perceived pressure 12 tactics from this litigation and any settlement discussions, coupled with Defendant’s 13 interest in maintaining privacy in his person and allegedly online activities involving 14 Plaintiff’s adult films, offer compelling reasons that warrant granting Plaintiff’s Motion in 15 entirety. For that reason, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and ORDERS the sealing 16 of the Complaint, proposed summons, and return of service. In so deciding, however, the 17 Court emphasizes to Plaintiff that, at no time during any future settlement discussions with 18 Defendant, may Plaintiff attempt to strong-arm Defendant into settlement by citing to its 19 instant Motion filing as a favor to Defendant. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal should not and 20 shall not inject any air of quid-pro-quo into the Parties’ anticipated settlement negotiations. 21 If, at any time following the Complaint’s filing under seal, Plaintiff engages in such 22 misconduct, the Court ORDERS Defendant to contact this Court’s Chambers within two 23 (2) days of the misconduct’s occurrence to coordinate further proceedings, which may 24 result in the entry of a sanctions order against Plaintiff. 25 IV. CONCLUSION 26 For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 27 Unredacted Versions of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Proposed Summons, and Return of Service 28 under Seal in its entirety. Plaintiff shall file the Complaint with any attached exhibits, 1 || proposed summons, and return of service under seal. 2 IT ISSO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: October 27, 2020 Se LA Ss 5 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28