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.: 22-CV-661 TWR (DEB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNREDACTED 14 JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP VERSIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST address 172.116.115.172, 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant. PROPOSED SUMMONS, AND 16 RETURN OF SERVICE UNDER 17 SEAL 18 (ECF No. 11) 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s Ex Parte Application 20 for Leave to File Unredacted Versions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Proposed 21 Summons, and Return of Service under Seal. (ECF No. 11, “Ex Parte Application.”) 22 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application requests these documents be filed under seal on the basis 23 that they contain Defendant’s name, address, and additional factual information that 24 directly links Defendant to the alleged infringement in this case relating to adult films. (Id. 25 at 2.) 26 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 27 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 28 1 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 2 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 3 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 4 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this 5 strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate compelling 6 justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See 7 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the 8 competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 9 secret.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted). 10 Here, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and finds that despite the generally recognized 11 right to inspect records and documents in this country, Plaintiff has overcome this strong 12 presumption of access by providing compelling reasons to seal. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 13 597 & n.7; see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010) 14 (holding that a “compelling reasons standard applies to most [motions to seal] judicial 15 records” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The documents Plaintiff wishes to seal 16 include information regarding Defendant’s identity, address, and other personal 17 information. Given that the subject matter of the alleged infringement is adult films, there 18 are valid privacy concerns for Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a redacted 19 version of the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10), so the public is able to access all 20 available information regarding this action, apart from Defendant’s identity, address, and 21 personal information. In balancing the need for the public’s access to information and 22 Plaintiff’s interest in keeping this information private, the Court finds in favor of sealing, 23 at least at this early stage of the litigation. However, the Court will reevaluate this issue 24 after Defendant has entered an appearance. 25 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application as follows. The 26 Seal Clerk is ORDERED to file the unredacted First Amended Complaint, proposed 27 Summons, and Return of Service (ECF No. 12) UNDER SEAL. After Defendant enters 28 an appearance in this case, Plaintiff and Defendant SHALL FILE a renewed motion to 1 no later than thirty (30) days after the date Defendant enters an appearance. If no 2 || renewed motion to seal is filed within thirty days after Defendant enters an appearance, 3 Court may order all sealed documents in this action to be unsealed without further 4 notice to the parties. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 18, 2022 —— 7 dd) 12 D (ore 8 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28