From a June 23 decision by Judge Noel Hillman (D.N.J.) in Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe:
This is one of several cases filed by Plaintiff as the purported owner of copyrights in "adult motion pictures," whereby Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement…. Plaintiff … alleg[es] that Defendant downloaded 24 copyrighted works without authorization via BitTorrent protocol and distributed them to others. Plaintiff proceeded through discovery under a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), which allowed Plaintiff to apply the John Doe pseudonym to the caption and to file certain documents with redactions. Now, at the close of this case, the Parties have filed a joint motion to seal certain materials ….
The Court notes that while litigants have an interest in privacy, the public also has a right to obtain information about judicial proceedings…. "The party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record bears a heavy burden of showing that disclosure of the record will 'work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.'" While this presumption of openness is rebuttable and not absolute, the injury must be serious enough to overcome considerations related to maintaining the public's confidence in the judicial system….
Parties describe the basis for sealing as: the potential of Defendant's present and prospective employers discovering Defendant's involvement in this case resulting in adverse employment consequences, his reputation becoming irreparably tarnished, and financial losses. While embarrassment is a consideration in favor of sealing, courts have denied motions to seal based solely on embarrassing information or general financial records….
"While preventing embarrassment may be a factor satisfying the 'good cause' standard, an applicant for a protective order whose chief concern is embarrassment must demonstrate that the embarrassment will be particularly serious." … "If mere embarrassment were enough, countless pleadings as well as other judicial records would be kept from public view." … In this case, the Parties have only alleged the possibility of harm if the identity of the Defendant is somehow retrieved from court records and disseminated by the press. The generality of this harm is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of access to court records….
