By Jeffrey Antonelli, Attorney
In a case filed by Strike 3 Holdings attorney Jeremy Thompson in the Northern District of Illinois, the Court denied the movie company’s motion to file under seal Unredacted Versions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 1:25-cv-07277.
On June 27, 2025, Strike 3 Holdings filed a Complaint against JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.72.239.49 alleging Defendant violated the US Copyright Act by downloading, copying, and distributing its movies using BitTorrent.
On July 7th, it obtained leave of Court to serve Comcast Cable a Subpoena to reveal the identity of the Subscriber.
On September 10th, it filed a Status Report:
“Plaintiff served the subpoena… and received the ISP’s response… [and] it was determined that the subscriber was the true Defendant. Plaintiff is [] amending its Complaint to name and serve the appropriate Defendant.”
On September 18th, it filed a motion to file under seal Unredacted Versions of its First Amended Complaint.
Judge Jenkins denied the motion:
“Neither a redacted nor pseudonymous filing is necessary or justified [under] Seventh Circuit caselaw.…. The court is not persuaded that the circumstances described in Plaintiff’s filing are truly exceptional…Plaintiff must refile its amended complaint without redactions or the use of a “Doe” pseudonym. Any summons or return of service should be publicly filed on the docket as well.”
Then the movie company filed a “First Amended Complaint” – without using the Defendant real name.
Judge Jenkins noticed, entering this Order: “The clerk shall update the case caption to reflect that the Defendant is [DEFENDANT’S REAL NAME]*. The court was clear that Doe is no longer appropriate given the results of early discovery.”
*Antonelli Law is withholding the name of the Defendant, even though Defendant’s name is revealed in the court filings.
The following day a Summons was issued.
At the onset of Strike 3 Holdings’ national litigation in 2017 it routinely filed Amended Complaints with Defendants’ real names. Antonelli Law routinely filed motions to proceed anonymously to protect clients’ identities.
Pushback, including one judge calling the practice “legal extortion” to pressure Defendants to settle, led Strike 3 Holdings to seek permission to file Amended Complaints with Defendants’ names under seal. We and thousands of targeted Defendants appreciate that.
Nearly all federal judges grant the motions because being accused of wrongfully obtaining adult movies can lead to unwarranted consequences when the Defendant is innocent.
Unfortunately this lawsuit was assigned to a judge unpersuaded being accused of torrenting adult movies justifies litigating the case anonymously.