MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. DOE, C 15-04441 WHA. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20161227938
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE SEALING MOTION WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Defendant has moved to keep portions of the Court's order denying his motion to quash subpoenas under seal, citing concerns that excerpts from Internet posts allegedly made by him and his user name could be used to identify him, thereby exposing him to embarrassment and pressure to settle this litigation. The motion is GRANTED, with one exception. Page 4 of the order reads "Malibu Media identifies numerous other posts by the user [d
Summary: ORDER RE SEALING MOTION WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Defendant has moved to keep portions of the Court's order denying his motion to quash subpoenas under seal, citing concerns that excerpts from Internet posts allegedly made by him and his user name could be used to identify him, thereby exposing him to embarrassment and pressure to settle this litigation. The motion is GRANTED, with one exception. Page 4 of the order reads "Malibu Media identifies numerous other posts by the user [de..
More
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Defendant has moved to keep portions of the Court's order denying his motion to quash subpoenas under seal, citing concerns that excerpts from Internet posts allegedly made by him and his user name could be used to identify him, thereby exposing him to embarrassment and pressure to settle this litigation. The motion is GRANTED, with one exception. Page 4 of the order reads "Malibu Media identifies numerous other posts by the user [defendant's username] on the forgoing websites and others, not set forth in detail in this order, many of which refer to masturbation, pornography, voyeurism [and other topics]." In addition to his user name (which may be redacted), defendant seeks to redact the text "masturbation, pornography, voyeurism" (though not the subsequent topics). These generic references cannot be used to identify defendant in any way, so there is no good cause to redact that text. To that extent only, defendant's motion is DENIED.
To be clear, this is without prejudice to whether the same or similar materials may be redacted or sealed in future filings or proceedings, including at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
