UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-99-RLM-JEM

)

JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP )

address 71.194.56.83, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed under seal

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike [DE 19]. It also separately

filed a redacted version of this memorandum not under seal at docket entry 20. Plaintiff filed no

corresponding motion seeking leave to file its memorandum under seal.

Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 5-3 provides, “The clerk may not maintain a filing

under seal unless authorized to do so by statute, court rule, or court order.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 5-3(a). 

The Seventh Circuit has “insisted that litigation be conducted in public to the maximum extent

consistent with respecting trade secrets, the identities of undercover agents, and other facts that should

be held in confidence.” Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing

Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir.2002); Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v.

Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.1994); In re Cont’l Ill. Secs. Litig., 732 F.2d 1302 (7th

Cir.1984)). “What happens in the federal courts is presumptively open to public scrutiny.” Id. A

party seeking to overcome this presumption must justify its claim of secrecy, citing the applicable

legal criteria. Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th

Cir. 1999).

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-JEM document 21 filed 09/06/13 page 1 of 2
On May 9, 2013, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve a Third Party

Subpoena Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference, allowing Plaintiff to serve Defendant’s Internet Service

Provider with a subpoena in order to ascertain the identity of the Doe Defendant, then known only

by an IP address. Due to the sensitive nature of this case, the Court also sua sponte issued a

Protective Order allowing Defendant to proceed anonymously, requiring any response to the subpoena

containing Defendant’s identifying information be filed under seal, and ordering Plaintiff not to use

Defendant’s real name in any publicly filed communication without leave of Court. 

Nothing in Plaintiff’s memorandum identifies Defendant or contains information which would

otherwise require that it be filed under seal pursuant to the existing Protective Order. Plaintiff has

not filed a motion citing any statute or court rule that would permit its memorandum to be filed under

seal or otherwise providing justification for this Court to order that the memorandum be maintained

under seal. Therefore, the Court will order Plaintiff’s memorandum unsealed unless Plaintiff files a

motion providing justification for maintaining it under seal by September 12, 2013.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a motion for leave to file the

memorandum under seal on or before September 12, 2013, and ORDERS Plaintiff’s Memorandum

in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike [DE 19] be maintained under seal pending the ruling

on that motion.

 SO ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2013.

 s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: All counsel of record

2

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-JEM document 21 filed 09/06/13 page 2 of 2