1 – ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

KILLER JOE NEVADA, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

DOE-24.20.134.179,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:15- cv-00495-ST

ORDER

STEWART, Magistrate Judge:

On October 9, 2015, defendant (identified only by his or her subscriber assigned Internet 

Protocol (“IP”) address of 24.20.134.179) filed an Offer of Judgment for the sum of $5,750.00, 

but without admitting liability (docket #31). After plaintiff accepted that Offer (docket #30), the 

court entered a Judgment in that amount (docket #32). 

Pursuant to FRCP 10, 11 and 17, plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Disclosure of the 

Identity of the Defendant because the Judgment cannot be enforced if it is not paid. Defendant

objects to the motion because plaintiff’s attorney agreed to accept monthly payments of $500.00 

until the balance of the Judgment is satisfied. Bahgat Decl. (docket #35), ¶¶ 7-8 & Ex. B. 

Plaintiff’s attorney agreed not to execute on the Judgment provided defendant makes timely 

payments. Id, ¶ 11 & Ex. B. Defendant made the first payment to plaintiff prior to the due date 

of November 9, 2015, and the next payment is not due until on or about December 9, 2015. Id, 

Case 6:15-cv-00495-ST Document 36 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 3
2 – ORDER

¶¶ 9, 12 & Ex. C. Absent a missing or late payment, defendant contends that plaintiff’s motion 

lacks merit, is an abuse of the justice system, and a blatant violation of FRCP 11 for which 

sanctions should be assessed against plaintiff’s counsel.

This case presents an unusual situation. Although plaintiff has a Judgment, it is not yet 

fully paid and is not enforceable without identifying defendant by more than an IP address. At 

this point, the Judgment fails to provide plaintiff with any means of securing defendant’s 

promised monthly payments since it cannot be filed with state court in order to place a lien 

against any real property or garnish wages. Plaintiff has offered an alternative to address its lack 

of security through a private promissory note, separate settlement agreement or other means, all 

of which defendant has rejected. 

Defendant is correct that it is not necessary to identify him or her until plaintiff needs to 

enforce the Judgment. However, if defendant’s counsel withdraws or if defendant fails to 

cooperate, plaintiff faces the prospect of being unable to identify defendant at a later date when 

and if needed. Therefore, defendant must now disclose his or her identity, but under seal to 

protect his or her privacy.

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Disclosure of the Identity of the Defendant (docket #33) is 

GRANTED. On or before December 8, 2015, defendant shall file under seal his or her identity, 

including full name and current address. Plaintiff shall not disclose or use defendant’s identity in 

any way unless the court enters an order unsealing defendant’s identity to allow execution on any 

unpaid portion of the Judgment. 

///

///

Case 6:15-cv-00495-ST Document 36 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 3
3 – ORDER

It is further ordered, as agreed by the parties, that defendant shall pay $500.00 to plaintiff 

on or before December 9, 2015, and $500.00 on the ninth day of every month thereafter until the 

Judgment is paid in full.

DATED December 1, 2015.

s/ Janice M. Stewart

Janice M. Stewart

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 6:15-cv-00495-ST Document 36 Filed 12/01/15 Page 3 of 3