Lily, et al. v. Donald Vincent Keller

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon grants in part Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice and grants ten plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The court holds that Defendant’s Oregon conviction and supporting evidence establish a qualifying federal statutory violation and identifies the plaintiffs as victims of that violation without requiring disclosure of their real names. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is denied.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), an offense enumerated in § 2255(a), because he knowingly possessed or accessed CSAM depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and the material had been transported in or through interstate commerce.
2. A plaintiff proceeding under a court-authorized pseudonym need not disclose the plaintiff's real name to establish victimhood under § 2255 when other evidence sufficiently proves identity. The ten moving Plaintiffs met that burden.
3. A plaintiff seeking the statutory liquidated damages remedy under § 2255(a) need not prove actual damages.
4. Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. His arguments concerning disclosure of Plaintiffs' real names and commencement of the action had already been rejected, his constitutional defenses had been stricken or were improperly asserted and noticed, and his vagueness theory failed because the relevant criminal statutes provided fair notice.
5. The motion to strike was denied because Rule 12(f) applies to pleadings, and Defendant's standalone declaration was not a pleading.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant violated an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a), including 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).
2. Whether Plaintiffs established that each of the ten moving Plaintiffs was a victim of Defendant's violation despite proceeding under pseudonyms and not disclosing their real names to Defendant.
3. Whether a plaintiff seeking liquidated damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) must prove actual damages.
4. Whether Defendant was entitled to summary judgment based on his arguments concerning pseudonymous litigation, commencement of the action, due process, and vagueness.
5. Whether Plaintiffs could strike Defendant's standalone declaration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
6. Whether the Court could take judicial notice of specified criminal-case and government or NCMEC documents.

Disposition

other