Lily

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

LILY, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00078-MTK

Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER

v.

DONALD VINCENT KELLER,

Defendant.

KASUBHAI, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and by their corresponding next friend and Guardian Ad

Litem, bring a suit for liquidated damages arising out of crimes relating to the possession of child

sex abuse material (“CSAM”) by Defendant Donald Vincent Keller (“Defendant”). Before the

Court are Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 48), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49), Defendant’s Single Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.

57), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 81). For the reasons below, Plaintiffs’ Request for

Judicial Notice is granted in part, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted,

Defendant’s Single Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is

denied.

BACKGROUND

On November 22, 2024, Defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced for violation of Or.

Rev. Stat. § (“ORS”) 163.686, which makes it a Class C felony to knowingly possess, control, or

access sexually explicit conduct involving a child. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43-45, ECF No. 6; Def.’s

Answer to Am. Compl. (“Answer”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 9. Plaintiffs allege that they are victims of

child sex abuse, and that Defendant was convicted for possessing images of their abuse. Am.

Compl. ¶¶ 46-47. Plaintiffs bring a civil claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a), which allows victims

of crimes related to the possession of CSAM to recover $150,000 in liquidated damages plus

costs and attorneys fees.

I. Defendant’s Criminal Conviction

On June 29, 2023, law enforcement officials received a tip from the National Center for

Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) that CSAM was downloaded or traded at the

residence of Defendant. Dale Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4-5, ECF No. 49-4. Law enforcement obtained a search

warrant for Defendant’s property. Dale Decl. ¶ 5. When law enforcement arrived to search his

property, Defendant admitted that he had looked at CSAM, and he showed officers his computer

and storage devices which contained more than 6,200 unique CSAM images and videos. Dale

Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. The detective assigned to the case, Detective Dale, conducted a forensic analysis

and submitted data to NCMEC. Dale Decl. ¶ 9. NCMEC analyzed Defendant’s CSAM and

identified each CSAM series, which are associated with a particular and known victim1 as well

as a designated law enforcement point of contact (“POC”). Dale Decl. ¶ 9; see, e.g., Montagne

Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 49-6.

Files from the following series were found in Defendant’s computer: “Angela,

Aprilblonde, At School, Best Necklace, BluePillow1, CinderblockBlue, Jenny, Marineland1,

Misty, MotorCouch1, PinkHeartSisters1, Sweet White Sugar, Tara, Teal&PinkPrincess2, and

1 Series names prior to 2018 did not distinguish between multiple individuals in a series name

but altered its names to identify a single known victim. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 4 n.1, ECF No. 49-1.

Vicky.” Dale Decl. ¶ 9. On October 30, 2024, Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of

Encouraging Child Sex Abuse in the Second Degree. Savage Decl. Supp. Pls.’ Req. Judicial

Notice & Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“Savage Decl.”) Ex. 3 at 1-5, ECF No. 48-1.

II. Identification of Plaintiffs

On February 27, 2025, Detective Dale met with Carol Hepburn, who represents several of

the children depicted in Defendant’s collection. Dale Decl. ¶ 10. Detective Dale provided

sanitized, true, and accurate copies of Defendant’s CSAM files to Ms. Hepburn. Dale Decl. ¶ 11.

Attorney Hepburn reviewed the copies, identified eight of the ten Plaintiffs bringing this motion

as depicted in the images, and sent copies to the POC for each CSAM series. Hepburn Decl.

Supp. Pls.’ Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“Hepburn Decl.”) ¶¶ 8.c. (“Violet”), 8.d. (“Maria”), 8.e.

(“Henley”), 8.h. (“Sarah”), 8.j. (“Cara”), 8.l. (“Pia”), 8.m. (“Sloane”), 8.o. (“Lily”), ECF No. 49-

1. Attorney Hepburn provided redacted copies of the Angela and AprilBlonde series to the

attorneys for “Angela” and “April,” including Tanya Hankins. Hepburn Decl. ¶¶ 8.a., 8.b.

Attorney Hankins sent copies of the sanitized images of the Angela series to the POC for

“Angela,” and copies of the Aprilblonde series to the POC for “April.” Hankins Decl. Supp. Pls.’

Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“Hankins Decl.”) ¶ 6-7, ECF No. 49-3.

The POC for each of the relevant Plaintiffs identified them as depicted in a particular

series linked to them. Smith, Jr. Decl. ¶¶ 10-12, ECF No. 49-5 (identifying “Angela” of the

Angela series); Montagne Decl. ¶¶ 7-9 (identifying “April” of the Aprilblonde series); Roberts

Decl. ¶¶ 4-7, ECF No. 49-7 (identifying “Violet” of the At School series); Cornils Decl. ¶¶ 4-5,

ECF No. 49-8 (identifying “Maria” of the Best Necklace series); Papineau Decl. 3, ECF No. 49-

9 (identifying “Henley” of the BluePillow1 series); Behymer Decl. ¶¶ 4-6, ECF No. 49-10

(identifying “Sarah” of the Marineland1 series); Biggers Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, ECF No. 49-11

(identifying “Cara” of the MotorCouch1 series); Davis Decl. 3-4, ECF No. 49-12 (identifying

“Pia” of the Sweet White Sugar series); Scroggins Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, ECF No. 49-13 (identifying

“Sloane” of the TARA series); Findley Decl. ¶¶ 5-9, ECF No. 49-14 (identifying “Lily” of the

Vicky series).

III. Procedural Background

Because of the sensitive nature of the underlying facts at issue, Plaintiffs filed their

complaint under pseudonyms. Compl., ECF No. 1. On January 17, 2025, the Court, sua sponte,

permitted Plaintiffs to proceed with the filing of the Complaint without publicly identifying

themselves. ECF No. 2. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which added additional Plaintiffs

under pseudonyms. ECF No. 6. Defendant Answered on February 18, 2025. Answer.

On February 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Proceed with their Amended

Complaint under pseudonyms. ECF No. 11. Defendant failed to respond by the deadline. Order

2, ECF No. 34. On March 17, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Under

Pseudonyms. ECF No. 16. Later that day, without filing a motion for extension of time or

seeking leave of the Court, Defendant filed an untimely response to the Motion to Proceed Under

Pseudonyms, which the Court refused to consider. May 6, 2025, Order 2, ECF No. 34.

On March 11, 2025, Plaintiffs moved to strike several of Defendant’s affirmative

defenses. ECF No. 14. On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed an untimely response brief without

leave of the Court. ECF No. 23. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part, striking several of

Defendant’s affirmative defenses, including his defenses that the damages Plaintiffs seek and

Plaintiffs’ anonymity in the proceedings violate his due process rights. Op. & Order 4-7, ECF

No. 35.

On July 23, 2025, the Court held a discovery hearing to address whether Plaintiffs needed

to disclose their true names to Defendant. ECF No. 44. The Court held that Plaintiffs need not

disclose their true names, considering their privacy interests and the ability to uniquely identify

them through other means such as the NCMEC series name. ECF No. 44; July 23, 2025, Disc.

Hr’g Tr. 42:15-43:19; 45:16-23, ECF No. 46. The parties thereafter filed the motions now before

the Court.

STANDARDS

Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file, if any, show “that there is no genuine dispute

as to any material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a). Substantive law on an issue determines the materiality of a fact. T.W. Elec. Serv.,

Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Whether the evidence is

such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party determines the

authenticity of the dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings

and identify facts which show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.

Special rules of construction apply when evaluating a summary judgment motion: (1) all

reasonable doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact should be resolved

against the moving party; and (2) all inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec., 809 F.2d at 630-31.

When parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, the court “evaluate[s] each

motion separately, giving the non-moving party in each instance the benefit of all reasonable

inferences.” A.C.L.U. of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 790-91 (9th Cir. 2006)

(quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665,

674 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Cross-motions for summary judgment are evaluated separately under [the]

same standard.”). In evaluating the motions, “the court must consider each party’s evidence,

regardless under which motion the evidence is offered.” L.V. Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d

526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011). “Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the

moving party need only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving

party’s case.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010). Thereafter, the

non-moving party bears the burden of designating “specific facts demonstrating the existence of

genuine issues for trial.” Id. “This burden is not a light one.” Id. The Supreme Court has directed

that in such a situation, the non-moving party must do more than raise a “metaphysical doubt” as

to the material facts at issue. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.

574, 586 (1986).

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Ten of fifteen Plaintiffs2 move for summary judgment to establish Defendant’s liability

for his alleged violation of statutes prohibiting possession of CSAM and a judgment for statutory

liquidated damages. Under § 2255, a plaintiff may recover $150,000 in liquidated damages from

a defendant if (1) the defendant violated one of several specific statutes and (2) the plaintiff was

a victim of that violation. 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The Court finds, as have other federal courts, that

a plaintiff must make this showing by a preponderance of the evidence. M.M. v. Manzano, No.

18-cv-402, 2023 WL 4901650, at *5 (D. Conn. Aug. 1, 2023); “Amy” v. Curtis, No. 19-cv-

02184, 2021 WL 1391463, at *8 (N.D. Cal. April 13, 2021).

2 “Lily,” “Sarah,” “Sloane,” “Cara,” “Violet,” “Maria,” “Henley,” “Pia,” “Angela,” and “April”

bring this motion.

Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because there is no genuine

dispute of material fact that Defendant violated a specified statute and that the ten Plaintiffs are

victims of Defendant’s violation. Plaintiffs also request judicial notice of several documents to

support their motion.

A. Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs request that the Court take notice of seven documents in support of their

motion. Pls.’ Req. Judicial Notice Supp. Pls.’ Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 48. These

documents include four documents filed in the Defendant’s underlying criminal case, the

Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions, one document provided by the

U.S. Department of Justice, and one document provided by NCMEC. Savage Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.

A court may take judicial notice of matters of public record “not subject to reasonable

dispute” when they are “generally known” or “can be accurately and readily determined from

sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,

899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). Such matters include

information made publicly available by government entities and documents filed in state and

federal courts where no party disputes its authenticity or accuracy. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ.

Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010); Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132

(9th Cir. 2012).

Defendant stipulates to Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of Defendant’s criminal case

file. Def.’s Resp. Pls.’ Mot. Partial Summ. J. 7, ECF No. 59. The Court takes judicial notice of

the four documents from Defendant’s criminal proceeding because they were obtained from

Benton County Circuit Court and no party questions their authenticity or accuracy. Savage Decl.

¶ 3, Exs. 1-4. The Court need not take notice of Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests

for Admissions because Plaintiffs may properly rely on those responses in their motion. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). The Court takes notice of the U.S. Department of Justice publication

because a government entity made it available and no party disputes its authenticity or accuracy.

Savage Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 6. The Court takes notice of the NCMEC publication because NCMEC is

generally relied on in CSAM investigations and no party disputes its authenticity. See Savage

Decl. Ex. 6 at 2-3, Ex. 7. Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 48) is granted in part.

B. Section 2255 Requires a Statutory Violation

A plaintiff seeking to recover under § 2255 must show that the defendant violated one of

several enumerated statutes. 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The enumerated statutes include § 2252, which

punishes anyone who, among other things,

knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, . . . matter which

contain any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has been shipped or

transported using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or

affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or which was produced using materials

which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by any means including by

computer, if—

(i) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor

engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

(ii) such visual depiction is of such conduct[.]

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s conviction under Oregon law

establishes the violation of the federal statute.

Defendant pleaded guilty to Encouraging Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree under ORS

163.686 because he

did unlawfully and knowingly and for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the

sexual desires of [him]self, possess or control or knowingly access with the intent

to view, a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child while

knowing or being aware of and consciously disregarding the fact that creation of

the visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involved child abuse.

Savage Decl. Ex. 5 at 5; see also Or. Rev. Stat. § (“ORS”) 163.686. Defendant’s guilty plea

confirms that he knowingly possessed or knowingly accessed, with the intent to view, a visual

depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct which was created involving the use

of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Defendant does not dispute that he has

committed a violation enumerated in § 2255.

Plaintiffs must show that the CSAM was mailed, shipped, or transported with a means of

interstate or foreign commerce or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; this element is

distinct from the elements of the Oregon statute underlying Defendant’s conviction. Cf. ORS

163.686. Plaintiffs, though only relying on the conviction in their motion, have submitted

evidence weighing on this issue.

The Defendant downloaded CSAM onto his computer and other electronic storage

devices using a browser or through trading CSAM images. Dale Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6-7. Law

enforcement found the images in Defendant’s possession in Oregon. Dale Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7. CSAM

of the Plaintiffs is widely available in multiple states. See Hepburn Decl. ¶ 3; see e.g., Smith, Jr.

Decl. ¶¶ 1, 8 (CSAM of “Angela” was seized in North Carolina); Montagne Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4

(CSAM of “April” was seized in Iowa); Davis Decl. 3 (CSAM of “Pia” was recovered in

Canada). Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the CSAM found in Defendant’s possession was

mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate commerce or by means of interstate commerce,

including a computer. Defendant offers no relevant arguments or evidence in response to raise a

genuine issue for the jury. Plaintiffs have shown Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).

C. Section 2255 Requires Proof of Victimhood

Plaintiffs must also show that they are Defendant’s victims. 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Federal

courts have required plaintiffs to establish victimhood through proof that they are depicted in the

CSAM (identity), the CSAM meets the statutory definition of sexual content,3 and that the

CSAM was found in the defendant’s possession. “Amy”, 2021 WL 1391463, at *7. Plaintiffs

3 18 U.S.C. § 2256.

have produced sufficient evidence to establish possession and child sexual content, which the

Court has reviewed in camera.4 Defendant only argues Plaintiffs fail to prove identity.

Plaintiffs’ evidence, as summarized above, establishes that Defendant possessed files that

law enforcement POCs for each of the Plaintiffs traced to a unique series name associated with

each of the ten Plaintiffs. Law enforcement contacts also identified each moving plaintiff

visually as did Attorney Hepburn or Attorney Hankins. The Court nevertheless addresses

identification of each of the moving Plaintiffs below:

1. “Lily”

Detective Dale found images from the Vicky series in Defendant’s possession. Dale Decl.

¶ 9. Ms. Hepburn met with Detective Dale, reviewed sanitized copies of the images in the Vicky

series, and identified “Lily” as shown in them. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.o. Ms. Hepburn then sent

copies of the images to the POC for the Vicky series, who identified “Lily” as depicted in the

images and the individual linked to the Vicky series. Findley Decl. ¶¶ 4-9. Ms. Hepburn began

representing “Lily” in 2008 and has seen her images many times. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.o. The POC

met “Lily” in the course of the investigation into her abuse and stays in contact with her. Findley

Decl. ¶ 4.

4 Plaintiffs filed sanitized (the sexual conduct is redacted) declarations and exhibits under seal,

describing how each relevant image is altered and what it depicts. Sealed Hepburn Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8,

ECF No. 60; Sealed Findley Decl. ¶ 8-10, ECF No. 73; Sealed Behymer Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, ECF No.

69; Sealed Scroggins Decl. ¶¶ 7-9, ECF No. 72; Sealed Biggers Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, ECF No. 70;

Sealed Roberts Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, ECF No. 66; Sealed Cornils Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, ECF No. 67; Sealed

Papineau Decl. 3, Ex. 1 ECF No. 68; Sealed Bianco Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8 ECF No. 61; Sealed Smith, Jr.

Decl. ¶¶ 10-11, ECF No. 64; Sealed Montagne Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 65; Sealed Davis. Decl. ¶ 4,

ECF No. 71. Defendant’s criminal case also establishes these elements. Savage Decl. Ex 3, at 3.

2. “Angela”

Detective Dale also found images from the Angela series in Defendant’s possession. Dale

Decl. ¶ 9. Ms. Hepburn received sanitized copies of the files from Detective Dale and provided

copies to Attorney Hankins. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.a. Attorney Hankins then provided a sanitized

copy to the POC for the Angela series. Hankins Decl. ¶ 6. Attorney Hankins has reviewed other

images of “Angela” though her representation of “Angela” since 2022. Hankins Decl. ¶ 3. The

POC met “Angela” at the time of her rescue from her abuse and recognized the image found in

Defendant’s possession to be part of the collection from the original criminal trial of “Angela’s”

abuser. Smith, Jr. Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12. The POC reviewed the copy and identified “Angela” as the

individual shown in the copy and associated with the Angela series. Smith, Jr. Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.

3. “April”

Detective Dale found images from the Aprilblonde series in Defendant’s possession. Dale

Decl. ¶ 9. Detective Dale provided sanitized copies of the images to Ms. Hepburn who then

provided copies to Attorney Hankins. Dale Decl. ¶ 11; Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.b. Attorney Hankins

sent an image to the POC for the Aprilblonde series. Hankins Decl. ¶ 7. Attorney Hankins also

recognized “April” as shown in the images because of her prior representation of her in similar

matters. Hankins Decl. ¶ 3. The POC reviewed the images and identified “April” as the

individual shown in the image and associated with the Aprilblonde series. Montagne Decl. ¶¶ 7-

9. The POC personally met “April” when she was rescued from her abuse and has identified

“April” in hundreds of criminal cases. Montagne Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.

4. “Violet”

Detective Dale found images from the At School series in Defendant’s possession. Dale

Decl. ¶ 9. Detective Dale provided sanitized copies of the images to Ms. Hepburn who

recognized “Violet” as shown in them and provided a copied image to the POC for the At School

series. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.c. Ms. Hepburn has met “Violet” and represented her when she was a

child. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.c. Ms. Hepburn has viewed the image provided by Detective Dale many

times. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.c. The POC is regularly called upon to identify “Violet” in criminal

prosecutions and has seen the image provided by Ms. Hepburn many times. Roberts Decl. ¶¶ 5,

6. The POC identified “Violet” as the individual shown in the image and linked to the At School

series. Roberts Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.

5. “Maria”

Detective Dale found images from the Best Necklace series in Defendant’s possession.

Dale Decl. ¶ 9. Ms. Hepburn viewed the images, identified “Maria” as the individual shown in

them, and provided a copy of an image to the POC for the Best Necklace series. Hepburn Decl. ¶

8.d. Ms. Hepburn has represented “Maria” since she was a child. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.d. The POC

has personally met with “Maria” and her mother on multiple occasions. Cornils Decl. ¶ 2. The

POC identified “Maria” as the individual shown in the image and depicted in the Best Necklace

series. Cornils Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5.

6. “Henley”

Detective Dale found images from the BluePillow1 series in Defendant’s possession.

Dale Decl. ¶ 9. Ms. Hepburn reviewed the images, identified “Henley” in the images, and

provided a copy of an image to Attorney Bianco. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.e. Ms. Hepburn has

represented “Henley” since she was a late adolescent. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.e. Ms. Bianco identified

“Henley” as depicted in the image and provided a copy to the POC for the BluePillow1 Series.

Bianco Decl. Supp. Pls.’ Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“Bianco Decl.”) ¶ 7, ECF No. 49-2. Ms. Bianco

has represented “Henley” since she was a late adolescent and recognized “her face, the

background, and the poses” from CSAM of “Henley.” Bianco Decl. ¶ 7. The POC has met

“Henley” and her mother and has known them for many years. Papineau Decl. 3. The POC

verified that “Henley” is shown in the image and that “Henley” is associated with the

BluePillow1 series. Papineau Decl. 3.

7. “Sarah”

Detective Dale found images from the Marineland1 series in Defendant’s possession.

Dale Decl. ¶ 9. Ms. Hepburn reviewed an image from the series, identified “Sarah” as shown in

it, and provided a copy to the POC for the Marineland1 series. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.h. Ms.

Hepburn has represented “Sarah” for more than ten years and viewed the image found in

Defendant’s possession on many occasions. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.h. The POC met “Sarah” in the

course of her investigation involving the Marineland1 series and has seen the image of “Sarah”

found in Defendant’s possession many times in her law enforcement duties. Behymer Decl. ¶¶ 2,

4, 6. The POC identified “Sarah” as shown in the image and her images as designated by the

Marineland1 series. Behymer Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.

8. “Cara”

Detective Dale found images from the MotorCouch1 series in Defendant’s possession.

Dale Decl. ¶ 9. Ms. Hepburn viewed one of these images, identified “Cara” in it, and provided a

copy to the POC for the MotorCouch1 series. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.j. Ms. Hepburn has seen the

image in Defendant’s possession on several occasions through her representation of “Cara.”

Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.j. Ms. Hepburn has personally met “Cara” and communicated with her on

multiple occasions. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.j. The POC has seen the image found in Defendant’s

possession many times in their law enforcement duties and has identified “Cara” in many

criminal prosecutions. Biggers Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. The POC identified “Cara” as the victim associated

with the MotorCouch1 series and shown in the image. Biggers Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4.

9. “Pia”

Detective Dale found images from the Sweet White Sugar series in Defendant’s

possession. Dale Decl. ¶ 9. Detective Dale showed an image to Ms. Hepburn who recognized

“Pia” in the image and provided a copy to Attorney Bianco to give to the POC for the Sweet

White Sugar series. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.l. Ms. Hepburn has represented “Pia” since 2016.

Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.l. Ms. Bianco recognized “Pia” as the individual shown in the image and

identified “Pia” as identified with the Sweet White Sugar series. Bianco Decl. 3 n.1, ¶ 8. She has

represented “Pia” since she was a child and has seen CSAM of “Pia” many times while

representing her. Bianco Decl. ¶ 8. Ms. Bianco provided a copy to the POC for the Sweet White

Sugar series. Bianco Decl. ¶ 8. The POC has seen the image found in Defendant’s possession

many times in her work as a law enforcement agent. Davis Decl. 4. The POC confirmed that

images in the Sweet White Sugar series show “Pia” and that “Pia” is shown in the image Ms.

Bianco provided. Davis Decl. 3-4.

10. “Sloane”

Detective Dale found files from the TARA series in Defendant’s possession. Dale Decl. ¶

9. Ms. Hepburn reviewed redacted images from the files and identified “Sloane” in the images.

Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.m. Ms. Hepburn has met “Sloane” and her mother and communicated with

both of them. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.m. She provided copied images to the POC for the TARA

series. Hepburn Decl. ¶ 8.m. The POC has met “Sloane” personally and has kept in touch with

her. Scroggins Decl. ¶ 4. The POC has viewed images of “Sloane” many times during his law

enforcement duties. Scroggins Decl. ¶¶ 6-8. The POC for the TARA series stated that “Sloane”

is the victim in the series and that she is depicted in the images. Scroggins Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.

D. Defendant’s Arguments

Defendant does not offer any evidence to contradict Plaintiffs’ showing. Defendant

instead argues that Plaintiffs must provide their real names to establish their identity, and

Defendant’s liability, under § 2255. Defendant relies entirely on non-binding authority which he

argues stand for an “overwhelming majority rule” supporting his position. Def.’s Resp. Pls.’

Mot. Partial Summ. J. 1. Defendant cites Yocom, a Tenth Circuit case that dismissed an action

for lack of jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to gain the district court’s permission to

proceed under pseudonyms. W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001). Yocom

noted, in dictum, that “[i]f a court grants permission, it is often with the requirement” that the

plaintiffs’ names be disclosed to the defense and the court under seal. Id. (emphasis added).

By its terms, Yocom does not stand for the proposition that plaintiffs who have the court’s

permission to proceed pseudonymously must disclose their real names. The Court allowed

Plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms in this case. ECF Nos. 2, 16. The Court did not require

Plaintiffs to disclose their real names to Defendant. ECF No. 44. Yocom is therefore not

instructive.

Defendant’s remaining authority similarly does not stand for the rule he offers. See

Manzano, 2023 WL 4901650, at *4, 5 (holding the victim established victimhood by a

declaration with her real name in the absence of other evidence substantiating that the plaintiff

was a victim in the underlying criminal case); Casseaopeia v. Brown, No. 22-cv-00251, 2022

WL 1606520, at *3 (D. Utah. May 20, 2022) (allowing plaintiffs to proceed anonymously but

instructing them to file their real names under seal); Burdyn v. Old Forge Borough, 330 F.R.D.

399, 403 (M.D. Pa. 2019) (mem. op.) (stating that the court previously held that the plaintiff

could not proceed under a pseudonym). Defendant, in his motion, also relied on “Jenny” v.

Reetz, No. 23-cv-00474, 2024 WL 1080912 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 8, 2024) to argue that Plaintiffs

must disclose their legal names. Defendant now admits that Reetz stands for the opposite

proposition. Def.’s Reply Mem. Supp. Single Mot. Summ. J. (“Def.’s Reply”) 27-28, ECF No.

76; see Reetz, 2024 WL 1080912, at *3 (allowing the parties to address whether the plaintiffs

must disclose their real names); Protective Order at *1, ECF No. 24, “Jenny” v. Reetz, No. 23-

cv-00474 (N.D. Okla. March 7, 2024) (“Plaintiffs are relieved from disclosing their legal

identities (or any information relating thereto) in this matter and depositions of Plaintiffs are

forbidden.”). Recognizing the error, Defendant offers that “Defendant’s lawyer and his paralegal,

respectfully, do not have time to go through the entire ECF docket of every opinion on Westlaw

Defendant cites.” Def.’s Reply 28.

Defendant’s proffered authority does not stand for his contentions, and, in one instance,

contradicts them.

E. Plaintiffs’ Showing

The Court concludes that disclosure of a plaintiff’s real name is not necessary to prove

victimhood under § 2255 where other evidence suffices to show identity. See “Amy”, 2021 WL

1391463, at *8 (holding that some plaintiffs establish identity through declarations of their

family members and law enforcement points of contact); ECF No. 44. Plaintiffs have met that

burden here. Plaintiffs have produced sufficient and undisputed evidence to identify “Lily,”

“Sarah,” “Sloane,” “Cara,” “Violet,” “Maria,” “Henley,” “Pia,” “Angela,” and “April” as victims

in Defendant’s underlying case. These individuals are linked to a unique NCMEC series found in

Defendant’s possession. Individuals with personal knowledge of the moving Plaintiffs, including

law enforcement associated with the investigation into their abuse and those with longstanding

relationships with the moving Plaintiffs, have identified them as shown in images found in

Defendant’s possession.

Plaintiffs have shown that that they are victims in accordance with § 2255. Section 2255

does not require a plaintiff who has elected to pursue liquidated damages against a CSAM

possessor to show actual damages. 18 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Doe v. Boland, 698 F.3d 877, 882-

83 (6th Cir. 2012) (interpreting § 2255); Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434, 456-57 (2014)

(holding a CSAM possessor causes harm to the victims depicted in the CSAM). The moving

Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment, and Defendant is liable to each of them for

liquidated damages in the amount of $150,000 and attorneys fees and costs.

II. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant moves for summary judgment, raising arguments already denied by this Court.

Defendant argues that (1) Plaintiffs cannot show victimhood without disclosing their real names,

(2) Plaintiffs did not properly commence their action, and (3) § 2255 violates Defendant’s due

process rights. Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs must disclose their names to establish

victimhood restates his opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. It is addressed above and by this Court’s

prior orders. ECF No. 44. The Court declines to address it again.

The Court also declines to address Defendant’s arguments that § 2255 is

unconstitutional5 because the Court struck Defendant’s affirmative defenses raising his

constitutional defenses as vague and non-compliant with the required notice to the Attorney

General. Op. & Order 4-7, ECF No. 35. Defendant argues a new constitutional theory, not

asserted in his answer, that § 2255 is void for vagueness. This defense is not properly asserted or

noticed to the Attorney General.6 Regardless, § 2255 requires the defendant violate enumerated

5 Defendant admits his arguments are improperly raised under the Fourteenth Amendment

instead of the Fifth Amendment. Def.’s Reply Mem. Supp. Single Mot. Summ. J. 34, ECF No.

76.

6 Defendant’s August 14, 2025, Notice, ECF No. 55, was not “promptly” filed or served on the

Attorney General as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a)(1)-(2).

statutes. Defendant concedes that the criminal statutory violations enumerated in § 2255 are not

void for vagueness. Def.’s Single Mot. Summ. J. 29. Section 2255 is not unconstitutionally

vague because it gives “fair notice” of the proscribed conduct and who may be sued. See

Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 595 (2015).

Defendant’s remaining argument is that Plaintiffs’ claim was improperly commenced

because they never provided their real names to the Defendant. Defendant’s reliance on Yocom

remains misplaced. The Court has already allowed Plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously without

disclosing their names to Defendant over Defendant’s objections. ECF No. 2 (allowing Plaintiffs

to proceed pseudonymously); ECF No. 34 (denying reconsideration of the same); ECF No. 44

(sustaining objection to Defendant’s request that Plaintiffs disclose their real names).

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57) is denied.

III. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Declaration

After the parties fully briefed the motions for summary judgment, Defendant filed a

declaration stating that the real names of the individuals in Defendant’s underlying criminal case

were unknown by both parties and the presiding judge. Kaempf Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 80. Plaintiff

moves under Rule 12(f), which allows a court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense

or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “[O]nly

pleadings are subject to motions to strike.” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880,

885 (9th Cir. 1983). A standalone declaration is generally not a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a).

Defendant’s declaration is not a pleading and is generally related to his arguments that Plaintiffs

must disclose their real names. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is accordingly denied.

Defendant’s Response to the motion to strike, however, states that his declaration relates

to “this lawsuit (A) being a sham that (B) lacks personal jurisdiction, and is (C) designed merely

to allow Plaintiffs’ multiple lawyers to recover statutory attorney fees.” Def.’s Resp. Pls.’ Mot.

Strike Decl. Def. Counsel 2, ECF No. 82. Defendant has not raised the defense of personal

jurisdiction and has consented to this Court’s personal jurisdiction over him as evidenced by his

appearance and several filings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1)(B) (stating a party waives a personal

jurisdiction defense by failing to assert it in its first responsive pleading); Answer. Defendant

offers no evidence from which this Court would conclude that this is a “sham” lawsuit “designed

merely to allow Plaintiffs’ multiple lawyers to recover statutory attorney fees.” Defendant relies

merely on baseless speculation that Plaintiffs’ lawyers represent parties who do not exist because

Plaintiffs have not disclosed their real names to Defendant.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 48) is

GRANTED IN PART; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (ECF No. 49) is

GRANTED; Defendant’s Single Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57) is DENIED;

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 81) is DENIED. Defendant is liable to the moving

Plaintiffs in the amount of $150,000 each plus costs and fees under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

DATED this 17th day of March 2026.

s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai

MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him)

United States District Judge