# Lily

> District Court, D. Oregon · March 17, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11288874

## Case

- **Full name:** Lily, et al. v. Donald Vincent Keller
- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** March 17, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11288874

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding a CSAM possessor causes harm to the victims depicted in the CSAM

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11288874. Public record. Not legal advice.