Not the case mentioned in the OP, but a similar one: https://www.scribd.com/document/319728448/NJD-15-Cv-02250-KM-MAH-Document-17 https://www.scribd.com/documen

Not the case mentioned in the OP, but a similar one: https://www.scribd.com/document/319728448/NJD-15-Cv-02250-KM-MAH-Document-17 https://www.scribd.com/document/319728448/NJD-15-Cv-02250-KM... > 'Absent any evidence to the contrary, it is generally true that "the Defendant's failure to answer evinces the Defendant's culpability in [the] default." Id. Here, there is some doubt as to whether the person named as defendant is indeed the culpable party. He is identified essentially as the person who corresponds to a certain IP address. Electronically, of course, an IP address connects to a device, not a person, and it is impossible to tell from subscriber information who the device user was. It could be, for example, that someone else in the household (or for that matter someone pirating wireless service) is the actual infringer. That said, there seems to be a good faith basis for naming the particular individual ... The named defendant could have responded with a denial but defaulted instead." At least in the case above, the question of who was the likely user has been considered and the defendant's (in)action found relevant.