John Doe v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A
最近更新时间：2025-07-22
案件信息
案件号：ilnd-1:2025-cv-06686
状态：open
提交时间：2025-07-07 00:00:00
诉讼类型：
律所：
原告：John Doe v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A
| # | 日期 | 案件进程 |
| 15 | 2025-07-07 | SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant COOKFUN |
| 14 | 2025-07-07 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by John Doe as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 7/7/2025, answer due 7/28/2025. |
| 13 | 2025-07-07 | (Declaration Declaration of Service) |
| 12 | 2025-06-25 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Plaintiff's motion to seal 24 is granted. Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process 22 is also granted. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it is an effective way to communicate with an online marketplace defendant. Plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order and expedited discovery 18 is granted in part and denied in part, without prejudice. In order to be entitled to equitable relief like a TRO, the Plaintiff must show (among other things) that there is ongoing or impending harm. Swanigan v. City of Chicago, 881 F.3d 577, 583 n.2 (7th Cir. 2018). "Past injury alone is insufficient." Simic v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff has submitted as an exhibit in support of its argument of infringement with screenshots of Defendant selling the allegedly infringing product. Those screenshots appear to have been taken in February 2025. This is not sufficient evidence of ongoing harm. Plaintiff also submitted in support of its motion the declaration of its president, Mr. Lohmeier. Mr. Lohmeier declares that Defendant continues to profit from its infringing activity but not that Defendant continues to sell the infringing product. Thus, there is no current evidence in the record of ongoing harm, and the TRO is denied. Should Plaintiff re-file for a TRO, it is encouraged to submit live weblinks along with recent screenshots of the alleged infringement so the Court can evaluate both personal jurisdiction and the likelihood of irreparable injury. However, the Court grants Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendant. The Court strikes the motion hearing set for 7/2/2025. Enter order. Mailed notice. (jcc,) |
| 11 | 2025-06-25 | ORDER for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Service of Process by E-Mail and/or Electronic Publication. Signed by the Honorable April M. Perry on 6/25/2025. Mailed notice. (jcc,) |
| 10 | 2025-06-24 | First AMENDED complaint by John Doe against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 9 | 2025-06-24 | Exhibit Exhibit 1 |
| 8 | 2025-06-24 | Exhibit Exhibit 2 |
| 7 | 2025-06-24 | MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for temporary restraining order |
| 6 | 2025-06-24 | MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for service by publication |
| 5 | 2025-06-24 | MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe to seal document sealed document[17], sealed document[16], sealed document[21] |
| 4 | 2025-06-18 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: It appearing that the case filed is a "Schedule A" case, Plaintiff is directed to the Court's standing order on its website directing the filing of the Court's Schedule A Template within 14 days. Plaintiff's Motion to Seal [9] is granted in part. Plaintiff's identity shall not be sealed. The Seventh Circuit heavily disfavors anonymous, pseudonymous, or "no-name" litigation and requires the plaintiff to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" that justify a refusal to self-identify. Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 37677 (7th Cir. 2016). "[B]rand owners who seek relief against alleged counterfeiters may be frustrated by the stringent requirements for pseudonymous litigation. But in the absence of a change in binding Seventh Circuit caselaw, changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the creation of an alternative legislative remedy, the current legal framework does not permit pseudonymity without a demonstration of circumstances more exceptional than those presented" in a typical "Schedule A" online counterfeiting case. XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Sched. A, No. 21- CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022); see also XYZ Corporation v. Partnership and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 2020 WL 6681360 (N.D. Ill., 2020) (noting that in a case with an anonymous plaintiff suing a sealed schedule A, "[t]he public has no earthly idea who is suing whom," and striking the complaint because the plaintiff attempted to proceed anonymously without "request[ing] leave of Court, let alone establish[ing] that 'exceptional circumstances' justify shielding its identity."). The complaint identifies circumstances that are common to all "Schedule A" cases, meaning that the circumstances are, by definition, not exceptional. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file an amended, non-anonymous complaint and to change the pseudonym "John Doe" used on the case caption on CM/ECF to Plaintiff's true identity by June 25, 2025. The Court also sua sponte raises the propriety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) of joining 226 defendants to this action. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Plaintiff is reminded that "[c]ourts in this district generally agree that alleging that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright in the same way does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." See Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps, Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Plaintiff should reference this Court's opinion in Zaful v. Schedule A Defs., 24-cv-11111, Doc. 12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025), where the Court expressed its views on joinder in such cases. By July 2, 2025, Plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the principles described above. In the alternative, Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by July 2, 2025, with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Mailed notice. (jcc,) |
| 3 | 2025-06-17 | COMPLAINT (Redacted) filed by John Doe; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23634694. |
| 2 | 2025-06-17 | Exhibit Exhibit 3 to the Redacted Complaint |
| 1 | 2025-06-17 | MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe to seal document sealed document[4], sealed document, [6], sealed document[3], sealed document[2], sealed document[8] |
