墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
微信号: Mooting2018
墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
| 编号 | 日期 | 案件进程 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2026-08-05 | COMPLAINT filed by Qingsong Chen; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25488449. |
| 6 | 2026-08-05 | MOTION by Plaintiff Qingsong Chen for leave to file documents under seal |
| 8 | 2026-08-06 | MOTION by Plaintiff Qingsong Chen for Expedited Discovery |
| 11 | 2026-08-10 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been assigned to Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. Upon review of the copyright infringement complaint and other filings, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all 23 defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. See Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A,No. 24 C 1566, 2024 WL 2953105 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Indeed, Plaintiff filed a form complaint with generic allegations about coordinated counterfeiting activity between 23 defendants without any details whatsoever, which arguably violates the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Accordingly, by 8/17/26, Plaintiff must file either a memorandum explaining why joinder is proper or an amended complaint specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity. Failure to do so will result in the current complaint being dismissed without prejudice and this case being closed. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not established good cause under Local Rule 26.2 or Seventh Circuit precedent to justify sealing the names of defendants or documents pertaining to alleged infringing activity. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 794 F. Supp. 3d 543, 552 (N.D. Ill. 2025) (Kness, J.). More importantly, this presumption of sealing runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case. be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-568 (7th Cir. 2000). For those reasons, the motion for leave to file under seal [6] is denied. The Clerk is directed to unseal the documents filed at [2] and [3]. Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery [8] is denied as premature. The motion hearing set for 8/13/26 [10] is stricken. Mailed notice. |