Apple Corps Limited v. The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to File Under Seal. 7. Therein, Plaintiff requests that Schedule A to Plaintiff's Complaint "remain under seal until the Court has the opportunity to rule on Plaintiff's request for temporary ex parte relief. If the Court grants Plaintiff's request for temporary ex parte relief, Plaintiff further requests that the Court's Orders thereon be sealed until, at least, the relief ordered therein has been effectuated." Id. at 2. Motions to file documents under seal or to proceed anonymously or pseudonymously in intellectual property rights cases are disfavored. See Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978) ("The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern."); Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process."); Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992) ("It is the exceptional case in which a plaintiff may proceed under a fictitious name."). Accordingly, such motions shall be denied absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F. 2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiff argues temporary sealing is required because "Plaintiff has good reason to believe that providing advance notification of Plaintiff's claims would cause Defendants to hide or transfer their ill-gotten assets, inventory, and related records beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and thereby thwart the Court's ability to grant meaningful relief." 7 at 2. Plaintiff's Motion fails to articulate any particular reason these particular Defendants are likely to destroy evidence. Further, the Motion fails to articulate exceptional circumstances necessitating the temporary sealing of portions of the court file. See, e.g., Zorro Prods., Inc. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'Ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-CV-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *2-5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2023) (explaining why a motion to seal will rarely be justified in a Schedule A case). Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion 7 is DENIED. Plaintiff shall file Schedule "A" as an attachment to the Complaint on the public docket on or before July 31, 2026. Further, Plaintiff filed a sealed Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order 8 and sealed Ex Parte Motion for Alternative Service 9 (collectively, the "Sealed Ex Parte Motions"). In light of the Court denying Plaintiff's Motion to Seal, all filings must now appear on the public docket. However, in lieu of automatically unsealing the filings and revealing information Plaintiffs may not wish to make public, the Court DENIES the Sealed Ex Parte Motions without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the Sealed Ex Parte Motions and the accompanying exhibits on the public docket on or before July 31, 2026. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this Action. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/29/2026.