Clara McAllister v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Motion hearing held on Plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary injunction 37 . Plaintiff appeared but no Defendants appeared. And no defendant has otherwise objected in response to the TRO or Plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary injunction 37 . Accordingly, and based upon the same findings made in this Court's TRO 24, this Court finds that a preliminary injunction is appropriate and warranted, as well as unopposed and grants Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 37 . Enter Preliminary Injunction Order. The Court directs the Clerk to unseal any previously sealed documents in this matter. Plaintiff's counsel shall add all defendants listed on Schedule A to the Court's docket within three business days. Plaintiff may find instructions at https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_cmecf/pdfs/v60/Add_Terminate_Instructions.pdf. By 6/17/24, Plaintiff shall file a status report regarding the status of service of process, settlement discussions, and any further information that Plaintiff wishes to bring to the Court's attention. Mailed notice. (kp, ) (Entered: 05/01/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Based upon the materials submitted, this Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 16 and motion for leave to file excess pages 17 . The Court also grants Plaintiff's ex parte motion for entry of a temporary restraining order 15 . Enter sealed temporary restraining order. Within seven (7) calendar days of entry of this Order, McAllister shall deposit with the Court one hundred and three thousand dollars ($103,000), either cash or surety bond, as security, which amount has, in the absence of adversarial testing, been deemed adequate for the payment of such damages as any person may be entitled to recover as a result of a wrongful restraint hereunder. Absent further order, this TRO will expire on 4/16/24. The 4/3/24 Notice of Motion date is stricken. The Clerk shall add Plaintiff's full name to the docket. Mailed notice (gel, ) (Entered: 04/02/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has initiated a copyright infringement case against a list of Defendants and seeks to proceed, at least initially, via pseudonym. See 5 . Plaintiff also seeks leave to temporarily seal her complaint, the "Schedule A" listing the named Defendants, and copies of Plaintiff's certificates of copyright registration. Id. "No-name litigation is disfavored in general, and particularly in this Circuit." XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). The Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly voiced its disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes. To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity." Id. (citing Doe v. Vill. of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 37677 (7th Cir. 2016); Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997)). Here, Plaintiff argues that proceeding pseudonymously and sealing the complaint and Schedule A remains "necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order." 5 at 1. She argues that, if Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, "the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence, the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, and the transfer or disablement of the infringing websites," which would "frustrate the purposes of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court's power to grant relief." Id. But Plaintiff makes no specific argument about pseudonymity; Indeed, many cases just like this are filed every day in this District without anonymous plaintiffs. Plaintiff does not explain why the requested sealing order (which would prevent defendants from learning that they have been sued) remains insufficient by itself to alleviate the concerns she has identified; nor has she explained why this case is otherwise exceptional. For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed via pseudonym 5 . Additionally, because Plaintiff has failed to identify herself on any of the pending pleadings, the Court denies without prejudice her requests to seal 5, 9, her motion for TRO 6, and her motion for leave to file excess pages 8 . Plaintiff may renew these motions via pleadings (and traditional sealing procedures) that include her proper name in lieu of the pseudonym in the case caption. Mailed notice (gel, ) (Entered: 03/18/2024)