Rip Technologies LLC v. The Partnerships Identified On Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's memorandum on joinder 14. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, the Court determines, within its discretion, that plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of 28 defendants is proper in this matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court dismisses defendant Nos. 2-28 without prejudice. The case will proceed against defendant No. 1. If plaintiff files a new action against defendant Nos. 2-28, plaintiff shall indicate on the Civil Cover Sheet that the filed case is related to this matter. See Local Rule 40.3(b)(2). Mailed notice

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Rip Technologies LLC Amended Schedule A to the Amended Complaint 12

AMENDED complaint by Rip Technologies LLC against The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for leave 4 is granted as to the request to file documents under seal and denied as to the request to proceed under a pseudonym. Exceptional circumstances have not been shown to proceed anonymously. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) ("The title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]"); Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 189 F.3d 372, 377 (7th Cir. 2016) ("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."); XYZ Corp. v. Partn. & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 2022 WL 180151, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022) ("There is insufficient evidence. that Schedule A defendants are taking advantage of the case-tracking option to such an extent that it is materially impeding brand owners' enforcement efforts."); XYZ Corp. v. Partn. & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 2020 WL 6681360, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2020) ("No-name litigation is the rare exception, not the Rule."). Accordingly, by 7/16/2025, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that lists Plaintiff's true name. Moreover, Plaintiff's submissions establish that, were defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, plaintiff may file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal. Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the proprietary of joinder of 217 defendants in this case. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). By 7/16/2025, plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the principles described in Estee Lauder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint with a single defendant or a smaller subset of defendants along with its memorandum explaining specifically why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189. Mailed notice.

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).

CIVIL Cover Sheet

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff XYZ Corporation Complaint (Unredacted)

COMPLAINT (REDACTED) filed by XYZ Corporation; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23710041.