James Avery Craftsman, Inc. v. THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 3/2/2026. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: The court having received no request for a hearing by the deadline 66, the preliminary injunction hearing set for March 2, 2026, is stricken. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 60 is granted. Enter preliminary injunction order. In accordance with the order, the clerk is directed to unseal all previously sealed documents. The next status report is due on or before April 16, 2026. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Documents Filed in Error 56 is granted. The motion entered as document 54 is withdrawn. Plaintiff's second Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order 57 is denied because the temporary restraining order 47 was extended for fourteen days on February 12, 2026. Dkt. No. 53. Rule 65(b)(2) does not authorize a second fourteen-day extension. See, e.g., United Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Bank N.A., 406 F.3d 918, 923 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bd. of Educ. Of Chi., 11 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 1993). The preliminary injunction hearing tentatively set for March 2, 2026, at 11 a.m. is stricken. Plaintiff shall file a status report on or before the close of business on February 27, 2026, informing the court how it wishes to proceed.Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order 50 to and including March 2, 2026 is granted. The preliminary injunction hearing set for February 13, 2026, is stricken. The preliminary injunction hearing is reset to March 2, 2026, at 11 a.m. Any preliminary injunction motion is due on or before February 25, 2026. The court will rule on any preliminary injunction motion without holding a hearing unless a timely written response is filed or a timely request to hold a hearing is received. The deadline to file a response to, or request a hearing on, plaintiff's anticipated motion for preliminary injunction is February 26, 2026. A hearing may be requested by sending a message to Chambers_Gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff is ordered to serve defendants with a copy of this order along with any motion for preliminary injunction.Mailed notice

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 2/2/2026. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff has withdrawn 44 former ¶5 of its temporary restraining order, eliminating plaintiff's request for a Rule 65(d)(2) finding. The minute order entered January 30, 2026, Dkt. No. 42, is withdrawn because the third-party service providers no longer need to be served. As revised 44, plaintiff's ex parte motion 35 for temporary restraining order is granted. Plaintiff's motion to seal 45 its revised proposed temporary restraining order is granted. Enter sealed temporary restraining order. A preliminary injunction hearing to be held by teleconference is tentatively set for February 13, 2026, at 10:30 AM Central Time. The court will rule on any preliminary injunction motion without holding a hearing unless a hearing is requested at least 48 hours before the time of the scheduled hearing. A hearing may be requested by contacting Judge Gottschall's courtroom deputy at Chambers_Gottschall@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File under Seal, Dkt. Nos. 6, 21, and 29 are granted. The Clerk is instructed to maintain the seal on all presently sealed documents until further order of court. Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 22 is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with ¶¶ 3 and 6 of this court's Standing Order in "Schedule A" Cases, Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it gave notice to any of the third parties named in paragraph six of its proposed temporary restraining order [22-1], as required by paragraph six of the standing order. Regarding paragraph three, plaintiff asserts that it has provided a detailed analysis of its likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark and copyright infringement claims. Mem. Supp. TRO 7, Dkt. No. 22. However, plaintiff's argument ultimately consists of a citation to all 159 pages of Exhibit Three to the complaint. See id. at 10 (citing Compl. Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 4). As the standing order explains, ¶ 3, "Citing to images of the plaintiff's intellectual property and accused products to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of an intellectual property infringement claim, without more, is not helpful and risks delay or denial of a motion." The nature and extent of plaintiff's claimed copyrighted works is not apparent from the table in Exhibit Three to the complaint, which consists of 159 pages of screenshots. It is not the court's role to hunt through Exhibit Three and the other evidence in the record to piece together plaintiff's arguments as to how it is likely to succeed on the merits of its copyright and trademark claims. United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) ("Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs."). Mailed notice