1:2023-cv-02971 Monster Energy Company v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

#	日期	条目内容
34	2023/12/20	MAILED Closing Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. 已邮寄商标结案报告至弗吉尼亚州亚历山大市的专利商标局。
33	2023/12/19	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the notice of voluntary dismissal (Dckt. No. [32]), which is self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. 在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前进行的记录：法院审查了自愿撤诉通知（案件编号[32]），该通知根据规则41(a)(1)(A)(i)自动生效。投诉被无偏见地驳回。案件结束。民事案件终止。已发送通知。
32	2023/12/19	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Monster Energy Company as to Defendant pangledaren Monster Energy Company 对被告 pangledaren 的自愿撤诉通知
31	2023/12/12	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Dckt. No. [14]) is hereby denied. Plaintiff withdrew the motion. (Dckt. No. [28]) The Court authorizes discovery so that Plaintiff can learn Defendant's identity. Plaintiff must file a status report by January 18, 2024. Mailed notice 尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官主持的庭审记录：原告提出的临时限制令动议（案件编号[14]）现予以驳回。原告已撤回该动议。（案件编号[28]）法院授权进行调查，以便原告查明被告的身份。原告须于2024年1月18日前提交状态报告。已发送通知。
30	2023/11/22	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal (Dckt. No. 3) is hereby denied. Plaintiff asks this Court for leave to file under seal the list of Defendants identified in the so-called Schedule A to the complaint (which lists the online seller names and their URLs). Plaintiff also asks this Court to seal related material supporting the request for a temporary restraining order. There is a strong presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. "Secrecy in judicial proceedings. is disfavored." Mueller v. Raemisch, 740 F.3d 1128, 1135 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (noting that "a strong presumption exists in favor of publishing dispositional orders"); Duff v. Cent. Sleep Diagnostics, LLC, 801 F.3d 833, 844 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that "secrecy in judicial proceedings is generally disfavored"). "Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public view, even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy, unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality." In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). Documents that "influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality." Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Lab'ys, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Even disputes about claims of national security are litigated in the open."). A party who wants to depart from that longstanding tradition, and litigate in secret, must carry a heavy burden. Plaintiff does not come close to doing so here. Plaintiff's explanation for the request for secrecy is rather terse. "Sealing this portion of the file is necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order. If Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, which would frustrate the purpose of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court's power to grant relief." See Mtn. to Seal (Dckt. No. 3) That's the same cut-and-paste boilerplate offered in countless Schedule A cases, often word for word. Plaintiff gives no concrete reason to think that Defendants would destroy documents in this particular case. As a practical matter, Defendants typically don't produce documents in Schedule A cases anyway, because almost all of them fail to participate in the suit and eventually get tagged with a default judgment. The simple reality is that defendants in Schedule A cases tend to be foreign sellers who do not produce documents at all, so sealing a case to protect documents is likely to be a moot point. Also, the possibility of document destruction is not much of a basis for sealing documents in the short term, because Plaintiff apparently plans to move to unseal the documents after serving the TRO. The possibility of transferring assets offshore isn't much of a reason to proceed in secret in a Schedule A case, either. Filing an ex parte motion for a TRO, under seal, does make sense in certain types of cases. For example, the SEC often seeks a TRO to lock down assets that do not rightfully belong to the defendants (e.g., by suing a fraudster who holds investors' money). In those cases, the SEC often files a motion for a TRO under seal, and rightly so. Making the request under seal makes sense in those cases, because the alleged fraudster could dissipate the investors' assets if the fraudster learns about the lawsuit. Locking down the assets, without giving the fraudster a heads-up, helps to protect investors and preserve the possibility of obtaining meaningful equitable relief at the end of the case. A motion to seal often makes sense when the plaintiff seeks an asset freeze to secure the potential recovery of future equitable relief. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to preserve the possibility of obtaining equitable relief at the end of the case. But in Schedule A cases, the plaintiffs' bar typically seeks remedies at law, such as statutory damages, not equitable monetary relief. The request for a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, affects the calculus when it comes to an asset freeze. The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). In Grupo Mexicano, the Supreme Court held that a district court has "no authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing [a defendant] from disposing of their assets pending adjudication of [plaintiff's] contract claim for money damages." Id. at 333. The Supreme Court adhered to the long-standing rule that "a judgment establishing the debt was necessary before a court of equity would interfere with the debtor's use of his property." Id. at 321. "[A]s a general matter [] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." See Banister v. Firestone, 2018 WL 4224444, at 9 (N.D. Ill. 2018). An equitable restraint at the outset of the case might be doable if a plaintiff requested and received equitable monetary relief at the end of the day, like an accounting of profits. See Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2013 WL 12314399 (N.D. Ill. 2013). But as a practical matter, in Schedule A cases, that recovery almost never happens. Schedule A plaintiffs typically don't request and receive equitable relief. Instead, Schedule A plaintiffs rush into court, request and receive an asset freeze, obtain a default judgment, and then ask district courts to unfreeze the money and award statutory damages, not equitable relief. In that scenario, it is not clear to this Court that it would be appropriate to use any frozen funds for any recovery of statutory damages, because statutory damages are a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity. Truth be told, the Schedule A plaintiffs' bar asks district courts in this district to lock down assets through an asset freeze on day one of a case, and do so under seal. And then, at the end of the case, Schedule A plaintiffs receive a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, which means that there was no justification for an asset freeze in the first place. Putting it all together, this Court might entertain a request to file under seal if Plaintiff were seeking an asset freeze that this Court could grant, meaning an asset freeze for the limited purpose of allowing equitable relief down the road. But in the case at hand, Plaintiff has not made a showing that it will seek equitable monetary relief at the end of the case, so there is no basis for an asset freeze now. And if there is no basis for an asset freeze now, then there is no reason to proceed under seal now. If you can't freeze it, you can't seal it. Mailed notice 尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官主持下的法庭记录：原告请求封存文件的动议（案件编号3）被驳回。原告请求法庭允许封存诉状中所谓的A表列出的被告名单及其网址，并请求封存支持临时限制令请求的相关材料。司法程序中强烈倾向于公开。“司法程序中的秘密是不受欢迎的。”Mueller诉Raemisch案，740 F.3d 1128, 1135 (7th Cir. 2014)；参见Mitze诉Saul案，968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020)（指出“存在强烈倾向于公布裁决命令的假设”）；Duff诉Central Sleep Diagnostics, LLC案，801 F.3d 833, 844 (7th Cir. 2015)（指出“司法程序中的秘密通常是不受欢迎的”）。“影响联邦诉讼处理的文件通常对公众开放，即使诉讼当事人强烈偏好保密，除非有法律、规则或特权证明其保密性。”In re Specht案，622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010)。“影响或支撑司法决策的文件对公众开放，除非它们符合商业秘密或其他长期保密类别的定义。”Baxter International, Inc.诉Abbott Labs案，297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002)；参见Union Oil Co. of Cal.诉Leavell案，220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000)（“即使是关于国家安全主张的争议也在公开中进行诉讼。”）。希望背离这一长期传统的当事人，即秘密诉讼，必须承担沉重负担。原告在此并未接近满足这一要求。原告对请求保密的解释相当简短。“封存文件部分是必要的，以防止被告在临时限制令执行前了解这些程序。如果被告过早了解这些程序，可能会导致相关文件证据的销毁以及资产向外国司法管辖区的隐藏或转移，这将妨碍基础法律的目的，并干扰本法庭授予救济的权力。”参见封存动议（案件编号3）。这是无数A表案件中提供的相同剪切粘贴样板，通常一字不差。原告没有提供具体理由认为被告会在本案中销毁文件。实际上，被告通常不会在A表案件中提供文件，因为几乎所有案件中他们都未能参与诉讼并最终被默认判决。简单的事实是，A表案件中的被告往往是外国卖家，他们根本不提供文件，因此封存案件以保护文件很可能是一个无意义的行为。此外，文件销毁的可能性并不是短期内封存文件的充分理由，因为原告显然计划在TRO服务后请求解封文件。在A表案件中，资产转移至海外的可能性也不是秘密进行的充分理由。在某些类型的案件中，提交密封的单方面TRO动议是有意义的。例如，SEC经常寻求TRO以锁定不属于被告的资产（例如，通过起诉持有投资者资金的欺诈者）。在这些案件中，SEC经常提交密封的TRO动议，这是正确的。在这些案件中，密封请求是有意义的，因为如果欺诈者了解到诉讼，可能会分散投资者的资产。在不通知欺诈者的情况下锁定资产，有助于保护投资者并在案件结束时保留获得有意义的衡平救济的可能性。当原告寻求资产冻结以确保未来衡平救济的潜在恢复时，密封动议通常是有意义的。有时，为了在案件结束时保留获得衡平救济的可能性，保密是必要的。但在A表案件中，原告律师通常寻求法律上的补救措施，如法定损害赔偿，而不是衡平金钱救济。寻求法律上的补救措施，而不是衡平补救措施，影响资产冻结的计算。最高法院明确指出，除非当事人寻求衡平金钱救济，否则法院无权在案件开始时发布资产冻结。参见Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A.诉Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.案，527 U.S. 308 (1999)。在Grupo Mexicano案中，最高法院认为地区法院“无权发布初步禁令，阻止[被告]在[原告]的金钱损害合同索赔待决期间处置其资产。”Id. at 333。最高法院坚持了“在衡平法院干预债务人使用其财产之前，需要有判决确立债务”的长期规则。Id. at 321。“作为一般事项，[]预审资产限制不适宜仅仅为了建立一个可以从其中满足后来金钱损害赔偿的基金。”参见Banister诉Firestone案，2018 WL 4224444，at 9 (N.D. Ill. 2018)。如果在案件开始时原告请求并最终获得衡平金钱救济，如利润核算，那么在案件开始时进行衡平限制可能是可行的。参见Deckers Outdoor Corp.诉列于A表的未合并协会案，2013 WL 12314399 (N.D. Ill. 2013)。但在A表案件中，这种恢复几乎从未发生。A表原告通常不请求并获得衡平救济。相反，A表原告匆忙进入法庭，请求并获得资产冻结，获得默认判决，然后要求地区法院解冻资金并授予法定损害赔偿，而不是衡平救济。在这种情况下，本法庭不清楚使用任何冻结资金进行法定损害赔偿的恢复是否合适，因为法定损害赔偿是法律上的补救措施，而不是衡平补救措施。说实话，A表原告律师要求本地区的地区法院在案件的第一天通过资产冻结锁定资产，并在密封下进行。然后，在案件结束时，A表原告获得法律上的补救措施，而不是衡平补救措施，这意味着最初就没有资产冻结的正当理由。综上所述，如果原告寻求本法庭可以授予的资产冻结，即为了将来衡平救济的有限目的，本法庭可能会考虑封存请求。但在本案中，原告没有表明将在案件结束时寻求衡平金钱救济，因此现在没有资产冻结的基础。如果没有现在资产冻结的基础，那么现在就没有理由密封进行。如果你不能冻结它，你就不能密封它。已邮寄通知。
29	2023/10/31	ENTERED in Error. Modified on 11/8/2023. 错误录入。于2023年11月8日修改。
28	2023/10/16	Withdrawal of Request for Temporary Injunction by Monster Energy Company Monster Energy Company撤回临时禁令请求
27	2023/10/16	AMENDED complaint by Monster Energy Company against pangledaren and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Monster Energy Company对pangledaren提起的修正诉状，并终止附表A中列出的合伙企业和未注册协会
26	2023/10/12	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process (Dckt. No. 19 is hereby granted. Mailed notice. 在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前进行的记录：原告关于电子送达程序的动议（案件编号19）已获准。已发送通知。
25	2023/08/22	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: At the plaintiff's request, the deadline to file an initial status report is extended to October 31, 2023. Mailed notice. 在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前进行的记录：根据原告的请求，提交初始状态报告的截止日期延长至2023年10月31日。已发送通知。
24	2023/06/07	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Kahlia Roe Halpern Kahlia Roe Halpern代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭
23	2023/05/19	STATEMENT by Monster Energy Company Monster Energy Company的陈述
22	2023/05/16	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by August 14, 2023. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. 记录在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前：初始状态报告应于2023年8月14日前提交。律师必须阅读法院网站上的“初始状态会议和联合初始状态报告”常设命令。各方必须根据规则26(f)就发现的自然、范围和持续时间进行协商。各方必须向法院提交两份文件。首先，各方必须在案卷上根据规则26(f)提交联合初始状态报告。法院网站上提供了联合初始状态报告的Word版本。所有各方都必须参与准备和提交联合初始状态报告。法院要求联合报告，因此一方或另一方的提交是不够的。其次，各方必须将规则16(b)下的拟议时间表命令的Word版本通过电子邮件发送到法院的拟议命令收件箱。各方的首席律师必须参与提交初始状态报告。原告必须将此命令送达所有其他各方。如果被告尚未收到程序送达，原告的律师必须联系法庭副手jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov以重新安排初始状态报告截止日期。原告在被告收到程序送达之前不应提交联合初始状态报告。各方必须本着诚意讨论和解，并认真尝试友好解决此案。所有记录在案的律师必须阅读并遵守法院网页上的常设命令。请特别注意关于证词和发现的常设命令。邮寄通知。
21	2023/05/12	DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 20 Justin R. Gaudio关于支持动议20的备忘录的声明
20	2023/05/12	MEMORANDUM by Monster Energy Company in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 19 Monster Energy Company提交的备忘录，支持编号为19的杂项救济动议
19	2023/05/12	MOTION by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) 原告Monster Energy Company根据联邦民事诉讼规则4(f)(3)提出电子送达程序动议
18	2023/05/12	SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company Exhibit 3 - Parts 1-2 regarding declaration 17 原告Monster Energy公司封存的证据展示3 - 第1-2部分，关于第17号声明
17	2023/05/12	DECLARATION of Bruce Kingsland regarding memorandum in support of motion 15 Bruce Kingsland关于支持动议15的备忘录的声明
16	2023/05/12	DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 15 Justin R. Gaudio关于支持动议15的备忘录的声明
15	2023/05/12	MEMORANDUM by Monster Energy Company in support of motion for temporary restraining order 14 Monster Energy Company提交的备忘录，支持第14号临时限制令动议
14	2023/05/12	MOTION by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery 原告Monster Energy Company提出的临时限制令动议，包括临时禁令、临时资产限制和快速发现
13	2023/05/12	MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. 向华盛顿特区的注册员邮寄版权报告。
12	2023/05/12	MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials. 已邮寄给原告律师Lanham调解程序材料。
11	2023/05/12	MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. 已将商标报告邮寄至弗吉尼亚州亚历山德里亚的专利商标局。
	2023/05/11	CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. 书记员通知：根据本地规则73.1(b)，本法院的一名美国地方治安法官可主持本民事案件的全部诉讼程序。如果所有当事人同意由当前指定的美国地方治安法官主持本案的所有程序，包括审判、最终判决的录入及所有审后程序，所有当事人必须在附带的同意表格上签名。此同意表格只有在所有当事人签字后才可提交。当事人也可在任何联合提交文件中，包括联合初步状态报告或拟议案件管理令，表达其同意由地方治安法官管辖。
	2023/05/11	CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. 案件分配给尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官。尊敬的M. David Weisman法官被指定为治安法官。案件分配方式：随机分配。
10	2023/05/11	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Thomas Joseph Juettner Thomas Joseph Juettner代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭
9	2023/05/11	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Rachel S Miller Rachel S Miller代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭
8	2023/05/11	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Amy Crout Ziegler Amy Crout Ziegler代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭
7	2023/05/11	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Justin R. Gaudio Justin R. Gaudio代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭
6	2023/05/11	Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Monster Energy Company Monster Energy Company关于商标的索赔通知
5	2023/05/11	NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Monster Energy Company 根据地方规则3.2，Monster Energy公司关于附属机构的通知
4	2023/05/11	CIVIL Cover Sheet 民事封面表
3	2023/05/11	MOTION by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company for leave to file under seal 原告Monster Energy Company申请密封文件的许可
2	2023/05/11	SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company Schedule A regarding complaint[1] 封存的展示物，原告Monster Energy公司关于投诉的附表A[1]
1	2023/05/11	COMPLAINT filed by Monster Energy Company; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20630085. Monster Energy Company提交的投诉；提交费用为402美元，收据号AILNDC-20630085。

34

2023/12/20

MAILED Closing Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.

已邮寄商标结案报告至弗吉尼亚州亚历山大市的专利商标局。

33

2023/12/19

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the notice of voluntary dismissal (Dckt. No. [32]), which is self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.

在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前进行的记录：法院审查了自愿撤诉通知（案件编号[32]），该通知根据规则41(a)(1)(A)(i)自动生效。投诉被无偏见地驳回。案件结束。民事案件终止。已发送通知。

32

2023/12/19

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Monster Energy Company as to Defendant pangledaren

Monster Energy Company 对被告 pangledaren 的自愿撤诉通知

31

2023/12/12

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Dckt. No. [14]) is hereby denied. Plaintiff withdrew the motion. (Dckt. No. [28]) The Court authorizes discovery so that Plaintiff can learn Defendant's identity. Plaintiff must file a status report by January 18, 2024. Mailed notice

尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官主持的庭审记录：原告提出的临时限制令动议（案件编号[14]）现予以驳回。原告已撤回该动议。（案件编号[28]）法院授权进行调查，以便原告查明被告的身份。原告须于2024年1月18日前提交状态报告。已发送通知。

30

2023/11/22

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal (Dckt. No. 3) is hereby denied. Plaintiff asks this Court for leave to file under seal the list of Defendants identified in the so-called Schedule A to the complaint (which lists the online seller names and their URLs). Plaintiff also asks this Court to seal related material supporting the request for a temporary restraining order. There is a strong presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. "Secrecy in judicial proceedings. is disfavored." Mueller v. Raemisch, 740 F.3d 1128, 1135 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (noting that "a strong presumption exists in favor of publishing dispositional orders"); Duff v. Cent. Sleep Diagnostics, LLC, 801 F.3d 833, 844 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that "secrecy in judicial proceedings is generally disfavored"). "Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public view, even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy, unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality." In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). Documents that "influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality." Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Lab'ys, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Even disputes about claims of national security are litigated in the open."). A party who wants to depart from that longstanding tradition, and litigate in secret, must carry a heavy burden. Plaintiff does not come close to doing so here. Plaintiff's explanation for the request for secrecy is rather terse. "Sealing this portion of the file is necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order. If Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, which would frustrate the purpose of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court's power to grant relief." See Mtn. to Seal (Dckt. No. 3) That's the same cut-and-paste boilerplate offered in countless Schedule A cases, often word for word. Plaintiff gives no concrete reason to think that Defendants would destroy documents in this particular case. As a practical matter, Defendants typically don't produce documents in Schedule A cases anyway, because almost all of them fail to participate in the suit and eventually get tagged with a default judgment. The simple reality is that defendants in Schedule A cases tend to be foreign sellers who do not produce documents at all, so sealing a case to protect documents is likely to be a moot point. Also, the possibility of document destruction is not much of a basis for sealing documents in the short term, because Plaintiff apparently plans to move to unseal the documents after serving the TRO. The possibility of transferring assets offshore isn't much of a reason to proceed in secret in a Schedule A case, either. Filing an ex parte motion for a TRO, under seal, does make sense in certain types of cases. For example, the SEC often seeks a TRO to lock down assets that do not rightfully belong to the defendants (e.g., by suing a fraudster who holds investors' money). In those cases, the SEC often files a motion for a TRO under seal, and rightly so. Making the request under seal makes sense in those cases, because the alleged fraudster could dissipate the investors' assets if the fraudster learns about the lawsuit. Locking down the assets, without giving the fraudster a heads-up, helps to protect investors and preserve the possibility of obtaining meaningful equitable relief at the end of the case. A motion to seal often makes sense when the plaintiff seeks an asset freeze to secure the potential recovery of future equitable relief. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to preserve the possibility of obtaining equitable relief at the end of the case. But in Schedule A cases, the plaintiffs' bar typically seeks remedies at law, such as statutory damages, not equitable monetary relief. The request for a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, affects the calculus when it comes to an asset freeze. The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). In Grupo Mexicano, the Supreme Court held that a district court has "no authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing [a defendant] from disposing of their assets pending adjudication of [plaintiff's] contract claim for money damages." Id. at 333. The Supreme Court adhered to the long-standing rule that "a judgment establishing the debt was necessary before a court of equity would interfere with the debtor's use of his property." Id. at 321. "[A]s a general matter [] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." See Banister v. Firestone, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. 2018). An equitable restraint at the outset of the case might be doable if a plaintiff requested and received equitable monetary relief at the end of the day, like an accounting of profits. See Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2013 WL 12314399 (N.D. Ill. 2013). But as a practical matter, in Schedule A cases, that recovery almost never happens. Schedule A plaintiffs typically don't request and receive equitable relief. Instead, Schedule A plaintiffs rush into court, request and receive an asset freeze, obtain a default judgment, and then ask district courts to unfreeze the money and award statutory damages, not equitable relief. In that scenario, it is not clear to this Court that it would be appropriate to use any frozen funds for any recovery of statutory damages, because statutory damages are a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity. Truth be told, the Schedule A plaintiffs' bar asks district courts in this district to lock down assets through an asset freeze on day one of a case, and do so under seal. And then, at the end of the case, Schedule A plaintiffs receive a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, which means that there was no justification for an asset freeze in the first place. Putting it all together, this Court might entertain a request to file under seal if Plaintiff were seeking an asset freeze that this Court could grant, meaning an asset freeze for the limited purpose of allowing equitable relief down the road. But in the case at hand, Plaintiff has not made a showing that it will seek equitable monetary relief at the end of the case, so there is no basis for an asset freeze now. And if there is no basis for an asset freeze now, then there is no reason to proceed under seal now. If you can't freeze it, you can't seal it. Mailed notice

尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官主持下的法庭记录：原告请求封存文件的动议（案件编号3）被驳回。原告请求法庭允许封存诉状中所谓的A表列出的被告名单及其网址，并请求封存支持临时限制令请求的相关材料。司法程序中强烈倾向于公开。“司法程序中的秘密是不受欢迎的。”Mueller诉Raemisch案，740 F.3d 1128, 1135 (7th Cir. 2014)；参见Mitze诉Saul案，968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020)（指出“存在强烈倾向于公布裁决命令的假设”）；Duff诉Central Sleep Diagnostics, LLC案，801 F.3d 833, 844 (7th Cir. 2015)（指出“司法程序中的秘密通常是不受欢迎的”）。“影响联邦诉讼处理的文件通常对公众开放，即使诉讼当事人强烈偏好保密，除非有法律、规则或特权证明其保密性。”In re Specht案，622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010)。“影响或支撑司法决策的文件对公众开放，除非它们符合商业秘密或其他长期保密类别的定义。”Baxter International, Inc.诉Abbott Labs案，297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002)；参见Union Oil Co. of Cal.诉Leavell案，220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000)（“即使是关于国家安全主张的争议也在公开中进行诉讼。”）。希望背离这一长期传统的当事人，即秘密诉讼，必须承担沉重负担。原告在此并未接近满足这一要求。原告对请求保密的解释相当简短。“封存文件部分是必要的，以防止被告在临时限制令执行前了解这些程序。如果被告过早了解这些程序，可能会导致相关文件证据的销毁以及资产向外国司法管辖区的隐藏或转移，这将妨碍基础法律的目的，并干扰本法庭授予救济的权力。”参见封存动议（案件编号3）。这是无数A表案件中提供的相同剪切粘贴样板，通常一字不差。原告没有提供具体理由认为被告会在本案中销毁文件。实际上，被告通常不会在A表案件中提供文件，因为几乎所有案件中他们都未能参与诉讼并最终被默认判决。简单的事实是，A表案件中的被告往往是外国卖家，他们根本不提供文件，因此封存案件以保护文件很可能是一个无意义的行为。此外，文件销毁的可能性并不是短期内封存文件的充分理由，因为原告显然计划在TRO服务后请求解封文件。在A表案件中，资产转移至海外的可能性也不是秘密进行的充分理由。在某些类型的案件中，提交密封的单方面TRO动议是有意义的。例如，SEC经常寻求TRO以锁定不属于被告的资产（例如，通过起诉持有投资者资金的欺诈者）。在这些案件中，SEC经常提交密封的TRO动议，这是正确的。在这些案件中，密封请求是有意义的，因为如果欺诈者了解到诉讼，可能会分散投资者的资产。在不通知欺诈者的情况下锁定资产，有助于保护投资者并在案件结束时保留获得有意义的衡平救济的可能性。当原告寻求资产冻结以确保未来衡平救济的潜在恢复时，密封动议通常是有意义的。有时，为了在案件结束时保留获得衡平救济的可能性，保密是必要的。但在A表案件中，原告律师通常寻求法律上的补救措施，如法定损害赔偿，而不是衡平金钱救济。寻求法律上的补救措施，而不是衡平补救措施，影响资产冻结的计算。最高法院明确指出，除非当事人寻求衡平金钱救济，否则法院无权在案件开始时发布资产冻结。参见Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A.诉Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.案，527 U.S. 308 (1999)。在Grupo Mexicano案中，最高法院认为地区法院“无权发布初步禁令，阻止[被告]在[原告]的金钱损害合同索赔待决期间处置其资产。”Id. at 333。最高法院坚持了“在衡平法院干预债务人使用其财产之前，需要有判决确立债务”的长期规则。Id. at 321。“作为一般事项，[]预审资产限制不适宜仅仅为了建立一个可以从其中满足后来金钱损害赔偿的基金。”参见Banister诉Firestone案，2018 WL 4224444，at *9 (N.D. Ill. 2018)。如果在案件开始时原告请求并最终获得衡平金钱救济，如利润核算，那么在案件开始时进行衡平限制可能是可行的。参见Deckers Outdoor Corp.诉列于A表的未合并协会案，2013 WL 12314399 (N.D. Ill. 2013)。但在A表案件中，这种恢复几乎从未发生。A表原告通常不请求并获得衡平救济。相反，A表原告匆忙进入法庭，请求并获得资产冻结，获得默认判决，然后要求地区法院解冻资金并授予法定损害赔偿，而不是衡平救济。在这种情况下，本法庭不清楚使用任何冻结资金进行法定损害赔偿的恢复是否合适，因为法定损害赔偿是法律上的补救措施，而不是衡平补救措施。说实话，A表原告律师要求本地区的地区法院在案件的第一天通过资产冻结锁定资产，并在密封下进行。然后，在案件结束时，A表原告获得法律上的补救措施，而不是衡平补救措施，这意味着最初就没有资产冻结的正当理由。综上所述，如果原告寻求本法庭可以授予的资产冻结，即为了将来衡平救济的有限目的，本法庭可能会考虑封存请求。但在本案中，原告没有表明将在案件结束时寻求衡平金钱救济，因此现在没有资产冻结的基础。如果没有现在资产冻结的基础，那么现在就没有理由密封进行。如果你不能冻结它，你就不能密封它。已邮寄通知。

29

2023/10/31

ENTERED in Error. Modified on 11/8/2023.

错误录入。于2023年11月8日修改。

28

2023/10/16

Withdrawal of Request for Temporary Injunction by Monster Energy Company

Monster Energy Company撤回临时禁令请求

27

2023/10/16

AMENDED complaint by Monster Energy Company against pangledaren and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Monster Energy Company对pangledaren提起的修正诉状，并终止附表A中列出的合伙企业和未注册协会

26

2023/10/12

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process (Dckt. No. 19 is hereby granted. Mailed notice.

在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前进行的记录：原告关于电子送达程序的动议（案件编号19）已获准。已发送通知。

25

2023/08/22

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: At the plaintiff's request, the deadline to file an initial status report is extended to October 31, 2023. Mailed notice.

在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前进行的记录：根据原告的请求，提交初始状态报告的截止日期延长至2023年10月31日。已发送通知。

24

2023/06/07

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Kahlia Roe Halpern

Kahlia Roe Halpern代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭

23

2023/05/19

STATEMENT by Monster Energy Company

Monster Energy Company的陈述

22

2023/05/16

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by August 14, 2023. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice.

记录在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前：初始状态报告应于2023年8月14日前提交。律师必须阅读法院网站上的“初始状态会议和联合初始状态报告”常设命令。各方必须根据规则26(f)就发现的自然、范围和持续时间进行协商。各方必须向法院提交两份文件。首先，各方必须在案卷上根据规则26(f)提交联合初始状态报告。法院网站上提供了联合初始状态报告的Word版本。所有各方都必须参与准备和提交联合初始状态报告。法院要求联合报告，因此一方或另一方的提交是不够的。其次，各方必须将规则16(b)下的拟议时间表命令的Word版本通过电子邮件发送到法院的拟议命令收件箱。各方的首席律师必须参与提交初始状态报告。原告必须将此命令送达所有其他各方。如果被告尚未收到程序送达，原告的律师必须联系法庭副手jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov以重新安排初始状态报告截止日期。原告在被告收到程序送达之前不应提交联合初始状态报告。各方必须本着诚意讨论和解，并认真尝试友好解决此案。所有记录在案的律师必须阅读并遵守法院网页上的常设命令。请特别注意关于证词和发现的常设命令。邮寄通知。

21

2023/05/12

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 20

Justin R. Gaudio关于支持动议20的备忘录的声明

20

2023/05/12

MEMORANDUM by Monster Energy Company in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 19

Monster Energy Company提交的备忘录，支持编号为19的杂项救济动议

19

2023/05/12

MOTION by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

原告Monster Energy Company根据联邦民事诉讼规则4(f)(3)提出电子送达程序动议

18

2023/05/12

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company Exhibit 3 - Parts 1-2 regarding declaration 17

原告Monster Energy公司封存的证据展示3 - 第1-2部分，关于第17号声明

17

2023/05/12

DECLARATION of Bruce Kingsland regarding memorandum in support of motion 15

Bruce Kingsland关于支持动议15的备忘录的声明

16

2023/05/12

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 15

Justin R. Gaudio关于支持动议15的备忘录的声明

15

2023/05/12

MEMORANDUM by Monster Energy Company in support of motion for temporary restraining order 14

Monster Energy Company提交的备忘录，支持第14号临时限制令动议

14

2023/05/12

MOTION by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

原告Monster Energy Company提出的临时限制令动议，包括临时禁令、临时资产限制和快速发现

13

2023/05/12

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC.

向华盛顿特区的注册员邮寄版权报告。

12

2023/05/12

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials.

已邮寄给原告律师Lanham调解程序材料。

11

2023/05/12

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.

已将商标报告邮寄至弗吉尼亚州亚历山德里亚的专利商标局。

2023/05/11

CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order.

书记员通知：根据本地规则73.1(b)，本法院的一名美国地方治安法官可主持本民事案件的全部诉讼程序。如果所有当事人同意由当前指定的美国地方治安法官主持本案的所有程序，包括审判、最终判决的录入及所有审后程序，所有当事人必须在附带的同意表格上签名。此同意表格只有在所有当事人签字后才可提交。当事人也可在任何联合提交文件中，包括联合初步状态报告或拟议案件管理令，表达其同意由地方治安法官管辖。

2023/05/11

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment.

案件分配给尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官。尊敬的M. David Weisman法官被指定为治安法官。案件分配方式：随机分配。

10

2023/05/11

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Thomas Joseph Juettner

Thomas Joseph Juettner代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭

9

2023/05/11

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Rachel S Miller

Rachel S Miller代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭

8

2023/05/11

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Amy Crout Ziegler

Amy Crout Ziegler代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭

7

2023/05/11

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Monster Energy Company by Justin R. Gaudio

Justin R. Gaudio代表原告Monster Energy Company出庭

6

2023/05/11

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Monster Energy Company

Monster Energy Company关于商标的索赔通知

5

2023/05/11

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Monster Energy Company

根据地方规则3.2，Monster Energy公司关于附属机构的通知

4

2023/05/11

CIVIL Cover Sheet

民事封面表

3

2023/05/11

MOTION by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company for leave to file under seal

原告Monster Energy Company申请密封文件的许可

2

2023/05/11

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Monster Energy Company Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

封存的展示物，原告Monster Energy公司关于投诉的附表A[1]

1

2023/05/11

COMPLAINT filed by Monster Energy Company; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20630085.

Monster Energy Company提交的投诉；提交费用为402美元，收据号AILNDC-20630085。