2025-cv-10554

COMPLAINT filed by Capcom Co., Ltd.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23998056.

Exhibit 1

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Capcom Co., Ltd. Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

Exhibit 2

MOTION by Plaintiff Capcom Co., Ltd. for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal

Exhibit 3

CIVIL Cover Sheet

Exhibit 4

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Capcom Co., Ltd.

Exhibit 5

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Capcom Co., Ltd.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Capcom Co., Ltd. by Martin Francis Trainor

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (Text entry; no document attached.)

NOTICE of Motion by Martin Francis Trainor for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief[3] before Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 9/11/2025 at 10:00 AM.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been assigned to Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. Upon review of the trademark infringement complaint and other filings, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all 146 defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. See Viking Arm AS v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,No. 24 C 1566, 2024 WL 2953105 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Indeed, Plaintiff filed a form complaint with generic allegations about coordinated counterfeiting activity between 146 defendants without any details whatsoever, which arguably violates the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Accordingly, by 9/11/25, Plaintiff must file either a memorandum explaining why joinder is proper or an amended complaint specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity. Failure to do so will result in the current complaint being dismissed without prejudice and this case being closed. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not established good cause under Local Rule 26.2 or Seventh Circuit precedent to justify sealing the names of defendant or documents pertaining to alleged infringing activity. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 C 2937, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.). More importantly, this presumption of sealing runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case. be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000). For those reasons, the motion for leave to file under seal [3] is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the document filed at [2]. The motion hearing set for 9/11/25 [8] is stricken. Mailed notice