Revelyst Operations, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Given the continued applicability of the circumstances that justified entry of the TRO, the Plaintiff's extension motion on the TRO 43 is granted through 10/29/2026. The tracking status hearing of 10/16/2026 is reset to 10/30/2026 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Instead, the parties shall file a status report by 10/23/2026. If the Plaintiff is going to file a preliminary-injunction motion, then it is due by 10/26/2026. Emailed notice

法院批准TRO

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/01/2026. Emailed notice

法院批准TRO

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the supplement, R. 24, the personal-jurisdiction inquiry is satisfied. On review of the motion for TRO and other relief, The Plaintiff's motion 26 for temporary restraining order and other relief is granted. An order will be entered under seal separately. Although the Court again expresses its concern about restraining assets before judgment, Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 331 (1999), the Plaintiff does invoke a statutory remedy, namely, an accounting of profits (that is, disgorgement of profits) under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which is not a mere common-law equitable claim and thus could allow for pre-judgment restraint. Indeed, trademark owners need only "prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of costs or deduction claimed." 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). To the extent that the restraint might be too broad, the Defendant may appear and file challenges to the scope of the TRO. The balance of factors tips in favor of Plaintiff being able to freeze the assets without advance warning to the Defendant, who likely would seek to transfer the money elsewhere. The Plaintiff's motion 30 for expedite discovery is granted for good cause to obtain relevant information, including contact information for the Defendant. By 10/08/2026, the Plaintiff shall email a redacted version of the TRO and the discovery order so that they can be entered publicly (redacting the names of Defendant and omitting Amended Schedule A). The Plaintiff must make reasonably diligent efforts to find the address of the Defendant in order to invoke email service under Civil Rule 4(f)(3). Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 177 F.4th 793, 799-800 (7th Cir. 2026). The tracking status hearing of 10/02/2026 is reset 10/16/2026 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). The Plaintiff shall file, if appropriate, the TRO extension motion (or a preliminary injunction motion) no later than 10/13/2026. Emailed notice

法院批准TRO

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) The Plaintiff's motion 14 for extra pages is granted. Given the goal of asset restraint, the motion 8 to file under seal is granted. (2.) On review of the complaint, Schedule A, and the TRO brief, the TRO motion 15 is denied without prejudice. First, the Court raises the propriety of joinder of the 10 Defendants, R. 9. Unless the Court is missing something, neither the complaint nor the brief in support of the TRO motion explain the basis for joinder. The Plaintiff shall review the opinion in Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 18789 (N.D. Ill. 2020), and file a memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder by 05/29/2026. In lieu of the memorandum, by the same deadline, the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with (a) one defendant or (b) a subset of the defendants along with a memo explaining why joinder of those defendants is proper. (3.) No prima facie case for personal jurisdiction has been established. The contention that availability to Illinois would establish prima facie jurisdiction anywhere in the country. Having said that, for purposes of granting expedited discovery, it would be appropriate to allow the Plaintiff to obtain information on personal jurisdiction. Under Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090, 109394(7th Cir. 2026), the Plaintiff must be able to show at least one sale of an infringing product into Illinois to establish personal jurisdiction. If the early discovery does not reveal a sale of an infringing product into Illinois, then personal jurisdiction will not be established. The Court raises this issue on its own given the ex parte, non-adversarial presentation at this stage of the case. Federal courts must carefully review filings when presented by just one side in an ex parte setting. See American Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 325 (7th Cir. 1984) (explaining that courts must "carefully consider" the need for TROs given the ex parte context); In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 205 (7th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the court had "conducted a careful in camera and ex parte review" of the record). The Plaintiff may file a motion for early discovery (a subset of the current TRO motion) by 05/29/2026. (4.) To track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a tracking status hearing is set for 06/05/2026 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice.

法院批准TRO