Symmetrix Studios LLC v. The Defendants Identified On Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [4]. The Court, like many other courts in this District, is unconvinced that "these commonplace efforts in Schedule A cases to obtain secret relief comport with principles of procedural due process." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.); see also Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co. LTD. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, 25-cv-09559 Dkt. No. 10 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2025) (Hunt, J.). As an initial matter, these infringement cases rarely present exceptional circumstances that would justify sealing the names of all defendants and documents pertaining to their alleged infringing activity, let alone an entire case, even temporarily. "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." Eicher Motors, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7. And, importantly, the reasoning underlying Plaintiff's motion to seal 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). It is insufficient that alleged counterfeiters might quickly shut down the online store and move money if alerted to the fact that they are being sued. See Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., 25-cv-09559 Dkt. No. 10. "Due process still affords them the right to receive notice and a chance to present a defense before restraining all of their assets based solely on one-sided documentary evidence from Plaintiff." Id. Therefore, without a detailed explanation to establish good cause for sealing in accordance with Local Rule 26.2 and Seventh Circuit precedent, which has not been provided here, sealing is not appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal [4] is denied, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the entire case, forthwith. Mailed notice.