Netflix, Inc. Et Al V. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

MEMORANDUM by Netflix Studios, LLC, Netflix US, LLC, Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC, Netflix, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order, [18]

MOTION by Plaintiffs Netflix Studios, LLC, Netflix US, LLC, Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC, Netflix, Inc. for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: The plaintiff's motion for leave to file temporarily under seal [16] is granted. The sealed exhibits [2], [3], [15] may remain under seal until the defendants are served, at which time the exhibits will be unsealed. By 11/6/2026, the plaintiff is required to file (1) a listing of all prior online trademark, copyright, or patent infringement cases (also known as "Schedule A" cases) filed in any court in the United States in which it was a plaintiff, and (2) a listing of any of the defendants included in the Schedule A in this case that the plaintiff has previously named as a defendant in any prior complaint or Schedule A case. If the plaintiff moves for a TRO, the plaintiff must provide evidence that sales actually took place in Illinois, including proof that the defendant shipped its products to the state. See Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090, 1093 (7th Cir. 2026). The plaintiff must show that the product was actually sold to Illinois residents, such as proof of payment, shipping receipts, or other evidence. That evidence of purposefully directed activities is the bare minimum for establishing personal jurisdiction in schedule A cases. See NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614 (7th Cir. 2022). The Court also advises that motions to seal motions for expedited discovery and/or alternative service will not be granted in the absence of a TRO. Additionally, if the plaintiff intends to file a motion for alternative service, the plaintiff is advised that such a motion must be accompanied by supplemental briefing as to whether the Hague Convention applies to this case. Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., 177 F.4th 793, 799 (7th Cir. 2026). If the plaintiff determines that it does not apply, such a motion must include a specific explanation of the methods used to reach that conclusion. The earlier motion to seal [4] is denied as moot. Mailed notice