2026-cv-01255 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：HSP
品牌：BOSCH 博世
小提示：专注TRO和解/应诉，需要起诉文件/被告名单/其他帮助可联系我们，微信右上角“···”可全文翻译/分享找队友/订阅可自动推送此案最新进展
微信扫码联系我们
| # | Date | Description |
| 30 |
05/26/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has reviewed plaintiff's supplemental memorandum [22] and denies plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery [18]. Plaintiff seeks early discovery from a third-party internet marketplace of information such as the defendants' identities, contact information, financial accounts and information, payment methods, and sales data. "District courts enjoy extremely broad discretion in controlling discovery." Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997). While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) permits expedited discovery at the discretion of the district court, it "is 'not the norm.'" See Guava, LLC v. Does 15, No. 12-cv-8000, 2013 WL 3270663, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2013) (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. O'Connor, 194 F.R.D. 618, 623 (N.D. Ill. 2000)). Judges in this District permit it when "the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party." Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 128, No. 14-cv-4927, 2014 WL 3642163, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2014) (quoting Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Doe, 283 F.R.D. 409, 410 (N.D. Ill. 2012)). While the Seventh Circuit has neither approved nor disapproved this test, it has endorsed similar balancing approaches for resolving other discovery issues. See Loctite Corp. v. Fel-Pro, Inc., 667 F.2d 577, 582 (7th Cir. 1981) (weighing "the benefit to the resolution of the suit" against "the potential injury to the party from whom discovery is sought" in the context of privileges). The court thus adopts the balancing approach used by other judges in this District as an appropriate guide for exercising its discretion under Rule 26(d)(1). Here, plaintiff moves for expedited discover to "confirm the interrelatedness of the Defendants" to justify permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. [18] at 2. Plaintiff has some interest in permissive joinder, as consolidating plaintiff's claims against the defendants at the outset of this case might promote judicial efficiency. See Brinkley v. Cnty. Of Lasalle, No. 09-cv-5656, 2010 WL 3781281, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2010). But plaintiff's interest in efficiency is outweighed by the burden on the third-party internet marketplace who will be forced to respond to subpoena requests for detailed information concerning various defendants listed in plaintiff's Schedule A [9]. Moreover, some of the information sought is the defendants' nonpublic and presumptively sensitive business and financial information, and the defendants would be significantly prejudiced were they not given a fair opportunity to object to or control the disclosure of that information. See PrimeSource Buildings Prods., Inc. v. Felten, No. 16-cv-11468, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2018) (noting that parties may move to quash subpoenas or request protective orders as to their nonpublic business and financial information). At this stage, then, the balancing weighs against allowing expedited discovery. Should plaintiff be unable to justify permissive joinder based on existing information, plaintiff will have later opportunities to move to consolidate separately filed cases against the defendants if discovery in the normal course reveals overlap. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Plaintiff is directed to respond to the court's show-cause order [16] by 6/9/2026. Finally, while the court denies plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery [18], this is without prejudice to plaintiff's ability to file a motion for expedited discovery for identification and contact information of any properly joined defendants to aid plaintiff in serving those defendants with process. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 29 |
05/14/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's status report 26. The motion for expedited discovery 18 remains under advisement. Plaintiff is directed to file an updated status report by 6/11/2026. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 28 |
05/08/2026
|
STATUS Report by Robert Bosch LLC 翻译 |
| 27 |
04/10/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's status report 24. Plaintiff is directed to file an updated status report by 5/8/2026. Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery 18 remains under advisement. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 26 |
04/09/2026
|
STATUS Report Initial Status Report by Robert Bosch LLC 翻译 |
| 25 |
04/03/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 21 is granted. The court considers plaintiff's memorandum 22 to have been timely filed. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 24 |
04/02/2026
|
MEMORANDUM by Robert Bosch LLC Supplemental Memorandum Pursuant to the February 25, 2026 Minute Order [Dkt. No. 19] 翻译 |
| 23 |
04/01/2026
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC for extension of time Plaintiff's Motion for a First Extension of Time to File a Supplemental Memorandum Pursuant to the February 25, 2026 Minute Order [Dkt. No. 19] 翻译 |
| 22 |
03/11/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The parties failed to comply with the 3/9/2026 deadline 15 to file their initial joint status report. That deadline is extended to 4/10/2026. Failure to file a report by that date may result in dismissal for want of prosecution. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 21 |
02/25/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, 18, is taken under advisement. Plaintiff asks for preliminary discovery to "confirm the interrelatedness of the [d]efendants" for the purposes of joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(1). In support, plaintiff cites Supreme Court caselaw that federal district courts have authority to order discovery of facts necessary to determine whether they have jurisdiction and whether venue is proper. 18 at 2; see Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 n.13 (1978). It is not clear whether that rule applies in this situation, however, because joinder of defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) is not a jurisdictional or venue-related issue. By 4/1/2026, plaintiff is directed to file additional briefing explaining: (1) what factors, standards, or rules, coming from binding and relevant caselaw, apply to the court's consideration of motions for expedited discovery generally and plaintiff's motion specifically; (2) what specific information plaintiff seeks from the third-party platform; and (3) how plaintiff believes that information will or won't show that the joinder requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) are satisfied as to all defendants listed in Schedule A, 9. Finally, plaintiff's 3/9/26 deadline to show cause is stayed until the court resets it. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 20 |
02/13/2026
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery 翻译 |
| 19 |
02/13/2026
|
DECLARATION of Jay Paragoso 翻译 |
| 18 |
02/09/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 3/9/2026, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 17 |
02/09/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion to unseal, 14, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal 9. Plaintiff's motion to seal, 8, is denied as moot. The parties are directed to file an initial joint status report by 3/9/2026. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 16 |
02/05/2026
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to unseal document Plaintiff's Motion to Unseal Docket No. 9 翻译 |
| 15 |
02/05/2026
|
MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials 翻译 |
| 14 |
02/05/2026
|
MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA 翻译 |
| 13 |
02/05/2026
|
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. 翻译 |
| 12 |
02/05/2026
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). 翻译 |
| 11 |
02/04/2026
|
Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Robert Bosch LLC 翻译 |
| 10 |
02/04/2026
|
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Robert Bosch LLC 翻译 |
| 9 |
02/04/2026
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Sealed Schedule A (Main Document 9 replaced on 2/10/2026). 翻译 |
| 8 |
02/04/2026
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal 翻译 |
| 7 |
02/04/2026
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Elizabeth Aubree Miller 翻译 |
| 6 |
02/04/2026
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by John Wilson 翻译 |
| 5 |
02/04/2026
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Robert Payton Mcmurray 翻译 |
| 4 |
02/04/2026
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by William Benjamin Kalbac 翻译 |
| 3 |
02/04/2026
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Michael A. Hierl 翻译 |
| 2 |
02/04/2026
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |
| 1 |
02/04/2026
|
COMPLAINT filed by Robert Bosch LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24681726. 翻译 |