MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, 35, is granted. The amended Schedule A, 36, is now operative.

AMENDED exhibit 2 Amended Schedule A

MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc.for Leave to Amend Schedule A to the Complaint Instanter

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Luxottica Group S.p.A., Costa Del Mar, Inc., Oakley, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 3/20/2025, answer due 4/10/2025.

附件：

1:(Exhibit A)
2:Declaration of Thomas J. Juettner

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc.

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 2/11/2025:

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery, 27, is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Order.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiffs' motion to unseal certain documents, 28, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the Schedule A to the Complaint 2 and Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Jason Groppe 16.

MOTION by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc. to unseal document exhibit 2, exhibit, 16

MOTION by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc. for discovery Expedited

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to comply with order, [24], is granted. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 2/7/2025.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, [23], is denied. "While motions to reconsider are permitted. they are disfavored." Patrick v. City of Chicago, 103 F. Supp. 3d 907, 911 (N.D. Ill. 2015). "This is a heavy burden for the moving party and makes a motion for reconsideration an inappropriate medium to 'rehash' past arguments[.]" Alice F. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., No. 17-cv-3710, 2019 WL 11626480, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 17, 2019) (citation omitted). "Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not submitted any newly discovered evidence. Thus, plaintiff can prevail only if it demonstrates that the court made a manifest error of law or fact. "A manifest error of law or fact under this standard occurs when a district court 'has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.'" Patrick, 103 F. Supp. 3d at 912 (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff has not shown that the court made a manifest error of law or fact. Plaintiff points out that the court has the power to issue an asset restraint when a plaintiff seeks an accounting and profits in the alternative to statutory damages in its complaint. See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi, 309 F.3d 988, 996 (7th Cir. 2002) (asset freeze was "appropriate" when plaintiff sought statutory damages or equitable relief in the alternative). But simply because a court has the authority to issue an asset freeze in such circumstances does not mean that the plaintiff here is entitled to one. As explained in the prior minute entry, [21], the court is not persuaded that plaintiff intends to actually seek or obtain equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, [23], is denied.

MOTION by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc. for extension of time to Comply with Order 21

MOTION by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc. for reconsideration regarding order on motion for leave to file, order on motion for temporary restraining order, text entry, 21

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, 17, is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to defendants. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, service is not necessary because this court has already denied the motion for a TRO. 21.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 3, and for a temporary restraining order and for expedited discovery, 12, are denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. See 3. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[a]s a general matter [ ] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *3-4. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Because the court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order, there is no reason to seal plaintiff's filings pending such relief. Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 3, and for a temporary restraining order, 12, are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, 2, 16, are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 1/31/2025.

ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/27/2024: Mailed notice.

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 18

附件：

1:(Exhibit 2)
2:Exhibit 1

MEMORANDUM by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 17

MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. Exhibit 3 - Parts 1-8 regarding declaration 15

附件：

1:(Exhibit 3-8)
2:Exhibit 3-7
3:Exhibit 3-6
4:Exhibit 3-5
5:Exhibit 3-4
6:Exhibit 3-3
7:Exhibit 3-2
8:Exhibit 3-1

DECLARATION of Jason Groppe regarding memorandum in support of motion 13

附件：

1:(Exhibit 2)
2:Exhibit 1

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 13

附件：

1:(Exhibit 4)
2:Exhibit 3
3:Exhibit 1
4:Exhibit 2

MEMORANDUM by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 12

MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. for temporary restraining order Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Transfer of the Domain Names, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

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.

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category Two).

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. by Thomas Joseph Juettner

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. by Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc.

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc.

CIVIL Cover Sheet

MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. for leave to file under seal

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

COMPLAINT filed by Luxottica Group S.p.A., Costa Del Mar, Inc., Oakley, Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22022041.

附件：

1:Exhibit 3
2:Exhibit 2
3:Exhibit 1
4:Exhibit 4