ORDER DENYING [48] Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed by Plaintiff GLITCH PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD. In its [48] Motion, Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd seeks reconsideration and/or clarification of the Court's [46] Order. The [46] Order denied Glitch's first [44] Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's [35] Opinion and Order declining to issue a preliminary injunction as against every Defendant in this case except for BaiHeShangMao. The [46] Order also dismissed every Defendant except BaiHeShangMao because the [35] Opinion and Order required Glitch to show cause why those Defendants should not be dismissed for misjoinder, and the Court concluded that Glitch failed to do so. It is not exactly clear whether the instant [48] Motion seeks reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of every Defendant but BaiHeShangMao, reconsideration of the Court's denial of Glitch's [44] Motion to Reconsider the Court's denial of a preliminary injunction as against those Defendants, or both. In the former case, the [46] Order is clearly interlocutory, and the Court begins there. See Elliott v. Archdiocese of New York, 682 F.3d 213, 219 (3d Cir. 2012) ("[A]n order which terminates fewer than all claims pending in an action or claims against fewer than all the parties to an action does not constitute a 'final' order for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291."). Unlike final orders, which are governed by Rule 59(e), a court may reconsider an interlocutory order "even if the movant cannot show an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court issued the underlying order, or 'the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.'" See Qazizadeh v. Pinnacle Health Sys., 214 F. Supp. 3d 292, 295 (M.D. Pa. 2016) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). Rather, a district court may reconsider an interlocutory order whenever it is "consonant with justice" to do so. In re Anthanassious, 418 F. App'x 91, 95 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973)). However, this discretion must be exercised "in a responsible way, both procedurally and substantively" with "a presumption against reconsideration of interlocutory decisions." Id. at 95-96. Although a court "has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own," it "should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances." In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litig., 582 F.3d 432, 439 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988)). A motion for reconsideration should not be granted when it is "used as a means to reargue matters already argued," is merely "an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant," is nothing more than a "second bite at the apple," or raises "new arguments or evidence that could have been proffered prior to the issuance of the order in question." Qazizadeh, 214 F. Supp. 3d at 295-96 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Glitch argues that the Court should reconsider its dismissal of every Defendant except for BaiHeShangMao for misjoinder because the Court has not raised misjoinder concerns in two other pending cases that Glitch characterizes as "virtually identical" to this one. ECF No. 48 at 5-10. Alternatively, Glitch asks for clarification as to why joinder of Defendants in this case is improper, but joinder of Defendants in the other two cases cited by Glitch is proper. Id. at 9-10. With respect to reconsideration of the [46] Order dismissing Defendants, Glitch is simply attempting to relitigate propriety of joinder in this case. Glitch has already had an opportunity to argue why joinder was proper, and has not overcome the presumption against further consideration of the issue. See In re Anthanassious, 418 F. App'x at 95-96. As for clarification, Glitch's [48] Motion reveals that it needs none. Specifically, Glitch recognizes and "appreciates the plaintiffs in the [other matters where the Court did not raise misjoinder concerns] alleged the defendants were operating as a single ring of intellectual property infringers." ECF No. 48 at 8 n.6. That allegation creates a logical connection amongst the defendants in those cases that is lacking in this one. Glitch's [48] Motion also argues that the Court erred in denying Glitch's previous [44] Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of Glitch's request for a preliminary injunction as against Defendants who have since been dismissed from this case. On that front, Glitch makes the exact same argument in its [48] Motion as it did in the [44] Motion. Namely, Glitch believes that the Court was required to analyze the elements of its claims when weighing Glitch's likelihood of success on the merits, and that it failed to do so and instead improperly analyzed joinder. ECF No. 48 at 4-5. The Court rejected that argument in its [46] Order, and does so again here. Glitch relies on a non-precedential Third Circuit opinion for the proposition that the Court was required to analyze the elements of Glitch's claims in evaluating its likelihood of success on the merits. See Fres-co Sys. USA, Inc. v. Hawkins, 690 F. App'x 72, 77 (3d Cir. 2017). But Fres-co is distinguishable. It dealt with an injunction that was granted without any evaluation of the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits whatsoever, id. which is not the case here, where the Court denied an injunction against all but one Defendant after analyzing Glitch's likelihood of success as to those Defendants. Furthermore, while Glitch argues that misjoinder does not factor into a merits analysis, the court in Fres-co recognized that "[t]he nature of the court's inquiry into whether a party has [established a likelihood of success on the merits] will necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case." Id. In this case, the Court's inquiry was directed at the propriety of joinder as to Defendants against whom Glitch sought injunctive relief, and Glitch has cited no authority indicating that it is improper to consider misjoinder when weighing whether to grant an injunction. Accordingly, for all of the forgoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [48] Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/21/2025. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.

Second MOTION for Clarification, MOTION for Reconsideration by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:Proposed Order
2:Exhibit 2
3:Exhibit 1

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to a certain defendant by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd

ORDER DENYING 44 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiff GLITCH PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD. On 7/1/2025, the Court issued a preliminary injunction against the first-named Defendant on Schedule A to the Complaint, BaiHeShangMao. ECF No. 36. The Court declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the other 135 named Defendants. ECF No. 35. Specifically, the Court determined that "Glitch ha[d] not presented sufficient evidence establishing that joinder of all 136 Defendants in this case is appropriate under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Id. at 8. Accordingly, the Court ordered Glitch to show cause as to why Defendants 2 through 136 should not be dismissed from this case for misjoinder, or file an Amended Complaint asserting claims against only those Defendants for whom Glitch could establish proper joinder. Id. On 7/18/2025, Glitch filed its 44 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 35 Opinion and Order, which included a response to the Court's order to show cause. In its 44 Motion, Glitch argues the Court erred in denying it preliminary injunctive relief as against Defendants 2 through 136 because (1) the Court's 35 Opinion and Order is inconsistent with the 20 Temporary Restraining Order previously entered by the Court, and (2) the Court's 35 Opinion and Order failed to analyze the elements of Glitch's claims against Defendants 2 through 136. At bottom, both arguments take issue with the Court conducting a joinder analysis in the context of considering Glitch's likelihood of success on the merits. Specifically, Glitch argues that "no law or case is cited in the [Court's 35 Opinion and Order or other recent cases analyzing joinder] supporting the proposition that misjoinder of Defendants factors into the likelihood of success on the merits analysis when evaluating the propriety of an injunction." ECF No. 44 at 6. But Glitch does not cite any authority for the proposition that it is improper to consider misjoinder when weighing whether to grant a preliminary injunction. The Court declines to analyze the elements of a plaintiff's claims against defendants whom the Court believes to be misjoined, let alone grant the plaintiff an injunction against such defendants. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 44 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. As for Glitch's response to the Court's order to show cause, the Court is similarly unpersuaded. Glitch argues that the Court too narrowly construes the meaning of "occurrence" as it appears in Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that joinder is proper because the allegations in 1 Complaint "establish that Defendants are working in a similar manner and during the same time period to sell Unauthorized Products, as part of the same 'occurrence' of mass harm, i.e., the swarm of all Defendants attacking Glitch's intellectual property at once." ECF No. 44 at 7. The Court disagrees. As explained in the 35 Opinion and Order, Glitch's interpretation of what constitutes an occurrence "undermine[s] a consistent line of cases. holding that Rule 20(a)'s requirement for a common transaction or occurrence is not satisfied where multiple defendants are merely alleged to have infringed the same [intellectual property]." Glitch has offered nothing that changes the Court's opinion on this issue. Finally, Glitch argues that dismissal or severance of 135 Defendants would be unjust to Glitch, and that joinder of the Defendants promotes judicial economy, prevents a multiplicity of lawsuits and reduces inconvenience, delay and added expense. ECF No. 44 at 8-9. Again, the Court disagrees. Cases like this one typically result in most Defendants defaulting. See Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 189 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ("[C]ases like this one. have often resulted in default judgments."). This case involves 136 Defendants. "Combining hundreds of unrelated defendants in one case creates a burden on courts since courts must evaluate the evidence submitted in support of liability and, eventually, apportion damages among the parties." H-D U.S.A. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-CV-01041, 2021 WL 780486, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 1, 2021). And the usual ex parte context of cases like this one magnifies that burden. See Bailie v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 734 F. Supp. 3d 798, 804 (N.D. Ill. 2024) (quotation omitted) ("Since evidence presented ex parte is by its very nature one-sided, the law demands close scrutiny of such affidavits [and evidence], particularly in those instances wherein the affiant is not a disinterested party."); Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D at 189. Thus, "the burden of conducting a meaningful review of so much material not only disserves the interest of judicial economy but also substantially prejudices the defendants." Bailie, 734 F.Supp. 3d at 804. Furthermore, while Glitch argues that letting the Defendants "escape this case without any consequence" would "put Glitch in the position of having to 'unring the bell' that was previously rung when the Court authorized Glitch to restrain the Defendants' financial accounts and provide them notice of this case," ECF No. 44 at 3, Glitch is already in that position, see id. at 2 n.4 (noting that third-party platforms have already been instructed to release restraints on the financial accounts of Defendants 2 through 136). For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court remains convinced that joinder of all 136 Defendants in this case is not proper. Exercising its discretion, the Court concludes that dismissal of Defendants 2 through 136 for misjoinder is appropriate. See Sabolsky v. Budzanoski, 457 F.2d 1245, 1249 (3d Cir. 1972) ("The proper remedy in case of misjoinder is to grant severance or dismissal to the improper party if it will not prejudice any substantial right."); Lester v. Rosato, No. 3:CV-14-1046, 2014 WL 3421072, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 11, 2014) ("Courts have broad discretion in applying Rule 20"). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants 2 through 136, as set forth in Schedule A to the 1 Complaint which appears at ECF No. 2, are hereby DISMISSED from this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/22/2025. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.

Proposed Order re [44] Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Clarification, by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

MOTION for Reconsideration re [36] Order, [37] Order, [35] Memorandum Opinion,, MOTION for Clarification as to [36] Order, [37] Order, [35] Memorandum Opinion, by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit A

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re [44] Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Clarification. ERROR: Proposed Order, which is required for all motions in civil cases per Local Rule LCvR7, was not attached. CORRECTION: Attorney is advised to file a proposed order by using the Proposed Order event and linking it to the document in question.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to a certain defendant by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd

PATENT/TRADEMARK DOCUMENTS ISSUED.

附件：

1:Complaint
2:(Docket Sheet) (rtm)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd. In its 39 Motion, Glitch requests "to extend its deadline to show cause as to why Defendant Nos. 2-136 should not be dismissed from this case for misjoinder until one week after Glitch's forthcoming motion for reconsideration and/or clarification" of the Court's 35 Opinion and Order denying a preliminary injunction as to every Defendant in this case except BaiHeShangMao. Glitch submitted an accompanying 40 Proposed Order along with the 39 Motion which contemplates that its motion for reconsideration will be filed on or before 7/25/2025. The existing deadline for Glitch to show cause why Defendants 2 through 136 should not be dismissed for misjoinder is 7/16/2025, ECF No. 37, thus, Glitch essentially requests a 16-day extension of the show cause deadline. Glitch has not explained why it needs until 7/25/2025 to file a motion for reconsideration, and the Court finds that a 16-day extension of the show cause deadline to 8/1/2025 is not warranted. The Court will, however extend the show cause deadline to 7/18/2025. Glitch's response to the Court's order to show cause may include a motion to reconsider the 35 Opinion and Order denying a preliminary injunction as to Defendants 2 through 136. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 39 Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court's 35 Opinion and Order, as amended by the 37 Order, is FURTHER AMENDED as follows: on or before 7/18/2025, Plaintiff shall show cause as to why Defendants 2 through 136 should not be dismissed from this case for misjoinder, or shall file an Amended Complaint asserting claims against only those Defendants for whom Plaintiff can establish proper joinder. The 39 Motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks an extension of the show cause deadline beyond 7/18/2025. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/14/2025. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bjw) Modified text on 7/14/2025 to correct length of requested extension.

Proposed Order re [39] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [37] Order to Show Cause as to Why Defendants 2 through 136 Should not be Dismissed From This Case for Misjoinder by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:Exhibit A
2:Declaration Martin F. Trainor

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to certain Defendants by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd

ORDER. On 7/1/2025, the Court issued a 36 Preliminary Injunction Order against Defendant BaiHeShangMao only. The Court's 36 Order also directed that this case be unsealed. It has come to the Court's attention that this case was not unsealed until today, 7/9/2025. Thus, it does not appear that Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd received notice until today of the Court's 36 Order, or of the Court's 35 Opinion and Order declining to issue a preliminary injunction against Defendants 2 through 136 and ordering Glitch to show cause by 7/8/2025 why those Defendants should not be dismissed for misjoinder. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court's 35 Opinion and Order is AMENDED as follows: on or before 7/16/2025, Plaintiff shall show cause as to why Defendants 2 through 136 should not be dismissed from this case for misjoinder, or shall file an Amended Complaint asserting claims against only those Defendants for whom Plaintiff can establish proper joinder. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/9/2025. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the injunctive relief previously granted on 6/2/2025, and extended by further Order on 6/9/2025, shall remain in place through the pendency of this litigation against Defendant BaiHeShangMao only, as more fully set forth in the attached Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the $136,000.00 bond posted by Plaintiff shall be returned to Plaintiff upon request, and Plaintiff shall post new security in the amount of $1,000 with the Court forthwith pursuant to the terms of this Order. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/1/2025.

OPINION AND ORDER Denying Request for Preliminary Injunction as Against Defendants 2 through 136. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief against Defendants 2 through 136, as set forth in Schedule A to the Complaint, is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 7/8/2025, Plaintiff shall show cause as to why Defendants 2 through 136 should not be dismissed from this case for misjoinder, or shall file an Amended Complaint asserting claims against only those Defendants for whom Plaintiff can establish proper joinder. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve this Opinion and Order on all Defendants in accordance with the terms of the [19] Alternative Service Order. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/1/2025.

MINUTE ENTRY for Show Cause Hearing held on 6/30/2025 before Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand. (Court Reporter: Jessica Fisher)

Plaintiff's statement regarding service of process on defendants, by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd

Proposed Preliminary Injunction Order by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

ORDER GRANTING 28 Motion to Exceed Page Limit filed by Plaintiff GLITCH PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD. In its 28 Motion, Glitch requests leave to file an 11-page supplemental memorandum regarding the propriety of joinder as to the 136 Defendants named in this case. The Court will allow Glitch to do so. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 28 Motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/30/2025. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to Defendants RUFSMAAN, Youying, Rachel Partners LLC, Rickard Store, Suanxi Store, zhifangti, JINGLEYOU, SHUNJINGYUE, by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

BRIEF in Support re 28 Motion to exceed page limit filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:Declaration
2:Exhibit 1
3:(Exhibit 2) (rtm)

MOTION for leave to exceed page limit by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:(Proposed Order) (rtm)

ORDER re 25 Motion to Extend Time filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd, ORDER GRANTING 25 Renewed Ex Parte Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff GLITCH PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Show Cause Hearing re Preliminary Injunction currently set for 6/16/2025 is RESCHEDULED for 6/30/2025 at 1:00 PM IN PERSON in Courtroom 9B before Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' responses in opposition, if any, to the 20 Order shall be filed electronically with the Court and served on Plaintiff's counsel by delivering electronic copies thereof to the office of TME Law, P.C. at martin@tme-law.com before 6/20/2025. Plaintiff shall file any Reply papers on or before 6/25/2025. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/09/2025.

BRIEF in Support re 25 Motion to Extend Time filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:(Declaration) (rtm)

MOTION to Extend Temporary Restraining Order by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:(Proposed Order) (rtm)

Surety BOND in the amount of $136,000 Receipt Number S-980955, posted by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd NGM Insurance Company as Surety, As per order signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/2/2025 at ECF no. 20

ORDER DENYING 21 Motion to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff GLITCH PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD. In its 21 Motion, Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd. requests that the Court extend the Temporary Restraining Order entered by the Court at ECF No. 20 by a period of fourteen days to 6/30/2025. The 20 Temporary Restraining Order requires Glitch to place security (corporate surety bond, cash, certified check, or attorneys check) in the amount of $136,000 ($1,000 per Defendant) with the Court, which amount has, in the absence of adversarial testing, been deemed adequate for the payment of such damages as any person may be entitled to recover as a result of a wrongful restraint hereunder. To date, Glitch has not done so, and the 21 Motion makes no mention of Glitchs efforts to satisfy this requirement. The Court will not extend the 20 Temporary Restraining Order until Plaintiff posts the required security. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 21 Motion is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to re-file such motion after it has provided the security required by the 20 Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide such security on or before 6/9/2025. Furthermore, in light of the Courts 18 Order sealing all documents associated with this case, counsel are advised they will no longer be able to e-file documents while the case remains sealed. All future filings should be submitted to the Clerk of Courts office for docketing at the following e-mail address: intake2_pawd@pawd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/06/2025. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter.

BRIEF in Support re [21] Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:Declaration of Martin F. Trainor

MOTION to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:Exhibit 1

ORDER GRANTING [8] MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; ORDER RESTRAINING ASSETS AND MERCHANT STOREFRONTS; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; AND ORDER AUTHORIZING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued IN PERSON in Courtroom 9B on 6/16/2025 at 1:00 p.m. before Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand. Defendants' Opposition papers must be filed on or before 6/6/2025. Plaintiff shall file any Reply papers on or before 6/11/2025. The Court notes that Plaintiff's [9] Brief in Support of its [8] Motion exceeded the ten page limit for non-dispositive briefing set forth in Section II.D of the undersigned's Practices & Procedures (available at https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/Wiegand_Practices_Procedures_2024.pdf). Plaintiff is reminded that all future filings must comply with those Practices & Procedures and the Local Civil Rules for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/2/2025.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [12] Motion for Alternative Service. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/2/2025.

ORDER GRANTING [3] Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Document Sealed Permanently. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/2/2025.

Proposed Order re [3] Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

ORDER re Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) Motions to Dismiss as more fully stated in said order. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 5/30/2025.

MICROSOFT TEAMS AUDIO CONFERENCING SCHEDULING NOTICE FOR ALL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCES - Every telephonic conference conducted will be via a Microsoft Teams Audio Conferencing call-in number which requires participants to dial-in and provide a conference ID. When a Telephonic Conference is scheduled, you will be instructed to refer back to this notice. This document has a security setting of Case Participants Only, so only those individuals will have access to view the document.

NOTICE that instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. Parties are directed to fully complete the required 26(f) report, which includes the stipulation of selecting an ADR process. Counsel for plaintiff shall make service of the notice on all parties.

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 3 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. ERROR: Proposed Order, which is required for all motions in civil cases per Local Rule LCvR7, was not attached. CORRECTION: Attorney is advised to file a proposed order by using the Proposed Order event and linking it to the document in question.

BRIEF in Support re 12 Motion for Alternative Service filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:Declaration of Martin F. Trainor
2:(Exhibit 2)

MOTION for Alternative Service by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:(Exhibit 1)

SEALED EXHIBIT in support of Declaration of Paul Varley by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd pursuant to.

附件：

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

DECLARATION re 9 Brief in Support of Motion by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd Affiant: Paul Varley.

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:(Exhibit 2)

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added.

BRIEF in Support re 8 Motion for TRO, Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue, Motion for Expedited Discovery, filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:(Declaration of Martin F. Trainor) Modified text on 5/30/2025 for miscellaneous relief. (rtm)

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue, MOTION for Expedited Discovery by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:(Exhibit 1)

NOTICE of Appearance by Sydney Fenton on behalf of Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

NOTICE of Appearance by Martin Francis Trainor on behalf of Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

NOTICE of Claims Involving Trademarks by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd

Disclosure Statement identifying Kevin Lerdwichagul and Luke Lerdwichagul as corporate parent or other affiliate by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

SEALED DOCUMENT by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

COMPLAINT against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $405, receipt number APAWDC-8888792), filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd.

附件：

1:Exhibit 3
2:Exhibit 5
3:Exhibit 4
4:Exhibit 2
5:Exhibit 1
6:(Civil Cover Sheet)