CERTIFICATE of Service by Elizabeth Aubree Miller on behalf of Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation as to The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto on 11/21/2025, answer due 12/12/2025.

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's motion to direct the Clerk of Court to issue a summons 22 is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a single original Summons in the name of "ttunjinshou", so Plaintiff can properly effectuate service on Defendant No. 133 "ttunjinshou" identified in Schedule A attached to the Complaint. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Plaintiff's Motion to Direct the Clerk of the Court to Issue a Summons

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's motion for electronic service 19 is granted. The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery 20. The Court grants Plaintiff's request for electronic discovery related to the contact information of Defendant but denies the request as to the nature of Defendant's operations and all associated sales, as this latter information is more appropriately addressed through the normal course of discovery. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery

MOTION by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Plaintiff's Motion for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's motion for excess pages [13] is granted. However, Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a TRO and other relief [14] is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff has not come close to meeting the exacting standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) to warrant ex parte relief. That is, the Court finds that "the generic copy-and-paste declarations made mostly 'upon information and belief' fall well short of providing 'specific facts' to 'clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result,' and also fail to satisfy the certification requirement." Ren et al v. AilunUS, 25-cv-09278 Dkt. 32 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2025). That is ample reason to deny this extraordinary request. See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A., No. 25 C 2937, 2025 WL 2299593 at *4-7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.) ("Given that any irreparable harm wrought by infringement can, as with more traditional forms of IP litigation, be addressed through preliminary injunctive relief following an adversarial proceeding, the use of Rule 65(b) to ensure an unimpeded path to a prejudgment asset restraint is unsound."). The Court acknowledges that it has granted similar TRO motions in earlier Schedule A cases. See, e.g., Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 25-cv-08835 Dkt. 22 (Aug. 19, 2025). However, upon further consideration of the issue, including a review of Judge Kness's thorough Order in Eicher Motors, the Court finds that the present TRO request, and other similar requests, do not satisfy Rule 65(b)'s requirements. Plaintiff may be allowed to request electronic service of process pursuant to Fed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) and to seek discovery to assist with identifying defendant, but any such requests must be presented in a separate motion. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [8]. 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, Plaintiff's motion to seal [8] is denied, and the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the entire case, forthwith. Mailed notice.

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Exhibit 2 to Paragoso Declaration regarding memorandum in support of motion, 15

MEMORANDUM by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 14

附件：

1:Declaration Paragoso Declaration
2:(Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 4)
3:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 3
4:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 1
5:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 2
6:Declaration Hierl Declaration
7:Exhibit 1

MOTION by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation for temporary restraining order Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Service of Process by Email and/or Electronic Publication

MOTION by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation for leave to file excess pages Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation

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 Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Direct assignment. (Civil Category Civil Direct Assignment).

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Sealed Schedule A

MOTION by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by Elizabeth Aubree Miller

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by John Wilson

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by Robert Payton Mcmurray

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by William Benjamin Kalbac

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by Michael A. Hierl

CIVIL Cover Sheet

COMPLAINT filed by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24040867.

附件：

1:(Exhibit 1)