Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. v. No. 6
| Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. |
| Guangzhou Xinren Garment Co., Ltd. and No. 6 doing business as LILYSSHOESCASE |
| 1:2024cv07589 |
| August 15, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Thomas M Durkin |
| Maria Valdez |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 501 Copyright Infringement |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion to withdraw as attorney #8 is granted. Attorney Matthew D. Binder terminated. Mailed notice. (ecw, ) |
| Filing 8 MOTION by Attorney Matthew D. Binder to withdraw as attorney for Roadget Business Pte. Ltd.. No party information provided Presented before District Judge (Binder, Matthew) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Docket entry #6 is amended as follows: Magistrate Judge status hearing held on 8/28/24. The discovery schedule is entered as follows: Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures to be made by 9/6/24; written discovery may issue on 9/6/24; any actions to join other parties shall be filed by 12/2/24; any amendments to pleadings shall be filed by 2/14/25; all written discovery shall be issued no later than 1/7/25; the fact discovery deadline is 2/21/25; initial experts shall be disclosed by 3/21/25; rebuttal experts shall be disclosed by 4/22/25; and the deadline for all expert discovery is 5/23/25. Dispositive motion and pretrial deadlines will be set by the District Judge at a later date, if necessary. The parties are expected to proceed expeditiously to complete discovery by the deadline. There will be no extensions absent good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), which requires diligence on the movant's part. See Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court generally does not consider obligations in other cases, vacations, holidays, illnesses, or difficulty scheduling depositions to demonstrate good cause, as there is more than enough time to complete discovery even if those expected complications arise. The parties must file a joint status report by 10/28/24 describing discovery progress and the prospects of settlement. If the parties wish to begin the process of scheduling a settlement conference at any time prior to that date, they should notify the Court. Mailed notice (lp, ) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: Magistrate Judge status hearing held on 8/28/24. The discovery schedule is entered as follows: Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures to be made by 9/6/24; written discovery may issue on 9/6/24; any actions to join other parties shall be filed by 12/2/24; any amendments to pleadings shall be filed by 2/14/25; all written discovery shall be issued no later than 1/7/25; the fact discovery deadline is 2/21/24; initial experts shall be disclosed by 3/21/25; rebuttal experts shall be disclosed by 4/22/25; and the deadline for all expert discovery is 5/23/25. Dispositive motion and pretrial deadlines will be set by the District Judge at a later date, if necessary. The parties are expected to proceed expeditiously to complete discovery by the deadline. There will be no extensions absent good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), which requires diligence on the movant's part. See Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court generally does not consider obligations in other cases, vacations, holidays, illnesses, or difficulty scheduling depositions to demonstrate good cause, as there is more than enough time to complete discovery even if those expected complications arise. The parties must file a joint status report by 10/28/24 describing discovery progress and the prospects of settlement. If the parties wish to begin the process of scheduling a settlement conference at any time prior to that date, they should notify the Court. Mailed notice (lp, ) |
| Filing 5 STATUS Report (Joint) by Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. Presented before District Judge (Horowitz, Steven) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: This case has been referred to Judge Valdez for discovery supervision and to conduct a settlement conference. Status hearing is set for 8/28/24 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1041. Remote and/or telephonic appearances are not allowed.Mailed notice (lp, ) |
| Filing 3 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Maria Valdez for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: discovery supervision, including authority to set a discovery schedule; settlement conference. Mailed notice. (ecw, ) |
| Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants No. 6, Guangzhou Xinren Garment Co., Ltd. by William W. Flachsbart (Flachsbart, William) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Direct assignment. (Civil Category 3). (jn,) |
| Filing 1 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Defendants numbered in Schedule A as Defendants 5, 6, 7, 11, and 14 have moved to sever. "Courts in this district generally agree that alleging that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright in the same way does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." See Roadget v. Individuals, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024). So here where Defendants are alleged to have violated different copyrights severance is even more appropriate. See id. Plaintiff cites the Court's decision in Bose v. The Partnership, 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. 2020), to argue that Defendants work as "a swarm" of unidentified counterfeiters justifying their joinder in a single action. But the Bose order was not entered on a motion by defendants to sever, but after the Court had sua sponte requested briefing on joinder from the plaintiff in that case as a matter of case management before any defendant had entered an appearance. Here, where appearing defendants proactively seek severance, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate a "logical relationship" among the moving Defendants. See Roadget v. Individuals, 2024 WL 2763735, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2024) ("Bose is distinguishable from the circumstances here where the claims are of distinct infringement of various copyrights, not a single, wellknown trademark."); Tang v. Partnerships, 2024 WL 68332, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) ("The essence of the dispute here is not infringement en masse but rather instances of infringement by distinct competitors."). Therefore, the motion to sever 76 is granted, and the Clerk's Office is ordered to sever each of the following defendants into a separate case number: No. 5 dba Lan Yun Clothing; No. 6 dba LILYSSHOESCASE; No. 7 dba Nami movement; No. 11 dba Genieyoga; and No. 14 dba YouGa movement. Mailed notice. (jn,) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
