Opinion
23-cv-22755-BLOOM
08-18-2023
JASON KAY, Plaintiff, v. THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A, Defendants.
OMNIBUS ORDER ON MOTION TO CONTINUE AND MOTION TO SEAL
BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Jason Kay's Motion to Continue Hearing, ECF No. [21] (“Motion to Continue”), and Plaintiff's Second Motion to Seal Certain Documents, ECF No. [22] (“Motion to Seal”). The Court has considered Plaintiff's Motions, the record as a whole, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons explained below, the Motion to Continue is granted and the Motion to Seal is denied.
A. Motion to Continue
In Plaintiff's Motion to Continue, Plaintiff explains that he has “not been able to serve any of the Defendants.” ECF No. [21] at 2. He therefore requests an extension of the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) for an additional fourteen days, to September 5, 2023, to ensure that Plaintiff has sufficient time to serve Defendants prior to the Preliminary Injunction hearing. Id. Plaintiff has shown good cause for a continuance of the Preliminary Injunction hearing. However, fourteen days from August 21, 2023 is September 4, 2023, not September 5, as Plaintiff states. The Court recognizes that September 4, 2023 is a holiday, but Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2) prohibits the Court from extending the TRO beyond an additional fourteen days. Accordingly, the TRO is extended to September 4, 2023, and the Preliminary Injunction hearing is rescheduled for September 1, 2023, at 11:30 a.m.
B. Motion to Seal
On August 16, 2023, the Court ordered all filings in the is case to be unsealed. ECF No. [20]. In Plaintiff's Motion to Seal, Plaintiff requests that all documents in this case identifying the litigants be sealed once again. ECF No. [22]. Plaintiff asserts that continued sealing is necessary to prevent Defendants from prematurely receiving notice of Plaintiff's investigation into their operation of their illegal businesses.” Id. at 3.
This case was filed nearly a month ago. See ECF No. [1]. The Court initially permitted Plaintiff to file under seal numerous documents, including a list of the 535 Defendants in this case. ECF No. [7]. The Court also permitted Plaintiff to temporarily proceed pseudonymously. ECF No. [8]. The Court then granted Plaintiff's sealed Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, based on Plaintiff's assertion that Defendants would dissipate assets subject to this litigation, and Plaintiff's promise that he would promptly serve Defendants and inform them of this litigation. ECF No. [10] (application for TRO); ECF No. [13] (Sealed Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order).
Now, Plaintiff asserts that, despite the fact that the Court's sealed TRO was entered and delivered to Plaintiff on August 7, 2023, Plaintiff has failed to serve any of the Defendants. ECF No. [21] at 2. He requests that the TRO, unredacted Complaint, the list of Defendants, and all associated documents remain under seal for an indefinite period of time. ECF No. [22].
The Court is concerned by Plaintiff's contradictory filings. In his Application for a TRO, Plaintiff asserted a need to restrain the assets of all 535 Defendants listed on Schedule A. ECF No. [10]. One week later, however, he inexplicably moved to dissolve the TRO as to nine of those Defendants. ECF No. [16]. Plaintiff's actions raise the inference that the TRO included more Defendants than necessary. It cannot be the case that the nine Defendants settled with Plaintiff after the TRO was granted, because Plaintiff states in his Motion to Continue that not a single Defendant in this case has been served. ECF No. [21] at 2.
“No-name litigation is disfavored in general[.]” XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 21-CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides that a complaint “must name all the parties[.]” “The rule does not merely further administrative convenience-[i]t protects the public's legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identities of the parties.” In re: Chiquita Brands Int'l, 965 F.3d 1238, 1247 (11th Cir. 2020) (alteration in the original; quotation marks omitted). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized a “narrow exception” to that rule in “exceptional case[s].” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
There are no longer exceptional circumstances that warrant continued sealing in this case. This case was initiated nearly a month ago, yet the public still knows nothing about the parties except that a pseudonymous plaintiff has sued anonymous defendants. See XYZ Corp., 2022 WL180151, at *1 (“[S]o far as the public can tell at this point in the litigation, Plaintiff XYZ sued Defendants ABC.” (quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff asserts no weighty privacy right; he does not face, for example, “a real threat of physical harm absent anonymity.” Chiquita Brands, 965 F.3d at 1247. Rather, he seeks to recover money from Defendants' alleged unlawful sales of Jamiroquai t-shirts. In light of the concerns discussed above, Plaintiff's privacy interest pales in comparison to “the public's interest in judicial openness.” Id. at 1246.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Continue, ECF No. [21], is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion Seal, ECF No. [22], is DENIED.
3. The Preliminary Injunction hearing currently scheduled for August 21, 2023, is RESCHEDULED to September 1, 2023, at 11:30 a.m. The Zoom hyperlink is as follows:
https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1615913558?pwd=amUza1NGeVhkUk1tek9HYUxn eHRtdz09. Alternatively, the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 591 3558; and the Passcode is 364059.
4. The Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. [10], shall remain in effect until 5:00 p.m. on September 4, 2023.
DONE AND ORDERED.