Order | Filed: August 17, 2026
| Entered: August 17, 2026
Shell Trademark Management B.V. v. The Individuals ans Business Entities Identified on Schedule A
Trademark | New York Eastern
Order(Other)
ORDER: On 7/31/2026, the parties submitted a proposed briefing schedule to District Judge Sanket J. Bulsara regarding their latest dispute and requested that all briefing be fully submitted on 8/19/2026. See DE 200 . Judge Bulsara then referred that letter request to the undersigned as follows: "[t]he letter dated July 31, 2026, 200 , is referred to Judge Dunst; and any associated motion, should Judge Dunst permit the filing of such a motion, is referred for a report or recommendation or decision, as appropriate." 8/2/2026 Order (emphasis added). Consistent with Judge Bulsara's referral order, the undersigned rejected the timing and format of the proposed briefing schedule in DE 200 and instead approved more targeted briefing in the form of a pre-motion letter and opposition to be fully submitted to the undersigned on 8/28/2026 (only 9 days after the schedule proposed (and rejected) in DE 200 ). See 8/7/2026 Order (the "8/7/2026 Order").
Just one business day after the undersigned's 8/7/2026 Order, Defendant Oil Depot purported to seek "clarification" of the Order and specifically sought an expedited briefing schedule. DE 203 . This "clarification" request essentially seeks reconsideration of the undersigned's non-dispositive order on the timing and format of briefing. Oil Depot's request does not offer any argument that warrants modifying the 8/7/2026 Order.
First, Oil Depot notes that it already served its opening motion on Shell on 7/28/2026 (DE 203 ). This strategic decision was made by Oil Depot without the advance approval of a briefing schedule by Judge Bulsara or the undersigned. Interestingly, Oil Depot served its motion papers on Plaintiff one day prior to a discovery motion conference before the undersigned on 7/29/2026. See DE 199 ; DE 202 at 7-8, 34.
Second, Oil Depot notes that the original briefing schedule was negotiated by the parties. See id. The Court is not bound by a briefing schedule that the parties prepared without Court approval, and the undersigned declines to rubber stamp any proposal submitted by the parties.
Third, Oil Depot claims "it is suffering and will continue to suffer immediate harm" if its motion is "not expeditiously reviewed" (DE 200 -1 at 2). This argument is belied by the fact that the issues at hand arose several weeks ago--to wit, "Shell's announcement on July 17 that Depot could no longer communicate directly with its assigned sales representatives at Shell" (DE 203 )--but Oil Depot waited two weeks (7/31/2026) to alert Judge Bulsara to its anticipated motion and then agreed with the parties to a briefing schedule that would not be complete for nearly three more weeks (8/19/2026). This schedule does not suggest "urgency." In any event, the schedule set forth in the undersigned's 8/7/2026 Order requires that the parties bundle file their pre-motion letter briefing on 8/28/2026, only 9 days after the date sought originally by Oil Depot. Furthermore, the Court may rule on the pre-motion letters without the need for any further briefing. In re Best Payphones, Inc., 450 F. App'x 8, 15 (2d Cir. 2011) (finding that the District Court acted within its discretion when construing pre-motion letters as the motion itself).
For these reasons, the Court DENIES all relief sought in DE
Order | Filed: August 13, 2026
| Entered: August 13, 2026
Shell Trademark Management B.V. v. The Individuals ans Business Entities Identified on Schedule A
Trademark | New York Eastern
Order Adopting Report and Recommendations Order on Motion for Leave to Electronically File Document under Seal Order on Motion for Sanctions Order on Report and Recommendations
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Dunst's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") 198 in its entirety. Judge Dunst issued the R&R on July 14, 2026, recommending the Court deny Oil Depot's motion for sanctions, and the parties' related sealing motions, without prejudice as premature. Objections were due by July 28, 2026; no party has filed any objection to the R&R. For dispositive matters, "[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment; Colvin v. Berryhill, 734 F. App'x 756, 758 (2d Cir. 2018) ("Where . . . a party receives clear notice of the consequences of not objecting to a report and recommendation, the party's failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report results in the district court's review only for clear error[.]"). Having thoroughly reviewed Judge Dunst's R&R and finding no clear error on the face of the record, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, Oil Depot's motion for sanctions and the related motions to seal, 167 , 168 , 169 , 174 , are denied.
Any party seeking to maintain any of the documents filed at DE 167 , 168 , and 169 under seal must file a sealing motion that meaningfully addresses the Lugosch factors, by 8/21/2026. The motion must "advise the Court in a clear and organized manner as to [the parties'] respective positions on proposed sealing and redactions," as Judge Dunst already directed. Order dated Feb. 25, 2026. Should the parties fail to do so, the Court will direct the documents to be unsealed. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 8/13/2026. (RB)