W. Ruge to appear pro hac vice and participate in the above-captioned matter as counsel for TOPVISION, and further states in support thereof as follows:

Alex W. Ruge is of counsel for the law firm of Sheridan Ross P.C., located at 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200, Denver, CO 80202.

Mr. Ruge is licensed and admitted to practice law before the Supreme Court of Colorado (Bar No. 47830, admitted on November 3, 2014) and he is in good standing with United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Mr. Ruge has never been disbarred or suspended from practice before any court, department, bureau or commission of any State or the United States and has never received any reprimand from any such court, department, bureau or commission pertaining to conduct or fitness as ~ member of the bar.

Alex S. Rodger, an active Shia attorney in goad standing, has agreed to associate with movant on this case.

A case management conference was held with counsel for the parties in the within case on December 6, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. All parties do not consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

The parties will exchange pre-discovery disclosures by December 20, 2021.

PageID #: 365 After discussion with the parties, the court determined that Alternative Dispute Resolution would be useful.

This case is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker to conduct mediation as soon as possible after August 1, 2022.

This case will automatically be entered into the court’s electronic filing system and all further documents, notices and orders in this matter must be filed electronically rather than on paper.

 On December 18, 2023, the undersigned informed NOCO that Analects Legal LLC intended to withdraw as counsel for Defendants and sought NOCO’s consent.

PageID #: 828 Analects Legal LLC 1212 S Naper Blvd., Suite 119 – PMB 238 Naperville, IL 60540  On December 20, 2023, Defendants served on NOCO’s counsel individual Notices of Deposition on three NOCO fact witnesses.

 On December 22, 2023, Defendants served their Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition on The NOCO Company (See Ex. 5 – Email from P. Curtin to K. Stroup dated 12/22/2023.)

 Also on December 22, 2023, Defendants filed their Unopposed Motion to Stay Case Deadlines Pending Transition of Defense Counsel.

When NOCO surprised Defendants with this flurry of activity, just over seven weeks remained for fact discovery, a period encompassing the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years Day holidays.

P. 6(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 7.1(d), Plaintiff The NOCO Company (“NOCO”) respectfully requests this Court enter an order enlarging the period of time Plaintiff has to respond to Defendant Shenzhen Jieqi Digital Technology Co., Ltd.’s (“Topvision”) Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment (the “Motion”), which was filed on March 27, 2023 (ECF # 150).

Under Local Rule 7.1(d), NOCO’s response to the Motion is due on or before April 10, 2023.

NOCO seeks an extension of fourteen (14) days, up to and including April 24, 2023, in which to file its response.

NOCO requests this extension of time in good faith and due to the heavy press of business.

Accordingly, the Court should enlarge NOCO’s response time to the Motion up to and including April 24, 2023.

NOCO also alleges that Defendants improperly manipulated the Amazon Marketplace by authoring false product reviews and safety complaints—either on their own or through the use of third parties.

In the briefing surrounding NOCO’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF ## 5, 11, 14, 16, and 17), Defendants heavily relied on the Declarations as a factual basis for their arguments.

Because Aukey Issued Improper Objections and WorldUS and HuiMing Failed to Respond, NOCO’s RFAs Should Be Deemed Admitted or the Court Should Require Defendants to Provide Sufficient Responses.

Despite these categories directly relating to the facts and damages alleged in the Complaint, Defendants refuse to provide an admission or denial on the basis of relevancy.

As a result, NOCO requests referral to a Judicial Officer pursuant to Local Rule 37.1 to discuss the discovery issues referenced above.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 6(b), Plaintiff The NOCO Company (“NOCO”) and Defendants Aukey Technology Co., Ltd., (“Aukey”), Shenzhenshi Jiangyun Shangmaoyouxiangongsi (“HuiMing”), and Wodeshijikeji Shenzhen Youxiangongsi (“WorldUS”) (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly request that this Court issue an order modifying the discovery deadlines it set forth in its December 7, 2022 Non-Document Order.

Counsel for the Parties conferred in good faith before filing this Motion and jointly agreed to seek such an extension, which would revise the discovery deadlines by approximately 180 days and move the fact discovery deadline from April 5, 2023, up to and including October 2, 2023.

The Parties make this request not for the purposes of delay but because they have been working in good faith to conduct, but need additional

When ruling on the Parties’ December 6, 2022 joint motion for extension of case deadlines, the Court set the following case deadlines: Event Deadline Fact Discovery Affirmative Expert Reports Defensive Expert Reports Rebuttal Expert Reports April 5, 2023 May 30, 2023 July 3, 2023 July 31, 2023 Expert Discovery August 28, 2023 Dispositive Motions September 25, 2023 Since December 2022 — as more fully set forth in the Parties’ March 15, 2023 joint status report (ECF # 44) — the Parties have agreed to ESI search terms and are actively retrieving and reviewing documents for production.

Further, the extension of the fact discovery deadline may allow the Parties to preserve resources and focus on settlement with the upcoming mediation.

If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

Nonetheless, perhaps because of the above referenced inaccuracies, the Court determined that an "alternative means of service is permissible." (Id. at 3).

PageID #: 563

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45(a)(4), please take notice that Plaintiff The NOCO Company will be issuing the attached Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45 Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action upon Non-Party Amazon.com, Inc. on November 27, 2023.

PageID #: 564

PageID #: 536

Please take notice that Plaintiff The NOCO Company will issue the attached Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum in a Civil Action upon Non-Party Amazon.com, Inc. on November 17, 2023.

PageID #: 537

All counsel and/or parties will take notice that the above-entitled action has been set for a Telephonic Case Management Conference ("CMC"), on December 6, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., before

A report of this planning meeting shall be jointly signed and submitted to the Clerk for filing not less than 3 days before the CMC.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, initial disclosures, discovery depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed with the Clerk’s Office, except that discovery materials may be filed as evidence in support of a motion or for use at trial.

In the event that this case is resolved prior to the CMC, counsel should submit a jointly signed stipulation of settlement or dismissal, or otherwise notify the Court that the same is forthcoming.

This case is suitable for one or more of the following Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") mechanisms: Early Neutral Evaluation Mediation Arbitration Summary Jury Trial Summary Bench Trial Case not suitable for ADR

Nevertheless, even if Intervenors would have brought their Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), it still fails, as none of the six categories outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) are applicable here.

Here, even if Intervenors had alleged any grounds for setting aside the Default Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)—which they have not—none apply.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff failed to do its due diligence and investigate the public record prior to filing its complaint and only named Nice Team in its Complaint.

However, none of these happened.

P. 6(b)(1)(A) and LR 7.1(d), Plaintiff The NOCO Company (“NOCO”) respectfully requests this Court enter an order enlarging the period of time Plaintiff has to respond to Non-Party Intervenors Nice Well Enterprise Limited (“Nice Well”) and Smart Well International Development Limited’s (“Smart Well”) Motion to Intervene and Set Aside or Modify the Default Judgment Against Defendant Nice Team Enterprise Limited, which was filed on January 9, 2023 (ECF No. 145).

Plaintiff seeks an extension of fourteen (14) days, up to and including February 6, 2023, in which to file its response.

Plaintiff requests this extension of time due to the heavy press of business.

NOCO’s counsel has been engulfed in preparing for trial for another matter, which was just recently resolved.

Rather, Plaintiff was initially operating under the stipulated extension until Nice Well and Smart Well withdrew their consent only four days prior to NOCO’s original response date.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff expanded this Default Judgment to broadly target all sellers of the Imazing branded jump starters and cause Amazon Marketplace to delist Imazing-branded products sold by Intervenors.

The prejudice to the original parties should the Court allow Intervenors to intervene is minimal, if not none.

Other defendants who are already in this case will certainly not represent Intervenors’ interest because none of them sells the Imazing branded jump starters on the Amazon Marketplace.