E
These trackers, including PassThePopcorn, BroadcasTheNet, Karagarga, HDBits, and Beyond-HD, allegedly shared several of his works without permission.
A few months later, the same operators were sued in an Illinois federal court. That case took a turn when defense attorneys presented evidence that the plaintiff may be an impostor, and last month the person litigating as Matthew Schneider dropped the lawsuit.
That isn't the end of it though, as Judge Andrea R. Wood kept jurisdiction over the pending sanctions request. Before any sanctions can follow, the defense wants the court to verify the identity of the plaintiff.
At a September hearing, the man said that Matthew Schneider is his legal name and that he lives in London. In response, the court requested official paperwork to back that up.
Passport, License, Copyright Application
Judge Wood had ordered the October 2 status hearing to take place by videoconference, but the plaintiff joined by phone, noting that he had technical difficulties.
At the hearing, the judge directed him to email the courtroom deputy copies of his driver's license, his passport, and documentation of his application to the U.S. Copyright Office by October 9.
The documents would be filed under seal and shared with the parties under a protective order. However, the deadline seemingly passed without a response.
On October 14, the plaintiff asked the court if he could share a single "independently certified and apostilled" UK government photo ID instead, to be examined by the judge alone with no access for the defense.
These privacy restrictions are warranted, he argues, citing UK data protection law. Once his government ID is exposed, he adds, that can't be undone.
"Once opposing counsel receives Plaintiff's sensitive government-issued identification and residential information, the resulting loss of confidentiality cannot meaningfully be reversed," the motion reads.
'In lieu of producing both a passport and driving licence'
If the court refuses to restrict the disclosure, he asks for a temporary stay so he can seek appellate review. The motion does not mention the Copyright Office records, however, which as far as the defense knows haven't been shared either.
'This Is Plaintiff's Design'
Two days later, Erin Russell, who represents Doe 1, asked Judge Wood to order the plaintiff to explain why he shouldn't be held in civil contempt. According to the motion, he had agreed on the record to hand over the documents.
Russell isn't asking for punishment, at least not yet. She wants a sworn statement on what was sent and when, followed by an in-person hearing.
The identity question is more than a formality. As Russell told the court in September, any sanctions award would be uncollectible unless the court first establishes who the plaintiff actually is.
In a filing last week, Doe 1 went a step further. "Plaintiff's refusal to produce his passport and driving license hinders the discovery plan agreed to by the parties on October 2, 2026. Defendants do not know Plaintiff's true identity," it reads.
The plaintiff already made it clear that he will appeal if his motion is denied, which would drag this case further along. According to Doe 1's filing, this is no accident.
"This interference with the discovery schedule is not incidental. This is Plaintiff's design."
Plaintiff's design
Blanks to Fill
In last week's filing, Doe 1 shared its proposed discovery requests and subpoenas. Doe #10, identified in its own filing as Usenet indexer omgwtfnzbs.org, submitted a similar filing. Both are incomplete, as the defense doesn't have the identity documents.
Doe #10 had planned to tailor its requests to the passport, license, and copyright paperwork. Without them, it switched to placeholders such as "Admit that Your legal name is [insert legal name on passport]."
Placeholders
The proposed subpoenas target Google for the plaintiff's Gmail account, the carrier of his phone number, and the mailbox provider or landlord for his Sanborn, New York address. From the latter, Doe 1 seeks billing records, payment methods, and the addresses to which his mail is "allegedly forwarded."
Doe 1 also wants the PACER Service Center to hand over the IP addresses the plaintiff used to access the court's website.
The defendants are also measuring their own exposure. Both Does ask for "all documents, data, and other materials" he received from the companies he subpoenaed since August 2025.
According to the filings, that includes materials Cloudflare produced in response to the California DMCA subpoena. The exhibit they cite, which the plaintiff filed in February, is currently sealed.
Previously, Doe 1's attorney suggested that the person behind the lawsuit had been banned from the trackers and "bears ill will" over it, hinting at a retaliatory motive.
Was 'Do Us Part' Made With AI?
The last set of questions deals with "Do Us Part," one of three films the plaintiff says he made in the UK. After being ordered by the court, he submitted his version of the film in September. According to his motion, the evidence "directly refuted" the claim that his film is the Canadian production.
His film was allegedly created more than 14 years ago, but the defense appears to doubt this. They ask the plaintiff to admit that the submission "was generated, in whole or in part, using GenAI."
GenAI
They also want the original file, all raw footage, and "all prompts, outputs, project files, account records, and activity logs" for any use of AI.
All parties can still file objections to the discovery requests and they are scheduled to meet again at a video hearing on November 17. This time, the court has directed the plaintiff to test his video capabilities before it starts.
—
The plaintiff's motion to modify the ID order is available here (pdf). Doe 1's contempt motion is here (pdf). The proposed discovery requests from Doe 1 and Doe #10 can be found here (pdf) and here (pdf).
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
