The Take-Two Microsoft Subpoena Is About GitHub

There are four Take-Two Interactive miscellaneous proceedings in the Southern District of New York, not two or three. The one everybody calls the Microsoft docket is about GitHub. It says so on the face of the case. Before any of it, the frame, because it goes missing in almost every retelling. None of this is a lawsuit. A subpoena under section 512(h) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is an ex parte identity-disclosure mechanism. There is no defendant, no complaint, no adversary and no finding that anybody infringed anything. Microsoft Corporation, Discord, Inc., Google LLC and X Corp. are recipients of process, which is to say custodians of records who have been asked for them, and not one of them is accused of anything. Take-Two has sued nobody: there is no complaint and no named defendant on any of the four dockets. The four dockets CONFIRMED, from CourtListener. The search was run at 03:02:04 UTC on 7 September 2026, HTTP 200 at 76,174 bytes, and each docket page was fetched individually at 03:02:20 UTC. All four are in the Southern District of New York, all bear the cause code "M 08-86 Internet Infringement", and all carry a $52.00 filing fee with a receipt number on the docket. DocketRecipient of processJudgeFiledTerminated per RECAPLast known filing 1:26-mc-00421-JLRMicrosoft Corporation, as service provider of GitHubJennifer L. Rochon20 Aug 202621 Aug 202621 Aug 2026 1:26-mc-00422-ALCDiscord, Inc.Andrew L. Carter, Jr.20 Aug 202621 Aug 202631 Aug 2026 1:26-mc-00425-JPCGoogle LLC, as service provider of YouTubeJohn P. Cronan21 Aug 202631 Aug 2026, closed31 Aug 2026 1:26-mc-00426-ATX Corp.Analisa Torres21 Aug 2026none recorded24 Aug 2026 The CourtListener docket identifiers are 74679284, 74681114, 74687090 and 74687135, and the corresponding PACER-side identifiers are nysd.671027, nysd.671042, nysd.671145 and nysd.671146. The pages served 89,768, 117,366, 91,223 and 86,908 bytes. The Microsoft one is about GitHub This is the correction with the most value in this sweep. 1:26-mc-00421 names Microsoft Corporation as service provider of GitHub. Not Xbox, not Xbox Live, not any gaming service. Take-Two's own request document says so, and the party string on the docket says so. It matters because the two readings describe different investigations. A subpoena to a code hosting service asks a custodian of repositories about account holders. A subpoena to a console platform asks about players. Coverage that puts Xbox in the headline is telling readers a story about the platform they play on when the record is about a place developers keep source code. We counted the four cases before, and this is the detail inside the first of them that has travelled worst. Two law firms, running in parallel, with the same corporate disclosure Counsel of record splits cleanly. Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 601 Lexington Avenue, New York NY 10022, with Dale M. Cendali and Joshua L. Simmons named, runs the Microsoft and Discord dockets. Ruttenberg IP Law, A Professional Corporation, 445 Hamilton Ave., 11th Floor, White Plains NY 10601, also listed at 1801 Century Park East in Los Angeles, with Rachel Bandli named, runs the Google and X Corp. dockets. Every one of the four dockets carries a Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement "Identifying Other Affiliate BlackRock, Inc. for Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc." A Rule 7.1 statement is a routine disclosure of corporate relationships filed so a judge can check for conflicts. It is not an allegation about BlackRock and it does not make BlackRock a participant in anything. The return dates, dated precisely, because today is 7 September Our researcher read the face page of each AO 88B subpoena form and deliberately did not open the Attachment A pages that carry account identifiers. Return dateDocketRecipientForm datedStatus at our snapshot 4 September 2026, 10:00 am1:26-mc-00421Microsoft Corporation20 Aug 2026Passed. Nothing on the docket. 4 September 2026, 10:00 am1:26-mc-00422, first subpoenaDiscord, Inc.20 Aug 2026Passed. Nothing on the docket. 8 September 2026, 10:00 am1:26-mc-00426X Corp.21 Aug 2026Still ahead. Tomorrow. 14 September 2026, 10:00 am1:26-mc-00422, second subpoenaDiscord, Inc.28 Aug 2026Still ahead. The source PDFs were fetched from RECAP storage between 03:08:03 and 03:08:40 UTC on 7 September: 835,534 bytes for the Microsoft subpoena, 866,283 for the first Discord subpoena, 574,240 for the public redacted second Discord subpoena and 517,995 for the X Corp. subpoena, all five pages, all HTTP 200. A Rule 45 return date is not a court order. Each of those dates is printed on an AO 88B form and signed on the line reading "OR Attorney's signature", by Joshua L. Simmons on the Kirkland dockets and as "/s/ Rachel Bandli" on the Ruttenberg one. No clerk and no judge set them. They are the dates counsel asked for, and their passage carries no automatic consequence at all. And an empty docket is not evidence that nothing happened. As of the RECAP snapshot at 03:02:20 UTC on 7 September there is no return of service, no proof of service, no motion to quash, no motion to compel, no compliance filing and no appearance by any recipient on any of the four dockets, and the Proof of Service page of each AO 88B is a blank template as filed. That is exactly what one expects: in section 512(h) matters, compliance ordinarily happens off the docket, between counsel and the recipient's legal team. Read it as nothing visible, never as nothing occurred. If you see a story this week saying Discord missed a 4 September deadline, that story is describing a date a lawyer typed on a form. The sealing motion nobody has ruled on On the Discord docket, entry 6 of 28 August 2026 is a letter motion to seal from Dale M. Cendali, PDF at 500,198 bytes and three pages. Entry 7 the same day is the second request for issuance with a public redacted Exhibit A, fee $52.00, receipt ANYSDC-33357239. Entry 8 is a sealed notice of the sealed version of that exhibit, which is not in RECAP and which our researcher did not attempt to obtain. Entry 10 of 31 August is the order granting, one page at 103,409 bytes, signed by hand "Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr." and dated 8/31/26, with one operative sentence: ORDERED that the clerk of this Court shall issue the Subpoena for Discord, Inc. as sought by the petitioner. Granted means the clerk will issue the subpoena and nothing more. It is not a finding of infringement and not a ruling on the merits. The open item: the docket ends at entry 10, and no entry granting or denying the entry 6 letter motion to seal appears in RECAP as of 03:02:20 UTC on 7 September. The exhibit is sealed in practice. Whether it is sealed by order is not establishable from the mirror. The motion's stated ground, which is an assertion by counsel in a brief and not a court finding, reads: "The Subpoena Attachment reveals highly sensitive, confidential information about an ongoing investigation into copyright infringement and the misappropriation of Take-Two's confidential information." The motion runs the Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) three-step test and argues in the alternative, citing Diversified Grp., Inc. v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), that discovery materials are not judicial documents at all. The one place a judge pushed back On the Google docket, entry 5 of 24 August 2026 is a memo endorsement of Judge Cronan, PDF at 365,735 bytes and three pages. Verbatim, with one elision we explain: Petitioner has not provided any information as to how it identified the online personas that it seeks to subpoena from Google, including its basis for believing that those users are associated with the posting of [URL removed by us]. Petitioner shall promptly supplement its application with any further information. SO ORDERED Entry 6 of 28 August is Take-Two's response, one page at 130,944 bytes, signed for Ruttenberg IP Law by Rachel Bandli, in which Take-Two says its investigation "has been (and is) evolving rapidly", that it "no longer needs the particular information requested", and that it "respectfully withdraws its subpoena request" while reserving the right to submit a new one. Entry 7 of 31 August is Judge Cronan's endorsement closing the case, 284,177 bytes. WITHDRAWN IS NOT DENIED. Judge Cronan never ruled on the merits, made no finding that the application was deficient, and denied nothing. Take-Two withdrew and expressly reserved the right to come back. Google LLC never appeared, never opposed, and is not a party to anything. We reported the closure when it happened and the point stands: this is the only moment in the campaign where an Article III judge asked how handles had been linked to a post, and it is the fact most likely to be over-claimed elsewhere as a loss or a rejection. It is neither. The elision is ours and it is deliberate. The order carries a single YouTube URL on its face. This desk does not reproduce identifiers pointing at material alleged to be unauthorised, so we removed it and told you. The three online personas listed in the underlying request are pseudonymous private individuals swept into an ex parte identity request, none of them has been accused of anything in any adjudicated proceeding, and we neither name nor characterise them. Our researcher opened no Attachment A page, no sealed exhibit and no takedown-notice exhibit, which cost him material and was the right trade. Coda: a trademark extension, which is routine CONFIRMED. On 4 September 2026 Take-Two filed a first 90 day request to extend time to oppose the mark X-COMMUNICADO, serial number 99171880, applicant X-Communicado Inc. TTABVUE, HTTP 200 at 27,841 bytes, fetched 03:05:04 UTC, records the request and "EXT GRANTED" on the same date, granted to 9 December 2026. Take-Two's TTAB counsel is Kelli D. Ortega of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, a third firm distinct from the two running the copyright dockets. An extension of time to oppose is not an opposition. Take-Two has bought itself until December to decide, and it may never file. The same party search shows a high volume, largely automated watch programme with proceedings against marks including CIVILIZATION, T2P GAMING and LOS SANTOS earlier in the year, so a single new extension is routine rather than a signal. Note also that a separate TTABVUE search for "rockstar games" as a party returned zero proceedings: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is the named party throughout. What is and is not established CONFIRMED: four Take-Two section 512(h) proceedings exist in the Southern District of New York, and 1:26-mc-00421 before Judge Rochon names Microsoft Corporation as service provider of GitHub. CONFIRMED: Kirkland & Ellis runs the Microsoft and Discord dockets and Ruttenberg IP Law runs the Google and X Corp. dockets, and all four carry a Rule 7.1 statement identifying BlackRock, Inc. as an affiliate of Take-Two. CONFIRMED, dated to 7 September: the 4 September return dates on the Microsoft subpoena and the first Discord subpoena have passed with nothing on any docket. The 8 September X Corp. date and the 14 September second Discord date are still ahead. CONFIRMED as an open item: no order granting or denying the 28 August sealing motion appears on the Discord docket as of the 03:02:20 UTC snapshot on 7 September. Not a lawsuit: all four are ex parte identity-disclosure applications. Granted means the clerk will issue the subpoena and nothing more. Withdrawn is not denied. Microsoft, Discord, Google and X Corp. are recipients of process and not defendants. Take-Two has sued nobody and there is no complaint and no named defendant anywhere. Explicitly not claimed: that any court has found that anybody infringed or misappropriated anything. The characterisations in the sealing motion are Take-Two's advocacy in its own filing. Explicitly not claimed: that any recipient has been served, has produced anything, or has failed to do anything. A Rule 45 return date is counsel's demand date printed on a form, signed on the attorney's signature line. Explicitly withheld by us: the contents of every exhibit attachment, the sealed exhibit, and the YouTube URL on the face of the 24 August order. No private individual swept into any of these requests is named or made identifiable. Method limits printed as limits: RECAP mirrors PACER and lags, live PACER was not accessed, and every docket statement above is true of the mirror at 03:02:20 UTC on 7 September and no later. The CourtListener dockets API refused us at HTTP 401 with 58 bytes at 03:01:56 UTC because it requires a token, so the search endpoint was substituted. The USPTO trademark search API returned HTTP 403 with "Missing Authentication Token" at 42 bytes at 03:04:44 UTC, so any statement that Take-Two has filed no new trademark applications is a WEAK NEGATIVE resting on a failed data source, and TTABVUE indexes oppositions and extensions only. The subpoena return dates were flagged in advance at our reading of the form fields, and the wider ledger is on the wiki. Today's other filings work is on the news desk.