The Fourth GTA 6 Subpoena Docket, Named at Last

The fourth of Take-Two Interactive's DMCA subpoena proceedings in the Southern District of New York now has a number, a judge and a signed order. It is 1:26-mc-00426-AT, the recipient is X Corp., the judge is Analisa Nadine Torres, and the order directing the clerk to issue the subpoena was signed on 24 August 2026. We are also correcting two things this desk has published or implied, and one of them is a warning about method rather than a fact. Before anything else, the frame 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 complaint, no defendant, no adversary and no finding that anybody infringed anything. Take-Two has sued nobody. The only party on each of these four dockets is the petitioner, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Microsoft, Discord, Google and X Corp. are recipients of process. They are custodians of records who have been asked for records. Not one of them is accused of anything, and treating any of them as a defendant is simply wrong. We set this frame out at length when we first counted the proceedings and again when we read the X Corp. order in full, and nothing below moves it. The complete four-docket map CONFIRMED. Each docket page was fetched individually from CourtListener and each identification was made from the citation line and the docket text, not from the numbering. All HTTP 200. RecipientDocketJudgeCounsel of recordFiledLast entry Microsoft Corporation1:26-mc-00421Jennifer L. RochonDale M. Cendali20 Aug 202621 Aug 2026 Discord, Inc.1:26-mc-00422Andrew Lamar Carter Jr.Dale M. Cendali20 Aug 202631 Aug 2026 Google LLC1:26-mc-00425John Peter CronanRachel Bandli21 Aug 202631 Aug 2026 X Corp.1:26-mc-00426Analisa Nadine TorresRachel Bandli21 Aug 202624 Aug 2026 Fetch record, for anyone who wants to walk it back: docket 74679284 at 2026-09-04T03:04:00Z, 89,768 bytes; docket 74681114 at 03:03:00Z, 117,557 bytes; docket 74687090 at 03:04:00Z, 91,223 bytes; docket 74687135 at 03:04:22Z, 87,098 bytes. Each of the four carries a Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement at entry 3 identifying BlackRock, Inc. as an affiliate of Take-Two, and each initiating document carries a filing fee of $52.00. CORRECTION: it is not all Dale Cendali This desk has repeatedly attributed these proceedings to Dale M. Cendali of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. That is right for the Microsoft and Discord matters. It is wrong for Google and X Corp., both of which were signed by Rachel Bandli. The X Corp. order names her declaration expressly. The Google docket shows her filing the 28 August response at entry 6, indexed verbatim as "(Bandli, Rachel)". The firm of record on the face of the Discord initiating document, verbatim as indexed by CourtListener, reads "Dale M. Cendali Joshua L. Simmons KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601". Counsel of record is not decoration. It is how you tell whether two filings are the same effort or two efforts, and we should have checked it per docket instead of assuming a single signature ran through all four. CORRECTION: adjacent docket numbers are not adjacent cases The tempting shortcut with a set of miscellaneous dockets numbered 00421, 00422 and 00425 is to fill the gaps by guessing. Do not. Our researcher checked the neighbours and they are unrelated matters: 1:26-mc-00420 is United States v. United Nations Federal Credit Union. Fetched 03:04:22Z, HTTP 200, 75,421 bytes. 1:26-mc-00423 is Ligums v. Karkus. HTTP 200, 67,508 bytes. 1:26-mc-00424 is an application for exemption from electronic public access fees, before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. HTTP 200, 58,469 bytes. Three false hits in a row out of a run of seven numbers. Anybody building a GTA 6 legal tracker by incrementing a docket number will produce confident nonsense, and the correct method is the slow one: open each docket, read the caption, read the text. The X Corp. order, in full CONFIRMED, verbatim from docket entry 5, 24 August 2026: ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.'SREQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA TO X CORP.:This matter comes before the Court upon the ex parte application of petitioner Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. along with the Declaration of Rachel Bandli and supporting documents for the signing of a Subpoena directing X Corp. to produce the identity of entities or persons believed to be infringing on the copyright of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Having considered the Declaration and all documents submitted in support of the instant application, the Court finds good reason to issue an order directing the clerk to issue said subpoena and it is therefore: ORDERED that the clerk of this Court shall issue the Subpoena for X Corp. as sought by the petitioner. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 8/24/2026) (jca) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing. (Entered: 08/24/2026) The run-together "INC.'SREQUEST" is as it appears in the docket text, and we have reproduced it rather than tidying it, because a cleaned-up quote is not a quote. What "granted" means, precisely. The clerk will issue the subpoena. That is the whole of it. There is no finding of infringement, no ruling on the merits, and no adjudication of anything. The order recites what Take-Two asserted in an application nobody opposed, and a court's recital of a petitioner's assertion is not a court finding. X Corp. is not a defendant. An official Rockstar press screenshot. No image in this article comes from any court record, and no exhibit attachment on any of these dockets was opened by anyone on this desk. The Microsoft subpoena is aimed at GitHub CONFIRMED, from docket 1:26-mc-00421. Entry 4, filed 20 August 2026, attaches a declaration whose exhibit is indexed verbatim as "# 1 Exhibit 1 - Github DMCA Notice". GitHub is a Microsoft subsidiary, which is why Microsoft is the recipient rather than GitHub. Entry 5, the order, verbatim in relevant part: "ORDERED that the clerk of this Court shall issue the Subpoena for Microsoft Corporation as sought by the petitioner. (And as further set forth herein.) (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 8/21/2026)". Neither Microsoft nor GitHub is accused of anything on this docket. Both are on the receiving end of a records request. That distinction gets lost in almost every retelling of this story and it is not a technicality. Nothing has moved since 31 August, and here is why we can say that CONFIRMED NEGATIVE, with its freshness bound attached. The last entry on each docket: Discord, 1:26-mc-00422: entry 10, filed 31 August 2026. The docket header reads verbatim "Date of Last Known Filing: Aug. 31, 2026". Google, 1:26-mc-00425: entry 7, filed 31 August 2026, case terminated the same day. X Corp., 1:26-mc-00426: entry 5, filed 24 August 2026. Nothing in eleven days. Microsoft, 1:26-mc-00421: entry 5, filed 21 August 2026. Nothing in fourteen days. The freshness evidence is the part that makes this worth printing. The Microsoft docket's RECAP record was refreshed at 10:39 p.m. on 3 September 2026, roughly 25 minutes before our snapshot, and still shows nothing after 21 August. The Discord and Google dockets were refreshed at 12:43 a.m. and 12:42 a.m. the same day. So this is a same-day mirror reporting no movement, not a stale one. A separate search closes the other half of the question. courtlistener.com queried for "Take-Two Interactive" across all courts, filed after 1 September 2026, fetched 2026-09-04T03:07:33Z, HTTP 200, 118,655 bytes, returned verbatim: Your search: Courts: All, Query: "Take-Two Interactive", Filed After: 2026-09-01, had no results. No fifth DMCA subpoena docket has been opened by Take-Two anywhere in RECAP since 1 September 2026. After four petitions filed inside 48 hours and orders running through 31 August, the public record has gone quiet for three days. That is the accurate state of play, and it cuts against any suggestion that this is an escalating litigation campaign. It is also entirely normal: recipients of a section 512(h) subpoena typically deal directly with counsel, and producing, objecting or negotiating generates no docket entry at all. The limits, stated as limits RECAP mirrors PACER and it lags. RECAP only holds what a user running the browser extension has fetched. An entry could exist on live PACER right now and be absent from everything above. Every statement in this article is a statement about the RECAP Archive as of the timestamps quoted, and this desk did not access live PACER. CourtListener's REST API refused us, returning HTTP 401 at 03:01:06Z with the body "{"detail":"Authentication credentials were not provided."}", so all docket work was done against the public HTML interface. That is complete for our purposes but it is not machine-guaranteed, and we would rather say so. No exhibit attachment was opened, by design. Exhibits on these dockets contain DMCA takedown notices that would identify individuals who have not been named, charged, sued or heard from. A URL that appears on the face of Judge Cronan's 24 August order in the Google matter remains withheld from our copy for the same reason, as it was when we first reported it. This is a deliberate limit on our own reporting rather than a research failure. What is and is not established CONFIRMED: the fourth proceeding is 1:26-mc-00426-AT, recipient X Corp., before Judge Analisa Nadine Torres, with an order directing issuance signed 24 August 2026 and quoted in full above. CONFIRMED: the Microsoft proceeding is 1:26-mc-00421-JLR before Judge Jennifer L. Rochon, and its exhibit is a GitHub DMCA notice. CORRECTION, CONFIRMED: the X Corp. and Google petitions were signed by Rachel Bandli, not Dale M. Cendali. Cendali is counsel of record on the Microsoft and Discord matters. CORRECTION, CONFIRMED: 1:26-mc-00420, 1:26-mc-00423 and 1:26-mc-00424 are unrelated cases. Identifying these dockets by numerical adjacency produces false hits. CONFIRMED NEGATIVE, as of the RECAP snapshots quoted: no new entry on any of the four dockets since 31 August 2026, backed by a Microsoft docket refresh at 10:39 p.m. on 3 September, and no fifth Take-Two docket anywhere in RECAP filed after 1 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 no court has found that anybody infringed anything. Explicitly not claimed: that any recipient has been served or has produced anything. A Rule 45 return date is counsel's demand date printed on a form, not a court order. Method limits printed as limits: RECAP lags, live PACER was not accessed, CourtListener's API returned 401, and no exhibit attachment was opened. Privacy: no individual's name, handle, persona or account identifier from any court exhibit appears here. No alleged leaker is named. Counsel and judges are named because they signed public filings. Our earlier reporting on the Discord order the docket did not describe and on the Google matter closing sits alongside this on the news desk, with the running ledger on the wiki. If court records are not why you are here, the servers list is open.