Two Judges Acted in the GTA 6 Subpoena Cases on 24 August

Two judges acted in the GTA 6 leak subpoena matters on 24 August, and the four cases have now split into two very different groups. The Microsoft and Discord requests were granted and closed inside a single day. The Google and X Corp requests were still open when we checked yesterday, and each picked up a fresh judicial document on 24 August that nobody has reported. The limit of this piece comes first, because it is the part that matters. We do not know what those two 24 August documents say. Both sit behind the PACER paywall, neither is in the free document store, and we have not read either one. What we can show you is the docket metadata, which is public, and what it does and does not allow anybody to conclude. What happened on 24 August? CONFIRMED, editor re-verified at CourtListener on 25 August 2026, all HTTP 200. Two of the four matters gained a document dated 24 August, and the two document types are different from each other. CaseRecipientDate filedDate terminatedAssigned judgeEntry dated 24 Aug 1:26-mc-00421Microsoft Corporation, for GitHub20 Aug 202621 Aug 2026order signed by Jennifer L. Rochonnone 1:26-mc-00422Discord, Inc.20 Aug 202621 Aug 2026order signed by Andrew L. Carter Jr.none 1:26-mc-00425Google LLC, for YouTube21 Aug 2026not terminatedJohn P. CronanMemo Endorsement 1:26-mc-00426X Corp.21 Aug 2026not terminatedAnalisa TorresOrder The docket pages themselves are 86,742 bytes for 425 and 89,244 bytes for 426, and 93,999 and 93,922 bytes for 421 and 422. We print those figures for the same reason we always do. They are the proof that we held the pages we are describing. Why can we not just read the two new documents? CONFIRMED. Both 24 August entries are marked "Buy on PACER" on CourtListener, which means no free copy has been contributed to the RECAP archive. Our researcher tried the two predictable RECAP paths for those documents and both returned HTTP 404, one at 354 bytes and one at 334 bytes. There is no free copy to fetch. So the honest position on 25 August is this. A judge acted in each of the two open matters on 24 August. The document is behind the PACER paywall. We have not read it. Anyone telling you what it decided has either paid for it and should say so, or is guessing. What is a memo endorsement in SDNY practice? This is worth explaining properly, because it is the detail that will get misread first. In the Southern District of New York a judge frequently disposes of a request by writing directly on the paper that was submitted, then having that annotated page docketed. That is a memo endorsement. It is quick, it is ordinary, and it is used constantly for exactly this kind of administrative application. A memo endorsement is routinely used to grant a request. It is also used to grant a request in part, to modify what was asked for, to direct the applicant to do something first, or to ask a question before deciding. The docket text we can see gives the document type and the date. It does not give the disposition. The X Corp matter picked up a document typed as an Order rather than a memo endorsement, which is a different route to a docket entry and, again, tells you nothing on its own about what the order says. Two matters, two judges, two document types, one shared unknown. There is one further wrinkle we are not going to smooth over. Both 425 and 426 also carry purely administrative entries dated 24 August, reading "MISCELLANEOUS CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE" naming the assigned judge, along with "Case Designated ECF". Some of the 24 August activity on these dockets is clerical housekeeping. We cannot tell from the docket text alone how much of it is substantive. Every image on this page is official Rockstar material, taken from the studio's own character video clips. Nothing on this page comes from leaked material, and we did not view any. The two that were over in a day CONFIRMED. The Microsoft and Discord matters were both filed on 20 August and both terminated on 21 August. A miscellaneous matter of this kind closes when the relief asked for has been granted, and the signed orders in those two matters are on the public record. Here is the operative part of the Microsoft order, verbatim: "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 Microsoft Corporation as sought by the petitioner." It is signed "August 21, 2026 / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE / JENNIFER L. ROCHON". The Discord equivalent was signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. Both judges signed an order with the wrong title on it CONFIRMED. This is a small thing and we like small things, because they tell you how a set of filings was put together. Both signed orders are captioned "[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.'S RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT". A Rule 7.1 disclosure statement is a corporate ownership declaration. Nobody grants one. It is simply filed. The body of the document grants a subpoena, which is what was actually being asked for. The caption is a copy-and-paste error carried over from Take-Two's own draft, and both judges signed the page as drafted. Judges sign proposed orders as tendered all the time and this changes nothing about what the order does. It is a fair indication of how quickly this paperwork was assembled. What are the compliance dates? CONFIRMED. The Google and X subpoenas are attorney-issued under Rule 45 and both command production at 10:00am on 8 September 2026. Both are signed /s/ Rachel Bandli of Ruttenberg IP Law and dated 08/21/2026. A $52.00 filing fee was paid in each of the four matters. CONFIRMED, and another sign of speed. The X Corp subpoena's caption field contains a form-filling error reading "In re DMCA Subpoena to 1:26-mcX Corp.". A case number prefix has been typed into the middle of a party name. REPORTED, not confirmed by us. A 4 September deadline has been widely repeated for the Microsoft and Discord subpoenas. The AO-88B form fields did not extract from the Microsoft PDF when we tried, so we could not read the date ourselves. We are leaving it labelled rather than repeating it as fact. Has anybody tried to quash these? CONFIRMED NEGATIVE. Our researcher queried the CourtListener v4 API, HTTP 200 at 21,466 bytes, with q="DMCA Subpoena", court=nysd and filed_after=2026-08-18. It returns a count of exactly 4. There is no motion to quash, no third-party intervention and no fifth docket. Nobody has gone to court to challenge any of this. No affected user has intervened. And no response from Microsoft, Discord, Google or X appears on any of the four dockets. How to check our work Method matters more than usual here, because the pages that carry this information behave differently depending on how you ask for them. CourtListener's docket HTML pages returned HTTP 200 to us with a standard desktop browser user agent. That is a change from last week, when we were getting 403s. CourtListener's v3 REST API returns HTTP 403 to anonymous users. If you hit that and conclude the data is unavailable, you have stopped one step early. CourtListener's v4 REST API answers anonymously. That is the route that produced the count of 4 above, and it is the one to use. The docket numbers on CourtListener are 74679284 for 421, 74681114 for 422, 74687090 for 425 and 74687135 for 426. What is and is not established Confirmed (editor re-verified at CourtListener, 25 August 2026, all HTTP 200): 1:26-mc-00425 (Google, for YouTube) was filed 21 August, carries no date terminated, is assigned to Judge John P. Cronan and gained an entry dated 24 August of document type Memo Endorsement. Confirmed (editor re-verified): 1:26-mc-00426 (X Corp.) was filed 21 August, carries no date terminated, is assigned to Judge Analisa Torres and gained an entry dated 24 August of document type Order. Confirmed (editor re-verified): 1:26-mc-00421 (Microsoft, for GitHub) and 1:26-mc-00422 (Discord) were both filed 20 August and both terminated 21 August. Confirmed: both 24 August documents are marked "Buy on PACER" and neither is in the free RECAP store. The two predictable RECAP paths returned HTTP 404 at 354 and 334 bytes. Not known, and we will not guess: what either 24 August document says. A memo endorsement in this district can grant, grant in part, modify, or direct something before deciding. We have not read the page and we are not characterising the outcome. Confirmed (from the signed 21 August orders): the Microsoft order directs the clerk to issue the subpoena as sought, signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 21 August 2026. The Discord equivalent was signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. Confirmed: both signed orders carry a caption error, describing themselves as granting a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement when the body grants a subpoena. Both judges signed the page as drafted. Confirmed: the Google and X subpoenas are attorney-issued under Rule 45 and command production at 10:00am on 8 September 2026, signed /s/ Rachel Bandli of Ruttenberg IP Law, dated 08/21/2026. A $52.00 filing fee was paid in each of the four matters. The X subpoena's caption reads "In re DMCA Subpoena to 1:26-mcX Corp.". Reported, not confirmed by us: a 4 September compliance deadline for Microsoft and Discord. The AO-88B form fields did not extract from the Microsoft PDF, so we could not read it. Confirmed negative: no motion to quash, no third-party intervention and no fifth docket. A CourtListener v4 API search returns a count of 4. Confirmed negative: no response from Microsoft, Discord, Google or X appears on any of the four dockets. Editorial policy: these filings contain Discord server names, guild IDs, Discord account IDs, an X handle, a YouTube video ID and a repository URL. None of them appears on this page, because reprinting them would turn a court record into a directory of targets for other people. Explicitly not claimed: that anyone named in these documents did anything. A subpoena is a demand for records and carries no finding about anybody. We will re-pull all four dockets as soon as either 24 August document becomes free to read, and publish what it actually says on our news page. If you would rather spend the wait somewhere useful, our servers list is the place to start.