Jose “Chille” DeCastro returned to the news this week when he was granted a final extension to file the opening brief for his appeal of his February loss of a court case against the Las Vegas Metro Police Department (LVMPD) and his attorney, Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., filed a brief in DeCastro’s ongoing lawsuit against YouTuber John “Irish Demon” O’Dea.
DeCastro has been missing from our coverage recently as he’s turned his attention towards being a pitchman for his products. Often going live after 2AM Eastern Time with streams that last up to ten hours at a time, it’s often time consuming to find anything worthy of news in his video output.
While his content is still the same, with DeCastro playing anti-police videos while promoting his first amendment-related products, the sheer volume of his streams makes the resources it takes to cover his productions for any newsworthy bits almost impossible to maintain.
Even at 3x speed, the investment in coverage of his productions, without the use of AI to review the content and pull-out tidbits, is simply beyond the resources we have at hand at this time with the abundance of other breaking news stories competing for that same time.
DeCastro’s legal exploits, however, will still be featured as they happen.
This week, DeCastro’s attorney in the appeal of his loss to the LVMPD, Michael Mee, was granted yet another extension to file the opening brief of the appeal.
Clerk of Court Molly C. Dwyer wrote:
The motion (Docket Entry No. 10) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted.
The opening brief is due September 28, 2026. The answering brief is due October 28, 2026. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served.
To facilitate timely submission of cases for decision, no further motions for extensions of time to file the opening brief will be granted absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances.
Failure to file the opening brief by September 28, 2026 may result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.
While no reason has ever been officially given for the delay in his opening brief, DeCastro had mentioned difficulties in obtaining the cash needed to pay for the transcript of his February trial in the case which he says he needed to proceed.
Theoretically, with the massive influx of cash DeCastro is set to receive next week from YouTube due to the super chats related to his 8+ hour informercials for his products, money is no longer an issue for the YouTuber.
In the other case, DeCastro’s on-going litigation involving copyright issues and O’Dea’s 2024 hacking of his channel, DeCastro’s attorney had been ordered by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins to produce a supplemental memorandum to back his communications act claim.
Attorney Newman wrote:
StreamYard does not merely transmit Plaintiff’s audiovisual communications to YouTube and discard them. When Plaintiff conducted livestreams using StreamYard, the audiovisual communication was transmitted to YouTube while a second copy was saved in his StreamYard account after the livestream ended and remained available for subsequent access. (DeCastro Decl. ¶ 4). Plaintiff also used StreamYard to create prerecorded videos that were published to YouTube, while copies of those videos remained stored and accessible in his StreamYard account after publication. (Id. ¶ 5). At the time Defendant accessed Plaintiff’s account without authorization, the account contained these stored copies of prior livestreams and prerecorded videos. (Id. ¶¶ 6–7).
This functionality is independently confirmed by StreamYard’s own documentation. StreamYard explains that “[a]s you stream or record, those recordings get saved to StreamYard,” and that the recordings consume the user’s allotted storage capacity. (DeCastro Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A). StreamYard further explains that it saves recordings permanently and permits account owners to access and download stored recordings from their video library, including cloud video and audio recordings. (Id. ¶ 9, Ex. B). The functionality described in these materials is consistent with Plaintiff’s own use of StreamYard. (Id. ¶ 10).
Thus, this case does not involve only a contemporaneous communication “in transit from sender to recipient,” as discussed in Joseph Anthony Reyna v. Apple, Inc., No. 26-cv-03137-RS, 2026 WL 2032304, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2026). Plaintiff’s StreamYard account contained copies of completed audiovisual communications retained after their transmission and available to Plaintiff for subsequent access and use. Under Theofel, such post-transmission storage may constitute “electronic storage” within § 2510(17)(B).
When Defendant entered Plaintiff’s StreamYard account without authorization, he therefore gained unauthorized access to a facility containing Plaintiff’s electronic communications while those communications were in electronic storage. The remaining element identified in the Court’s July 31 Order is therefore satisfied.
Defendant O’Dea is unlikely to respond to Newman’s filings as he has not been a participant in the lawsuit, with the case currently moving towards a default judgment by Judge Cousins.
This is a developing news story.
