The second set of defendants in Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s case against the city of Ironton, Ohio asked for a two-week extension to reply to DeCastro’s latest motion as DeCastro did not provide them with a copy of the video evidence he used as basis for his arguments in the case.
DeCastro filed his response to the motion to show cause and a motion to dismiss in the case in December after the case had been dismissed by the Judge. Instead of providing copies of his evidence to all parties in the lawsuit (as required by law), he included a single thumb drive that was kept on file in the Magistrate Judge’s chambers, which are currently being renovated, resulting in limited access to those chambers.
Attorneys for defendants Pam Wagner, Brad Spoljaric, Chance Blankenship, Even McNight, Robert Fouch and the City of Ironton were unsuccessful in obtaining copies of that evidence from DeCastro as DeCastro has not responded to their messages from the e-mail address on file with the court. The video evidence is too big to send via e-mail and the attorneys are asking for a delay in order to have time to obtain a copy of the thumb drive from the Magistrate Judge’s chambers and review the evidence before making their reply.
The Judge in DeCastro’s Massachusetts based federal lawsuit against YouTube/Google, Kate Peter, Josh Abrams, 50 John Doe YouTube content creators and 20 John Doe YouTube workers granted YouTube/Google their request to avoid filing a response to DeCastro’s Second Amended complaint, which lists no specific charges against or calls for relief rom them, and respond to this pending Third Amended complaint.
DeCastro would then file two versions of his opposition to YouTube/Google’s request the first, made shortly after the judge had ruled, stated that he recorded his call with YouTube/Google’s lawyers and felt that YouTube/Google should not be granted an extension as they refused to help him file his DMCA subpoenas or have his DMCA notices “properly looked at.”
DeCastro would then state that he was not filing a third amended complaint at this time and that his new amendment to the second complaint would only contain updates to the case that happened since the last time he filed an amendment to that amended complaint. His last amendment to the amended complaint, consisting of an updated list of urls to his videos, did not contain accusations against any of the parties in the case nor a call for relief.
In his second version of his motion of opposition, he removed his claim that he recorded the conversation with YouTube/Google and is asking the judge to stay her decision.
