A high-stakes federal lawsuit targeting prominent private torrent trackers has taken an extraordinary and bizarre turn, as defense attorneys and the plaintiff present conflicting accounts over the true identity of the filmmaker behind the legal action. The case, which originally targeted platforms including PTP and BTN, was pushed onto a sanctions track last month after defense lawyers alerted a federal judge to the possibility that the plaintiff might be an impostor.
Following those initial revelations, Judge Andrea R. Wood scheduled an in-person hearing to address the mounting concerns. Defense attorneys Erin Russell and Haley Finch subsequently asked the court to hold the plaintiff in contempt. They accused him of misrepresenting his identity, falsely claiming copyright ownership of the works cited in the complaint, and improperly filing court documents under a mail-drop address.
The ‘Real’ Matthew Schneider Appears
To substantiate their claims, the defense team representing the "John Doe" torrent tracker operators submitted a formal, sworn declaration from Matthew A. Schneider, a resident of Ottawa, Ontario. This individual matches the IMDb credits for the three specific independent films cited in the federal complaint: "Split: A Film Anthology," "Do Us Part," and "Orlando Gloom, Always the Same."
Under oath, the Canadian filmmaker clarified that while he indeed created these short films years ago alongside school friends, he has no connection whatsoever to the lawsuit making its way through the federal court.
"I am not involved in, nor have I ever appeared in, this case. Furthermore, I do not know and am not associated with the person purporting to be ‘Matthew Schneider’ in this case," the declaration reads.
The films in question were produced under the banner of a high-school filmmaking group known as "Dirtbag Films," a collaborative project that also featured Solmund MacPherson. MacPherson submitted his own sworn declaration to the court, confirming that the group never sold the intellectual property rights to their films. Furthermore, MacPherson stated that he did not recognize the "matthew.schneider94" email address that has been attached to every single filing in the federal lawsuit.
To aid the court in verifying identities, MacPherson successfully tracked down an archival copy of "Do Us Part," in which the Canadian Schneider appears on screen in a speaking role. This footage provides a direct means for the judge to compare his voice and appearance with those of the individual litigating the case. Additionally, an Instagram post featuring a photograph of the Canadian Schneider—who has since moved on from filmmaking—was brought to the attention of the defense.
A Different Matthew Schneider
Faced with this sudden wave of conflicting evidence, the plaintiff opted not to back down. In a formal legal response filed in court late last week, he advanced a remarkable argument: there are simply two different individuals named Matthew Schneider.
The plaintiff stated in his court filings that he has "consistently identified himself in this action as Matthew Schneider, an independent filmmaker and creative professional from the United Kingdom." He maintained that he never claimed to be the Canadian creator, nor did he ever mention Dirtbag Films in his initial pleadings.
"The existence of another person with the same or similar name is not evidence of impersonation," the plaintiff wrote in his opposition.
Identical Film Titles
The emergence of two filmmakers sharing the same name is not the only striking coincidence in the dispute. The self-described UK filmmaker claims to have independently produced his own films bearing the exact same titles as the Canadian Dirtbag Films productions.
As supporting evidence, the plaintiff filed a legal exhibit containing technical metadata for his alleged versions of the three films, purportedly created in the United Kingdom. The dates listed in the metadata are 2011 for "Split: A Film Anthology," 2012 for "Do Us Part," and 2012 for "Orlando Gloom, Always the Same."
By placing his production dates five to six years prior to the Canadian films—which were created in 2017—the plaintiff argued that he could not possibly have copied works that "did not yet exist."
However, while the exhibit outlines the filenames, video resolutions, and frame rates of the movies, it notable lacks standard verification markers. There are no copyright office registration numbers, no listed cast members, no crew details, no production stills, and no corresponding IMDb listings.
The probability of two independent filmmakers with identical names producing three distinct movies with matching titles remains exceptionally slim. The coincidence is underscored by the title "Orlando Gloom, Always the Same," which incorporates "Orlando Gloom," the literal name of the musician for whom Dirtbag Films produced an associated music video.
A Procedural Counterattack
Rather than merely defending his identity, the person litigating as Matthew Schneider went on the offensive. In his latest court response, he accused defense attorneys Russell and Finch of engaging in improper ex parte communication with Judge Wood, highlighting a phone call defense counsel made to the judge’s chambers prior to the August hearing.
While attorney Russell previously described that phone call as an extraordinary step necessary under the circumstances, the plaintiff argued that it violated standard prohibitions against one-sided communications with a judge. He cited rules of professional conduct from the American Bar Association alongside a Seventh Circuit ruling that permits courts to sanction attorneys for such contact.
The plaintiff formally requested that the court disclose the specific dates and substance of those private communications, urging the judge to disregard any statements made outside his presence. He also asked the court to evaluate potential sanctions against the defense counsel.
Additionally, the plaintiff pointed out professional and personal connections between the two Canadian declarants and defense attorney Finch, noting that they all share ties to the same Winnipeg high school. He argued that these declarations should not be accepted as independent corroboration without a closer examination.
Whether the pre-hearing telephone call constituted an improper procedural violation or a justified emergency alert warning of a potential fraud upon the court is a central question that Judge Wood will now have to determine.
Outstanding Questions and Ongoing Proceedings
Notably, the plaintiff’s latest response defended only three of the ten total works listed in the original complaint. The remaining five short films and two literary works—which the defense asserts have no verified creator associated with them—were left entirely unaddressed.
All involved parties are scheduled to appear at the first in-person hearing in the case, a development expected to shed further light on the underlying dispute. For now, the defense attorneys representing the private torrent tracker operators remain firmly convinced that the plaintiff is not who he claims to be. If true, questions persist regarding the true motivations behind the lawsuit.
The individual litigating the case has shown a clear interest in uncovering the real-world identities behind the torrent tracker operators. However, none of the third-party companies subpoenaed during the discovery phase—including Reddit, GoDaddy, Cloudflare, PayPal, Stripe, Namecheap, and X Corp—have produced any user records. All production orders were placed on a judicial hold in May and remain frozen.
In a late development, the person litigating as Matthew Schneider filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Despite this filing, the pending defense motion for a rule to show cause remains unresolved, and the scheduled in-person court hearing remains active on the calendar.
Leave a Reply