It’s Hard to Win a Schedule A Case Without Filing the “Schedule A”–Speedy Simulator v. Schedule A Defendants

Hanlon’s razor says, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by [incompetence].” (Consistent with a standard substitution, I’ve replaced “stupidity” with “incompetence”). This adage is constantly on my mind when I read SAD Scheme opinions. On the one hand, the plaintiffs routinely exhibit, at most, a gross disregard for due process and the rule of law. On the other hand, I often see a lot of flat-out bad lawyering. But must it be either one or the other? ¿Por qué no los dos? * * * This SAD Scheme case was filed by the copyright owners of Steal a Brainrot, a game in Roblox. As usual, the plaintiffs sought an ex parte TRO. The plaintiffs supplemented the complaint with at least two filings: Exhibit 1 to the TRO motion: “a declaration filed by Yingchun Hou in support of the motion for a TRO (“Hou Exhibit”) that, as Hou attests on the public docket, demonstrates Plaintiffs’ inability to verify a current physical address associated with any of the fourteen…