• Home
  • News
  • Betting
  • DraftKings extortion case: Steven Jacobs confirmed as plaintiff
igamingnext photo
The lawyer in the DraftKings customer data leak case, Steven Jacobs, has confirmed he is also the case’s anonymous plaintiff.

This confirms earlier reports suggesting Jacobs was the plaintiff, based on previous court filings and Gadoon “Spanky” Kyrollos’ recent statement on X.

In a letter to the court dated 28 June, Jacobs said: “I am the plaintiff in the above-captioned action.

“Pursuant to the court’s order dated June 17, 2024, I write to inform the court that I no longer wish to proceed under pseudonym.”

The news is the latest twist in the court battle in which DraftKings is accused of leaking customer information, which allegedly led to an attack on Jacobs by a masked man.

DraftKings strongly denies the allegation and is pushing for the case to be dismissed, with its motion due to be filed on 8 August.  

DraftKings pushes for stay on discovery

Ahead of the motion, DraftKings sent a letter to the court requesting a short stay on discovery.

The business highlighted the statement Spanky posted on social media in which he denied receiving information from DraftKings or having any part in the alleged masked man attack.

Screenshots of the statement were included as an exhibit.

DraftKings’ attorneys said: “These admissions from Mr. Kyrollos, if true, highlight that Plaintiff’s Complaint is baseless and discovery is particularly inappropriate until the Court rules on DraftKings’ motion to dismiss.”

In the letter, DraftKings further argued Jacobs’ “overbroad and unduly burdensome” discovery request weighed in favour of the request for a stay.

Jacobs is seeking all documents and communications regarding his account, as well as DraftKings’ internal practices and procedures.  

The company added: “Searching, inspecting and reviewing documents would require a substantial and unreasonable amount of time and expense, potentially requiring the disclosure of confidential and proprietary information.”

DraftKings also argued its motion to dismiss would be of sufficient strength to represent a further argument in favour of a stay.

Similar posts