From Mick Haig Prods. v. Does 1-670 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2011) (thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer):
To summarize the staggering chutzpah involved in this case: [Lawyer Evan] Stone asked the Court to authorize sending subpoenas to the ISPs. The Court said “not yet.” Stone sent the subpoenas anyway. The Court appointed the Ad Litems to argue whether Stone could send the subpoenas. Stone argued that the Court should allow him to -– even though he had already done so -– and eventually dismissed the case ostensibly because the Court was taking too long to make a decision. All the while, Stone was receiving identifying information and communicating with some Does, likely about settlement. The Court rarely has encountered a more textbook example of conduct deserving of sanctions.
The court ordered Stone to pay $10,000 in sanctions, ordered him to serve a copy of the order “on each ISP implicated and to every person or entity with whom he communicated for any purpose in these proceedings,” to “file a copy of this Order in every currently-ongoing proceeding in which he represents a party, pending in any court in the United States, federal or state,” and to pay the attorney fees and costs expended by the other side in filing the motion for sanctions. (Because the lawsuit was against unknown parties, and the dispute at this point had to do with whether their identity could be uncovered, the court appointed lawyers to represent the unknown parties; it is those lawyers’ fees that Stone has to pay.)