Intervention to Provide Oppty for Publishers and Creators to Object to Subpoenas Meant to Unmask Identities and Personal Communications
UPDATE 10/17/26: The Publisher’s eloquent description of why they began reporting on Bricks & Minifigs (ECF 20 ¶ 7) resonates with my own interest in following reporting on the company. Paragraph 7(a) particularly resonates with BAM’s response when I exercised the right to protect access to Reckless Ben’s documentary reporting: a threat to seek attorney fees, and misinformation about my motives, both of which I challenged (State Dkt. 72 at 9–11; BAM v. Schneider , ECF 1-4 at 588–90). UPDATE 10/16/26 3:30 PM EST: BAM's opposition to the website operator’s stay motion which mirrored many aspects of my own motion, mirrors the relief I had sought: producing the records to BAM’s counsel to be held sealed and unopened pending a ruling, tracking the same Rule 45(e)(2)(B) my motion cited.¹ When I proposed a similar hold earlier this month, BAM’s counsel declined to agree to it voluntarily. An agreed hold then might have spared the operator an emerge...
