Intervention to Provide Oppty for Publishers and Creators to Object to Subpoenas Meant to Unmask Identities and Personal Communications
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 emergency stay motion, and spared BAM and the Court the expedited briefing that followed. BAM also asked that any interim order leave it free to pursue other discovery “directed to identifying the persons who disclosed BAM’s information.” BAM did not specifically ask not to be precluded from serving subpoenas directed at information identifying a publisher, content creator, or other recipient's of disclosures (Complaint ¶ 67)-- the type of inquiry I reserved for renewal of intervention. That is...