A federal magistrate judge stayed BAM’s subpoenas for the identity and information of the Publisher of The BAM Map, less than two hours after BAM asked him not to.

At 1:24 p.m. MDT on Friday, October 16, Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead signed the four paragraphs the Publisher had drafted, word for word: no recipient of a subpoena under the September 30 order produces anything about this site or its operator, BAM serves no further subpoena for it, anything already produced is sequestered unread, and BAM tells each provider within a business day. He added a fifth: BAM’s answer to the motion to vacate by October 23, the Publisher’s reply by October 30. BAM had opposed the stay at 11:45 a.m. MDT as “overly broad.” In the same brief it said what the discovery is now for: an investigation that “has narrowed but has not conclusively identified the source or sources,” records wanted “so that BAM can continue its investigation of the sources,” and an order that the Publisher keep “records of submissions to thebammap.com.” The order BAM drafted had limited the discovery “to the issue of determining the identity of the unidentifiable Defendants.” BAM told the court its claims are against the insiders who signed its contracts. The only two subpoenas it has served are aimed at this site.

PRIMARY SOURCEDocket entries 13 to 29 of BAM Franchising Inc. v. Does 1-10, No. 2:26-cv-00895 (D. Utah), quoted from the court’s copies; the Publisher’s declaration is reproduced as filed.

CONFIRMEDThe court granted the Publisher’s stay at 1:24 p.m. MDT on October 16 (entry 29): nothing about this site or its operator is produced until it rules on the motion to vacate. Twenty-nine docket entries that afternoon; the subpoenas to Vercel and GoDaddy are the only two served (reported October 14).

SHIFTINGWhat BAM told the court the records are for moved on October 16, with the Publisher in the room. September 28: discovery “limited to the issue of determining the identity of the unidentifiable Defendants.” October 16: records “so that BAM can continue its investigation of the sources.”

UNRESOLVEDwhether the September 30 order stands as to the Publisher (briefing October 23 and 30); whether Judge Barlow takes up the objection; whether the pseudonym and the seal are granted; whether either provider produced anything before the order, which BAM must now sequester.

What the court ordered

Two pages, signed at 1:24 p.m. MDT, less than two hours after BAM’s opposition. Four paragraphs the Publisher wrote and one the court added.

PRIMARY SOURCEOrder Granting Interim Stay of Production, entry 29, signed October 16, 2026, quoted from the court’s copy; the time is the court’s stamp.

CONFIRMEDThe four operative paragraphs are the Publisher’s proposed order (entry 24-1) word for word, with the citation to the September 30 order moved into a footnote. None of BAM’s six alternatives (below) is in it, and the order calls the movant “the Publisher.”

“For good cause shown, the Motion is GRANTED,” the order says, “and the Court ORDERS as follows, pending resolution of the Publisher’s Emergency Motion to Vacate or Modify.” No recipient of a subpoena under the September 30 order “shall produce any information concerning the website thebammap.com or its operator.” BAM “shall not serve any further subpoena seeking such information.” BAM “shall sequester, and shall not review, use, or disclose, any such information already produced.” BAM “shall serve a copy of this Order on each subpoena recipient within one business day.”

The fifth paragraph is the court’s own: BAM’s answer to the motion to vacate “on or before October 23, 2026,” the Publisher’s reply “on or before October 30, 2026.” The motion had asked for seven days and three; the court set seven and seven. BAM had called the proposed order “overly broad” and “not tailored to that harm.” The court entered it without changing a word, “for good cause shown.” BAM’s brief is stamped 11:45:55 a.m. MDT; the order, 1:24 p.m. MDT.

The order decides nothing about the subpoenas themselves, the identity, the pseudonym or the objection. It holds the records where they are until the court rules on entry 23, and it undoes Monday’s hour: no recipient may comply with the subpoenas’ October 19 deadline while the motion is decided. None of BAM’s six alternatives is in it, nor its request for a preservation order against the Publisher, nor its request that the order say it “does not restrict BAM from seeking discovery from other sources.”

What BAM asked for on October 16, in its order, beside what the court signed:

The Publisher’s filings are docketed as filed by “Interested Party John Doe.” The shaded rows are the ones the Publisher had not reported until today, for the reason paragraph 11 of the declaration gives.

“Each claim is directed at the persons who owed BAM confidentiality obligations.”

PRIMARY SOURCEBAM’s words on the left, its subpoenas’ words on the right, each quoted from the court’s copies.

That sentence is BAM’s, from its October 7 memorandum. Beside it, what BAM has served.

The left column’s documents are on the pages of September 26, September 30 and October 8; the right column’s on September 28 and October 14.

“The franchisee contacted the site to correct its prior reporting.”

CONFIRMEDThe complaint’s paragraphs 36 to 38 and the served subpoena’s Definition 7, quoted; the correction they describe is this site’s September 17 page.

On September 17 the Publisher published a franchisee’s correction: two stores this site had reported deleted from BAM’s map were a settings problem on a new platform, not a purge (September 17). Eight days later BAM’s complaint pleaded the correction. The franchisee “contacted the site to correct its prior reporting,” and, the next paragraph: “The flow of nonpublic Plaintiff information to thebammap.com continued after Plaintiff’s September 8, 2026 notice to Vercel.”

The subpoenas define the people they are about. “Website Operator” means “all persons or entities who registered, created, owned, operated, managed, administered, maintained, edited, authored content for, or otherwise controlled the Website, including any person with administrative or authorial access.” Request 1 asks for their “names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and any other contact information.”

The order gives no notice to anyone whose records are sought. The Publisher’s declaration, paragraph 9: “I have received unsolicited information from persons who asked that their identities be kept confidential, and as a publisher, I agreed to do so.”

A franchisee wrote to this site to correct it. The Publisher published the correction. BAM’s complaint pleads it as part of the flow of its nonpublic information, and BAM’s subpoenas define their subject as anyone who authored content for the site.

“Including but not limited to”

CONFIRMEDThe order’s text, BAM’s draft order, Request 8 and the Publisher’s filings, each quoted. The court has signed one of the Publisher’s four requests, the interim stay.

The order the court signed on September 30 allows subpoenas “on third-parties, including Vercel, Inc. and Go.Daddy.com,” for “subscriber information, account records, IP address logs, deployment records and any other information” (September 30). It names no one to be told and sets no time to object. GoDaddy’s own published policy, filed as Exhibit F, says it “will promptly notify the customer whose information is sought” and “will provide the customer an opportunity to move to quash the subpoena in court.” Request 8 of each subpoena asks the provider to name every other provider the site uses. The people the order can reach, and what the Publisher’s filings ask for each:

The court has signed the last row (above) and none of the first four. BAM opposed the stay on Friday morning; its answer is below.

Five record-holders the complaint named. Two subpoenas served.

CONFIRMEDTwo returns of service on the docket, entries 14 and 15, both for providers that serve this site; none for Google, Slack or YouTube. BAM’s counsel: the two are the only subpoenas served.

On September 28 the Publisher wrote: “The motion attaches a subpoena to none of them. It attaches two, both to companies that serve this site.” Sixteen days after the order, that was still the count.

Judge Barlow’s court, 2023

CONFIRMEDIon Solar, LLC v. Bailey, No. 2:23-cv-00371, docket entry 13, filed as Exhibit G and quoted.

Exhibit G is an order this courthouse entered in August 2023, under Judge Barlow’s caption, when a company asked to subpoena eBay, Google and solar installers before serving anyone. The court allowed subpoenas “requesting records of names and contact information for the defendants,” refused the one to Google, and cut the rest.

“The proposed scope of the subpoenas exceeds the justification for permitting discovery at this stage, which is solely to obtain the defendants’ identities and contact information.” The September 30 order in this case allows “subscriber information, account records, IP address logs, deployment records and any other information.” The subpoenas served under it carry eight requests. One asks for names.

“Movant does not assert that any of those records concern him.”

CONFIRMEDEntry 17 and the declaration, quoted.

Belmont’s motion to stay was decided the day the Publisher filed. Magistrate Judge Pead held that “Movant is not a party to this action and therefore he does not have standing to object”: “Movant does not assert that any of those records concern him,” and the protections he invoked “belong to a reporter and a source, of which he is neither.”

Footnote 10: “Movant’s Motion to Intervene remains pending.” The order and the Publisher’s declaration were docketed the same day. One sentence from each.

“Movant does not assert that any of those records concern him.”

“The Vercel and GoDaddy records will identify me and no one else.”

The first is the court’s, on Belmont, page 2. The second is the declaration’s, paragraph 5. The order is entry 17. The eight filings are entries 18 to 25, docketed after it that day.

Belmont withdrew his motion to intervene the next day, without prejudice, citing the Publisher’s appearance: “In light of these developments, Movant withdraws the motion and no response to it is required” (entry 27).

What the Publisher filed

PRIMARY SOURCEEntries 18, 21, 23, 23-9, 24 and 25 as filed October 14, quoted from the court’s copies; entries 19 and 22 are sealed.

Each paper is captioned for the “Anonymous Non-Party Publisher of thebammap.com,” signed by French and Allen, and each reserves “all defenses, including personal jurisdiction.” The pseudonym motion (entry 18) lodges the full name with the court “for the Court’s in camera review and conflict check only” and asks that it not be served on BAM; entry 19 is the sealed name, entries 21 and 22 the motion to seal the declaration and the sealed copy.

The complaint names a second website, bamopsmanual.com, which the pseudonym motion says the same person operates. It is down: as read on October 15, its address returns “Unavailable For Legal Reasons.”

Entry 23 asks for four things.

Its grounds: the order “authorizes discovery to identify the defendants so that BAM may serve them,” while the complaint “identifies the website operator as a third party that received information, not as a defendant”; BAM “already has evidence, in its own systems, identifying a suspected source”; and unmasking a publisher “requires First Amendment balancing that BAM’s ex parte motion never presented.” Part V is the fallback: a neutral comparison reporting only “match” or “no match,” production “to the Court under seal for in camera review, not to BAM,” and notice to the account holder before anything is produced.

Entry 24 asked for the four terms the court later signed, with a seven-day answer and a three-day reply. “Anonymity, once lost, cannot be restored by a later ruling.” On October 15 the court asked BAM to respond by noon MDT the next day. BAM did, at 11:45 a.m. MDT; at 1:24 p.m. MDT the court granted the motion (above). Entry 25, the objection to Judge Barlow, was filed “to preserve its rights within the time allowed” and asks to be held until Pead rules.

The BAM Map Publisher’s Declaration

CONFIRMEDThe Publisher of this site is the author and signator of this declaration.PRIMARY SOURCEEntry 20 as filed, reproduced on this site; the eight facts in the table below were reported here from public filings and captures before the declaration was filed on October 14, each row linked.

Twelve pages, twenty-one paragraphs, reproduced on this site as filed. “I confirm that I operate the website thebammap.com.” Never a franchisee, employee, contractor or prospective franchisee of BAM, never a party to any agreement with it (paragraph 3). “The accounts for thebammap.com at Vercel, Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLC are registered in my own name and use my own email address” (paragraph 5). On sources: “I have received unsolicited information from persons who asked that their identities be kept confidential, and as a publisher, I agreed to do so” (paragraph 9). And the last paragraph: “I do not consent to the disclosure of my identity to BAM Franchising, Inc. or the public” (paragraph 21).

Each of those facts is now in the court’s record under oath.

“The price for crossing BAM Franchising, Inc. is high.”

PRIMARY SOURCEParagraphs 12 and 13 of the declaration, quoted; every item in paragraph 12 was reported on this site before it was sworn.

That sentence is paragraph 13, sworn. Paragraph 12 is the only sworn list of what the year has produced: eleven items, (a) to (k), from the May 27 suit to the October 14 civil-rights complaint against American Fork, each one reported here first (the paragraph as filed).

Paragraph 13 draws the declarant’s conclusion: “I am therefore afraid that if BAM Franchising, Inc. obtains my identity, they will use it to harm me in the same ways they have sought to harm others who would cross them.”

Two letters and a call

AS SWORNThe two letters are Exhibits A and B to the motion; the October 12 call and BAM’s silence by noon MDT on October 14 are Leonard J. French’s sworn account (entry 23-1).

On October 7 French wrote to Matthew Orme and Kyle Tucker of Dentons: his client “will not identify or discuss any person who may have provided information or materials”; he asked which subpoenas had been served, and proposed a standstill and a call. On October 12 he and Orme spoke. “Mr. Orme stated that among BAM’s concerns were whether the Publisher is a BAM franchisee or is otherwise the source of the materials.” On October 13 French wrote again, with Vercel and GoDaddy copied: a standstill by noon MDT the next day, and a proposal. “The Publisher can help BAM rule the Publisher out without disclosing who it is.”

Vercel’s outside counsel, Daniel de Zayas of ZwillGen, wrote back that night with one question: “Have you received a response from BAM’s counsel?” As of noon MDT on October 14, none. BAM’s answer to the court two days later offers two of the Publisher’s own mechanisms: “Production to counsel to be held unopened” and “Lodging with the Court.”

“Swift, decisive, and appropriate action”

On September 12 BAM’s marketing director told the company’s all-franchisee channel that corporate was taking “swift, decisive, and appropriate action” (the complaint, paragraph 39). The instruments, in order, with what each one says it is looking for and what each one produced.

SHIFTINGWhat BAM says it is looking for changes with the audience: the names of everyone who provided or published, to this site; the Doe defendants’ identities, to the judge; the “Website Operator” and eight categories of records, in the subpoenas; and, to the court on October 16, “records of submissions to thebammap.com.” The one constant is the target: the records behind this site.

“No alternative means”

What BAM told the court it needed the names for, in its motion and its complaint, and the record beside each reason. The grades are the ones this site gave when each page was published.

“BAM does not ask the Court to resolve that issue now.”

Nine pages, filed fifteen minutes before the hour the court set, answered by the court in less than two hours.

PRIMARY SOURCEBAM’s memorandum in opposition, entry 28, filed October 16 at 11:45 a.m. MDT by Matthew Orme and Kyle Tucker of Dentons, quoted from the court’s copy.

SHIFTING“Having exhausted its internal investigation methods” (September 28) is now “narrowed but has not conclusively identified the source or sources” (October 16). No subpoena has gone to the three record-holders the complaint named.

SHIFTINGThe urgency changed subject. On September 28 it was the conference, “the urgency of this matter has materially intensified”; on October 16, with the conference over and unmentioned, it is “the continuing disclosure of its confidential information,” without an example.

BAM asks the court to “deny the Motion to Stay as proposed.” A stay would “leave the records BAM needs solely in the hands of third parties while the disclosures that prompted this action continue.” On the identity: “BAM does not ask the Court to resolve that issue now.” On its investigation, which it had called exhausted: it “has narrowed but has not conclusively identified the source or sources of the leaks.”

The pivot is the section headed “BAM’s Interest in Proceeding and the Prejudice from Delay.” The stay motion had said a pause costs BAM nothing because the records are preserved. BAM answers that this “misstates the harm,” which is “not only the risk of lost records, but also the continuing disclosure of its confidential information while the persons responsible remain unidentified.”

Eighteen days earlier the harm had a date and a building: this site had published where BAMcon would be held. The conference ran October 13 to 15 and the brief does not mention it. In its place is a disclosure that continues, cited to paragraphs written before the order, and a sixth alternative: “a short, fixed extension” of the very deadline it says cannot wait.

Nine days earlier, answering Belmont, BAM had told the same judge that “the persons whose records are sought, and the providers that hold them, can protect those interests directly. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3),” and that Belmont “does not explain why the operator cannot seek relief on its own behalf” (entry 11, reported October 8). On October 14 the operator did. BAM’s answer begins: “deny the Motion to Stay as proposed.”

If the court stays production anyway, BAM offers six substitutes, in its order:

1. “Production under a temporary protective order,” the records marked “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”
2. “Production to counsel to be held unopened.”
3. “Lodging with the Court” under seal.
4. “Production of non-identifying records” now, “so that BAM can continue its investigation of the sources.”
5. “Preservation orders,” on the providers and on the Publisher.
6. “A short, fixed extension of the October 19, 2026 response deadline.”

The fourth and the fifth are the ones to read twice. The order BAM drafted limited the discovery “to the issue of determining the identity of the unidentifiable Defendants.” The fourth alternative asks for records BAM itself calls non-identifying, “so that BAM can continue its investigation of the sources.” The fifth asks the court to order “the Subpoena Recipients and the Publisher to preserve all records responsive to the Subpoenas, including records of submissions to thebammap.com.” Neither is needed to identify or serve a defendant. The submissions to this site are the people who wrote to it, and the complaint pleads one of them, a franchisee correcting a story, as part of the flow of BAM’s nonpublic information.

The first footnote reserves BAM’s position on the name: its use of “Publisher” is “not an admission that the Publisher is entitled to proceed as such.” Less than two hours after BAM filed, the court granted the stay (above). The motion to quash, the objection and the pseudonym remain to be decided.

The fair reading, and its limit. BAM holds an order a magistrate judge entered on the paper BAM presented, and courts in this district grant such motions routinely. Its complaint’s allegations are untested, and so, on the merits, are the Publisher’s motions: the court has granted one of the eight papers, the interim stay, which decides nothing about the subpoenas themselves. The order’s two pages give no reason beyond “good cause shown.” Two of BAM’s six alternatives are mechanisms the Publisher’s own motion proposed, which is common ground. The right of reply is open to BAM and to its counsel, Matthew Orme and Kyle Tucker. Nothing BAM has filed in this case says that anything on this site is false (reported September 28).

The record

The Publisher’s declaration, docket entry 20, reproduced as filed, and the PDF. The order denying Belmont’s motion to stay, entry 17, October 14. Belmont’s notice of withdrawal of his motion to intervene, entry 27, October 15. BAM’s memorandum in opposition to the interim stay, entry 28, October 16. The motion to proceed under a pseudonym, entry 18. The motion to seal, entry 21. The emergency motion to vacate or modify the order and quash the subpoenas, entry 23, with the declaration of counsel, 23-1, the October 7 letter, Exhibit A, the October 13 letter, Exhibit B, the emails with the providers, Exhibit C, and the proposed order, 23-9; Exhibits D to G, this site’s front page, a CBC report, GoDaddy’s subpoena policy and the Ion Solar order, are in the motion’s file on the docket. The motion for an interim stay, entry 24. The objection to the district judge, entry 25. BAM’s return of service on Vercel, entry 14, and on GoDaddy, entry 15, October 12. The order admitting counsel, entry 16, October 13. The docket on CourtListener. October 14: the returns of service and the conference. October 8: BAM’s answer to Belmont. October 2: Belmont’s two motions. September 30: the order. September 28: BAM’s motion. September 26: the complaint. The legal defense fund. The order granting the interim stay of production, docket entry 29, October 16, 2026.

Sources. BAM Franchising Inc. v. Does 1-10, No. 2:26-cv-00895 (D. Utah): docket entry 17, Order Denying Motion to Stay, signed October 14, 2026; entries 18, 20, 21, 23, 23-1 to 23-4, 23-7, 23-8, 23-9, 24 and 25, filed October 14, 2026, each quoted verbatim from the court’s electronic copy; entry 26, the text order of October 15, 2026, quoted from the docket; entry 28, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to the emergency motion for an interim stay, filed October 16, 2026, quoted from the court’s electronic copy, its filing time from the court’s stamp; entry 29, Order Granting Interim Stay of Production, signed October 16, 2026, quoted from the court’s electronic copy, its time from the court’s stamp; entries 13 and 16, October 9 and 13, and the docket as read on the public mirror on the afternoon of October 16, 2026, Mountain time; entry 1, the complaint, paragraphs 14, 56 to 60 and 67; entry 11 as reported here October 8; entries 14 and 15 as reported here October 14; entry 6 as reported here September 30; entry 3 and its draft subpoenas as reported here September 28. Ion Solar, LLC v. Bailey, No. 2:23-cv-00371 (D. Utah Aug. 11, 2023), docket entry 13, as filed here as Exhibit G. GoDaddy.com, LLC, Subpoena Policy, as captured October 14, 2026 and filed as Exhibit F. Entry 20 is the public copy, redacted by the filer. Everyone named here is presumed to have acted lawfully. A motion is one side’s request, an order decides what it decides, and this page reports both.

Home · Map · The law · Bodycam · Coverage