BAM filed a stipulated motion to stay its case for thirty days, and the judge granted it. The hearing on the subpoenas for the Publisher’s name is continued.
On November 10, 2026, the day set for argument, BAM filed a stipulated motion, joined by the Publisher, to stay the case for thirty days, and Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead granted it that afternoon. All proceedings and discovery, “including all subpoenas issued under the Court’s Order of September 30, 2026,” are stayed through December 10, 2026; the Publisher’s two motions are “held in abeyance pending further order”; and the interim stay of October 16 and the seal on the two filings that name the Publisher “remain in effect until further order of the Court.” By December 3, 2026, the two sides are to report “either that they have reached a resolution or requesting that the Court reset the hearing.” The Publisher has agreed to a pause while the two sides try to resolve the dispute.
PRIMARY SOURCEBAM Franchising, Inc. v. Does 1-10, No. 2:26-cv-00895, District of Utah: docket entry 47, the order of November 10, 2026 granting the stipulated motion of the same day (entry 46), quoted verbatim and linked below as filed; entries 30 to 45, the briefs and orders since the interim stay, linked below as filed where the public record has them.
PRIMARY SOURCEEntry 47, paragraph 6: the stay “is entered without prejudice to any party’s or the Publisher’s claims, defenses, or arguments, whether raised in pending filings or in future filings” (the order).
UNRESOLVEDWhether the September 30 order stands as to the Publisher, and whether the pseudonym is granted: the court has decided neither, and both motions are held in abeyance. The objection before Judge Barlow (entry 25) is pending with no date.
The Publisher of this site is the movant on entries 18 and 23 and joined the motion at entry 46.
Twenty-five days after staying BAM’s subpoenas (as reported), Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead had the motions behind that stay set for argument at 3:00 p.m. MST on November 10, 2026. They were not argued. That day BAM filed a four-page stipulated motion, joined by the Publisher, and the judge granted it.
The motion (entry 46) was filed by BAM’s counsel, Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar. It opens under that firm’s name as “Attorneys for Plaintiff BAM Franchising, Inc.,” and the signature of the Publisher’s counsel is “[a]ffixed with permission received by email.” In it BAM and “the Anonymous Non-Party Publisher of thebammap.com” “jointly move for entry of the accompanying stipulated order temporarily staying this action for thirty days, through December 10, 2026.” It calls the stay “a temporary, interim arrangement between the Parties,” meant to give them time “to discuss a potential resolution of the issues raised in the pending motions and pleadings and potentially the case at-large,” and says those discussions “may lead to a resolution of the pending motions and would moot the issues now before the Court.”
The order
The order (entry 47) is two pages and seven numbered paragraphs.
The stay. “All proceedings and discovery in this action, including all subpoenas issued under the Court’s Order of September 30, 2026 (Dkt. No. 6), are STAYED for thirty days, through December 10, 2026.” The order gives its purpose: “to allow the parties to make efforts to resolve the issues that are at the heart of the Complaint and the discovery issues before the Court.”
The motions. The hearing is continued, and the Publisher’s motions to proceed under a pseudonym (entry 18) and to vacate or modify the September 30 order and quash the subpoenas (entry 23) “are held in abeyance pending further order.”
What stays in force. The interim stay of October 16 “and the seal on Dkt. No. 19 and Dkt. No. 22, remain in effect until further order of the Court.” The interim stay is the order under which no subpoena recipient “shall produce any information concerning the website thebammap.com or its operator” (entry 29). Entries 19 and 22 are the two sealed filings that name the Publisher. “BAM shall serve a copy of this Order on each subpoena recipient.”
The dates. “By December 3, 2026, the Parties shall file a joint status report stating either that they have reached a resolution or requesting that the Court reset the hearing.” And “BAM or the Publisher may request that the Court lift the stay before December 10, 2026.”
What it does not decide. “This stay is entered without prejudice to any party’s or the Publisher’s claims, defenses, or arguments, whether raised in pending filings or in future filings. Nothing in this Order or in the stay waives, limits, or determines any such claim, defense, or argument.”
The hearing
The order continued the hearing. The December 3 report is to say either that the two sides have resolved the dispute or that they ask the court to reset the hearing.
What was pending
Two motions, both filed October 14 and both reported here the week they were filed.
Entry 23 asks the court to vacate or modify its September 30 order, which let BAM subpoena Vercel and GoDaddy for the names and payment records behind this site on BAM’s ex parte motion (as reported), to quash or modify the two subpoenas, and to enter a protective order (the motion). BAM answered on October 23; the Publisher replied on October 30. BAM’s certificate says it sent the interim stay to GoDaddy and to Vercel by email on October 18 and by first-class mail on October 19 (entry 30).
Entry 18 asks that the Publisher proceed under that name, with the full name lodged with the court “for the Court’s in camera review and conflict check only” and not served on BAM (the motion). BAM answered on October 28; the Publisher replied on November 9 (entry 41). The declaration behind both motions is public with the name redacted (the declaration).
| BAM asks | The Publisher asks | |
|---|---|---|
| The order and the subpoenas | “deny the Motion”; or modify the order and the subpoenas so production goes forward with “production limited to non-content identifying records, an attorneys’-eyes-only designation, and a use restriction”; and that any vacatur or quashing be “without prejudice to BAM seeking leave to amend its Complaint and seeking further discovery upon a showing of good cause” (entry 31, pages 3 and 12) | “vacate the Ex Parte Order to the extent it authorizes discovery of the identity of, or information about, the operator of thebammap.com; quash the subpoenas to Vercel, Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLC to the same extent; and enter the protective order requested in the Motion” as narrowed; or, in the alternative, “limit any inquiry to the confidential matching procedure” (entry 34, page 12) |
| The name | It “does not seek to require public disclosure of the Publisher’s identity while the Publisher’s motion to vacate and quash is pending,” but the court should “deny ex parte treatment and order the Publisher to file and serve its full-name notice and unredacted declaration on BAM’s counsel on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis,” and strike paragraph 3 of the proposed order (entry 32, page 2) | That the full name stay with the court, lodged under seal “for the Court’s in camera review and conflict check only,” not served on BAM (entry 18, page 2). On November 3 the court sealed the declaration and excused service “pending further order” (entry 35) |
Each side’s words, from the conclusions and openings of its briefs. The matching procedure, in plain terms: the providers would lodge the account holder’s name and email with the court under seal, BAM would lodge its list of franchisees, employees and others bound by its agreements, and the court, or a neutral the parties agree on, would compare the two and report only “match” or “no match”; “nothing is produced to BAM or its counsel,” and “the account holder receives notice and 21 days to move before any production” (entry 34, page 11).
On November 6 BAM filed an emergency ex parte motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum and a supporting declaration in opposition to entry 23 (entry 38, twenty-nine pages with the proposed filings), a motion for leave to file portions of it under seal (entry 39), and a sealed filing (entry 40). On November 9 the Publisher filed its reply on the pseudonym motion (entry 41, with a revised proposed order) and a response to entries 38 and 39 (entry 42, with a proposed order).
The three rulings of November 9
The day before the hearing the court ruled on three motions. Two of the rulings are text entries on the docket, reproduced here as entered.
DOCKET TEXT ORDER. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum and Supporting Declaration In Opposition To Anonymous Non-Party Publisher’s Emergency Motion To Vacate or Modify is GRANTED 38. In conjunction therewith, the Court will consider the opposing arguments set forth in the Publisher’s Response 42. The parties should be prepared to discuss the supplemental memorandum, declaration and response at the November 10, 2026 hearing 36. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/9/2026. No attached document.
The second text order rules on a motion by Gregory Belmont, the reader in New York who twice asked this court to keep the names unread (October 2; October 8) and withdrew his motion to intervene on October 15 (as reported). On October 28 he moved for leave to file a seven-page amicus curiae memorandum in support of entry 23; his motion said “the Publisher consents and BAM objects to the filing of the proposed amicus memorandum” (entry 33).
DOCKET TEXT ORDER. Mr. Gregory Belmont moves for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the Publisher’s Motion for Relief [33]. Pursuant to DUCivR 7-6(f)(2), the court may deny a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief if the court determines that the proposed brief merely restates the arguments of a party or is not useful in the determination of the case. Having consider Mr. Belmont’s Motion and related briefing, the court finds it would not be materially assisted by the amicus brief. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Movant’s [33] Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/9/2026. No attached document.
The third ruling is a two-page order granting BAM’s motion to seal (entry 39): “the information identified in the Motion shall be sealed” (entry 45). The Publisher’s response took no position on sealing Exhibits B through E, and said its position “does not concede that any of the material is confidential or a trade secret” (entry 42, page 7).
Since the interim stay
The docket ledger published October 16 ran to entry 29, the interim stay (as reported). Nineteen entries have followed.
| No. | Filed | By | What it is | Reported here | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | Oct 19 | BAM | Certificate of service: the stay order sent to GoDaddy and to Vercel by email on October 18 and by first-class mail on October 19 | This page | Filed |
| 31 | Oct 23 | BAM | Memorandum in opposition to the motion to vacate, quash and for a protective order (entry 23); fourteen pages | This page | Filed |
| 32 | Oct 28 | BAM | Memorandum in opposition to the pseudonym motion (entry 18) and the motion to seal (entry 21); seven pages | This page | Filed |
| 33 | Oct 28 | Belmont | Motion for leave to file an amicus curiae memorandum in support of entry 23, with a proposed order | This page | Denied Nov 9 |
| 34 | Oct 30 | The Publisher | Reply in support of entry 23, with a revised and an alternative proposed order; fourteen pages | This page | Filed |
| 35 | Nov 3 | Pead | Order granting the motion to seal (entry 21): the declaration stays under seal and ex parte pending the ruling on entry 23; service on BAM excused; no unsealing without notice | This page | Entered |
| 36 | Nov 4 | The clerk | Notice of hearing: Zoom motion hearing on entries 18 and 23, November 10, 2026, 3:00 p.m. MST, before Magistrate Judge Pead | This page | Continued Nov 10 |
| 37 | Nov 5 | The clerk | Notice from the court: the Zoom link to join the hearing | This page | Entered |
| 38 | Nov 6 | BAM | Emergency ex parte motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum and a supporting declaration in opposition to entry 23; twenty-nine pages with the proposed filings | This page | Granted Nov 9 |
| 39 | Nov 6 | BAM | Motion for leave to file portions of entry 38 under seal; three pages | This page | Granted Nov 9 |
| 40 | Nov 6 | BAM | Sealed filing | This page | Under seal |
| 41 | Nov 9 | The Publisher | Reply in support of the pseudonym motion (entry 18), with a revised proposed order; nine pages | This page | Filed |
| 42 | Nov 9 | The Publisher | Response to entries 38 and 39, with a proposed order; ten pages | This page | Filed |
| 43 | Nov 9 | Pead | Docket text order granting entry 38; no attached document | This page | Entered |
| 44 | Nov 9 | Pead | Docket text order denying entry 33; no attached document | This page | Entered |
| 45 | Nov 9 | Pead | Order granting the motion to seal (entry 39) | This page | Entered |
| 46 | Nov 10 | BAM, with the Publisher | Stipulated motion for a temporary stay of proceedings and a continuance of the hearing, with a proposed order; four pages | This page | Granted Nov 10 |
| 47 | Nov 10 | Pead | Order granting the stipulated motion: stay through December 10, 2026; joint status report by December 3, 2026 | This page | Entered |
| 48 | Nov 10 | The clerk | Minute entry for the hearing: before argument, the two sides reached a stipulated agreement to stay the case for thirty days, and the court confirmed it on the record | This page | Entered |
Entries 18 and 23 are held in abeyance; entry 25, the objection to Judge Barlow, is pending; entry 29, the interim stay, and the seal on entries 19 and 22 remain in effect until further order of the court.
The fair reading, and its limit. A stay is not a ruling. The court has decided nothing about the September 30 order, the two subpoenas or the pseudonym, and the order leaves every side’s arguments open. BAM’s position, in its own briefs, is that on September 30 “the Court found good cause” for the subpoenas, and that if the court changes that order, production should continue with “non-content identifying records, an attorneys’-eyes-only designation, and a use restriction,” the records “available only to BAM’s outside counsel unless the Court orders otherwise.” The stay is “a temporary, interim arrangement,” and either side may ask the court to lift it before December 10. Everyone named is presumed to have acted lawfully.
The record
Entry 47, the order granting the stay, November 10. Entry 46, the stipulated motion, November 10, with the proposed order. Entry 45, the order granting BAM’s motion to seal, November 9. The two text orders of November 9 and entries 36, 37 and 48 are text entries on the court’s docket; the docket on CourtListener. Entry 42, the Publisher’s response, November 9, with the proposed order. Entry 41, the Publisher’s reply on the pseudonym motion, November 9, with the revised proposed order. Entry 35, the order granting the motion to seal the declaration, November 3. Entry 34, the Publisher’s reply, October 30, with the revised and the alternative proposed order. Entry 33, Belmont’s motion for leave, October 28, with the proposed memorandum and the proposed order. Entry 32, BAM’s opposition to the pseudonym and seal motions, October 28. Entry 31, BAM’s opposition to the motion to vacate and quash, October 23. Entry 30, BAM’s certificate of service, October 19. Entry 29, the interim stay, October 16. Entry 23, the motion to vacate and quash and entry 18, the pseudonym motion, October 14. The Publisher’s declaration, entry 20. October 16: the interim stay. September 30: the order. September 28: the filing. September 26: the suit. October 2 and October 8: Belmont’s first two motions.
Sources. BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Does 1-10, No. 2:26-cv-00895 (D. Utah): docket entries 30 to 48, filed October 19 to November 10, 2026. Entries 30 to 35, 41, 42 and 45 to 47 are quoted verbatim from the public copies in the RECAP archive and linked above; entries 36, 37 and 48 and the two text orders of November 9 are text entries, reproduced from the docket as entered; entries 38 to 40 are described from the docket and from entries 42 and 45. Entries 18, 20, 23 and 29, filed October 14 and 16, 2026, as published here October 16. Everyone named here is presumed to have acted lawfully; a brief is one party’s argument, and this page reports two.