Maryland Lawyer/Ex-Legislator Again Rebuffed in Attempt to Seal Alleged Libel

From Bennett v. Brown, decided Friday by Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander (D. Md.):

The Bennetts, a married couple, own United, a federally licensed firearm business. The case is rooted in a civil enforcement action filed by defendants in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland against plaintiffs and two other gun shops, accusing them of facilitating illegal firearm trafficking. See State v. Engage Armament LLC, C-15-CV-24-4781 (“Engage Case”). The allegations concerned, inter alia, plaintiffs’ business transactions between 2020 and 2024 with an individual later convicted in federal court for “engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license.” On February 14, 2025, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County dismissed the Engage Case, with prejudice. {Defendants have appealed the dismissal, which is pending.} This suit followed on August 30, 2025….

In the proverbial “kitchen sink” approach, the Amended Complaint (ECF 35) contains nine counts. {The Amended Complaint is a quintessential example of shotgun pleading. Indeed, it seems as if counsel rifled through a hornbook and selected every conceivable claim. Such pleadings impose undue burdens on litigants and the judiciary.} Plaintiffs assert two claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: “Malicious Investigation and Litigation,” in violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution (Count I), and “Conspiracy To Deny Constitutional Rights,” in violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution (Count II). Count III asserts a claim of Defamation, based in part on the Press Release. Count IV alleges “Interference with Second Amendment Firearm Rights in Violation of PLCAA,” i.e., the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act …. Count V is titled “Interference with Business Right and Contract.” Count VI asserts “Violation of Maryland Declaration of Rights,” i.e., “Due Process Violations and Abuse of Process” pursuant to Articles 2, 5, 24, and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Count VII alleges “False Light Invasion of Privacy.” In Count VIII, plaintiffs lodge a claim for “Federal Civil Rico Violations” (“RICO”) …. Count IX asserts a claim for “Invasion of Privacy.”

The Press Release was issued by Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown on September 3, 2024, and joined by Schwalb and Everytown Law. It announced the initiation of the Engage Case. According to the Press Release, United and two other gun shops “ignored clear warning signs” that they were facilitating the illegal trafficking of firearms by selling firearms to “a straw purchaser.” The Press Release also claimed that the gun shops played a “role in fueling gun violence across the region.” Moreover, the Press Release asserts that the Engage Case constitutes a “‘warning to other [gun] dealers who put public safety at risk to make a profit[.]'”

The Press Release was included as an exhibit to the Complaint, and was filed under seal. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to seal the Press Release, as well as a supporting memorandum….

Plaintiffs ask this Court to seal “a press release issued by Defendants that contains statements Plaintiffs allege are false and defamatory.” … Plaintiffs recognize that “the document is publicly available.” But, they contend that “filing it unredacted on the Court’s docket would compound reputational harm and prejudice to Plaintiffs.” …

The Press Release pertains to plaintiffs’ defamation claim (Count III). Count III is based “solely [on] statements made in the Press Release of September 3, 2024, and subsequent public statements by Defendants.” Plaintiffs allege that the statements by defendants, including those in the Press Release, “were false, defamatory per se, and made with actual malice.” …

The court concluded that sealing would be inconsistent with the public’s right of access to court filings; an excerpt from the court’s conclusion:

Plaintiffs initiated a law suit that includes a claim of defamation based, in part, on the Press Release. Yet, they now seek to shroud the Press Release in secrecy, despite the fact that they rely on it to establish defendants’ liability. Plaintiffs cannot use the Press Release both as a sword and a shield.

Moreover, it is difficult to ignore the reality that the public has already had access to the Press Release and will continue to have access to it, whether or not it is sealed by the Court. Therefore, plaintiffs have not provided a compelling interest to justify sealing or redacting it.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Daniel Cox (Cox Law Center, LLC)—a former Maryland state legislator—had similarly tried to seal some allegedly defamatory material attached to the Complaint in Mastriano v. Gregory (W.D. Okla.), a case he brought on behalf of a Pennsylvania state legislator and former candidate for Pennsylvania governor. That court at first agreed, but then held that the material couldn’t be sealed, in response to my objection to sealing. I would have likewise objected to sealing here, but the first I heard of the case is when the order quoted above was released.