Burgess v. DOJI, INC. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
MONSIEUR SHAWNELLIAS BURGESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOJI, INC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:25-00495
Judge Aleta A. Trauger
Magistrate Judge Luke A. Evans
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On May 28, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to issue four subpoenas. (Doc. No.
224.) Permission from the Court is required under Local Rule 45.01(a) because plaintiff is
proceeding pro se. As with other local rules for pro se litigants both here and in other districts,
Local Rule 45.01 “provides a safeguard in such [pro se] litigation by allowing the court to oversee
the discovery process and prevent abuse of that process.” Vukadinovich v. Griffith Pub. Schs., No.
2:02 CV 472, 2008 WL 5191451, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2008).
To prevent abuse of the subpoena process, Local Rule 45.01 gives the Court discretion to
prescreen proposed subpoenas for defects that would not survive a motion to quash under Rule
45(d)(3) and for overall proportionality to the needs of the case. Cf. Downs v. McDonough, No.
3:20-01090, 2022 WL 17724144, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 15, 2022) (denying leave to issue a
subpoena for a forensic examination of defendant’s computer, where the subpoena was “both
unnecessary at this time and overreaching”). One factor that can affect permission to issue a
subpoena is whether the proposed subpoena “subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d)(3)(A)(iv); United States v. Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ & Exhibitors’ Ass’n, 727 F.
App’x 119, 123 (6th Cir. 2018) (unpublished opinion) (citations omitted). Proportionality can
Case 3:25-cv-00495 Document 237 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

2
affect whether an undue burden exists if the expense and effort of obtaining subpoenaed
information outweighs the information’s potential value. See Am. Elec. Power Co. v. United States,
191 F.R.D. 132, 136 (S.D. Ohio 1999) (citations omitted); accord Spears v. First Am. eAppraiseIT,
No. 13-MC-52, 2014 WL 1045998, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 14, 2014) (citations omitted). A
subpoena also can impose an undue burden if the party serving it can obtain the same evidence by
other viable means. See Recycled Paper Greetings, Inc. v. Davis, No. 1:08-MC-13, 2008 WL
440458, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2008) (citations omitted); see also Virginia Dep’t of Corr. v.
Jordan, 921 F.3d 180, 189 (4th Cir. 2019) (“Courts should also consider what information is
available to the requesting party from other sources. To that end, the requesting party should be
able to explain why it cannot obtain the same information, or comparable information that would
also satisfy its needs, from one of the parties to the litigation—or, in appropriate cases, from other
third parties that would be more logical targets for the subpoena.”) (citation omitted). Additionally,
“[w]hile Rule 45 does not list irrelevance or overbreadth as reasons for quashing a subpoena, courts
have held that the scope of discovery under a subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery under
Rule 26.” Abundes v. Athens Food Servs., LLC, No. 3:14-1278, 2015 WL 13664280, at *2 (M.D.
Tenn. Sept. 18, 2015) (citation omitted).
The Court now turns to plaintiff’s subpoena requests. First, plaintiff wants to subpoena
“Uber Technologies, Inc. and Joanie’s Boro LLC for records concerning a January 23, 2025 food-
delivery transaction that Plaintiff’s prior motion [Doc. No. 106] described as a Joanie’s-to-Demos
order with an approximate time of 12:02 p.m., a transaction amount of $42.09, and payment by an
American Express card ending in 6008.” (Doc. No. 224 at 2.) Plaintiff already has the receipt for
the transaction in question. (Doc. No. 106-1 at 6.) The receipt confirms that plaintiff has an account
with Uber. Plaintiff has not shown why he is unable to log into his own Uber account and to
Case 3:25-cv-00495 Document 237 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

3
download all of the transaction information himself. Additionally, the Court does not understand
why any subpoenas concerning the transaction in question would come from plaintiff and not
defendants. Plaintiff has produced a receipt that shows no messages or additional instructions
included with the transaction. Plaintiff has no evidentiary burden to disprove the existence of any
messages as elements of the counts in the second amended complaint. If defendants insist that
some sort of message was included with the transaction then the information would be relevant to
their affirmative defenses, and defendants would have the burden of producing the information in
admissible form for trial or for dispositive motions. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) (“A party
may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that
would be admissible in evidence.”). The Court thus denies this request as irrelevant and
disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Next, plaintiff seeks permission to issue the document subpoena that he previously
proposed serving (Doc. No. 107-1) on nonparty Addyson Kress (“Kress”), the apparent recipient
of the January 23, 2025 transaction described above. The proposed subpoena would require an
extensive search of billing statements, call logs, text messages, screenshots, photographs, and other
electronic information concerning any alleged messages attached to the January 23, 2025
transaction. As the Court noted above when assessing the proposed Uber subpoena, plaintiff
already has produced a receipt for that transaction that shows no messages or additional
instructions, and plaintiff can access his own Uber account for full transaction information.
Defendants have the responsibility to prove the existence of any messages. The extensive search
proposed in the subpoena is disproportionate to the needs of the case. The Court accordingly denies
the request.
Case 3:25-cv-00495 Document 237 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

4
Finally, plaintiff seeks permission to issue the document subpoena that he previously
proposed serving (Doc. No. 117-1) on nonparty Isabella Graves (“Graves”). The proposed
subpoena also concerns alleged messages attached to the January 23, 2025 transaction described
above, but Graves neither ordered nor received the transaction. Given other available means to
pursue the information if necessary, this subpoena would be cumulative and disproportionate to
the needs of the case. The Court thus denies this request.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to issue subpoenas (Doc. No. 224)
is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________________
LUKE A. EVANS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00495 Document 237 Filed 06/04/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>