Evans et al v. Robertson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Sybrena Evans,
Plaintiff,
v.
Danielle Robertson, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Case No. 24-13435
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT DANIELLE
ROBERTSON’S OBJECTIONS [82] TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STAFFORD’S ORDER [74], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S
EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY [82], OVERRULING
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS [94] TO MAGISTRATE JUGDE
STAFFORD’S ORDER STRIKING ECF NO. 83 [87], AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUBMIT VIDEO
EVIDENCE [94]
Before the Court is Defendant “Danielle Robertson’s”1 objections
(ECF No. 82) to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s September 25,
2025 order (ECF No. 74), which contained the following decisions:
 Denying as moot Plaintiff Sybrena Evans’ motion to strike
non-party John Doe’s motion to quash, John Doe’s motion for
reconsideration, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel John Doe to
1 “Danielle Robertson” is Defendant’s alias and not her true name.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 26

2
reveal his identity. (ECF No. 74, PageID.773; ECF Nos. 31,
50, 54.)
 Granting Plaintiff’s motions to compel disclosure of
Defendant’s identity and denying Plaintiff’s motions to strike
Defendant’s filings made under her alias. (ECF No. 74,
PageID.778; ECF Nos. 36, 41, 42, 51, 56.)
 Granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion for
protective order. (ECF No. 74, PageID.780; ECF No. 28.)
 Extending the summons and the time to serve until October
8, 2025 and permitting alternate service. (ECF No. 74,
PageID.780–781.)
 Ordering Defendant to file a notice identifying her legal name
and postal address, which may be the address of a registered
agent, by November 3, 2025. (Id. at PageID.784.)
 Ordering both parties to include a written representation that
they have personally checked each legal citation and that each
citation is accurate and stands for its asserted proposition.
(Id. at PageID.785.)
On October 9, 2025, Defendant filed objections to Judge Stafford’s
order and an emergency motion to stay the order. (ECF No. 82.)2
Defendant also filed objections to Judge Stafford’s order striking ECF No.
2 Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Stafford’s order and her response to
Defendant’s objections (ECF Nos. 79, 90) were stricken and are not a part of the
record for the reasons set forth in the Court’s November 7, 2025 order. (ECF No. 106,
PageID.2257–2258.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 26

3
83, which she claims contains exhibits to her objections and motion for a
stay. (ECF No. 94.) Finally, Defendant moves for leave to submit media
files as exhibits. (Id.)
I. 	Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that, for non-
dispositive pretrial matters where a magistrate judge issues a written
order:
[a] party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days
after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a
defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the
case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any
part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules state
that objections under Rule 72 “must: (A) specify the part of the order . . .
to which a person objects; and (B) state the basis for the objections.” E.D.
Mich. LR 72.1(d). “This standard requires the District Court to review
findings of fact for clear error and to review matters of law de novo.” Bisig
v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 940 F.3d 205, 219 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting
EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d. Cir. 2017)). “A [factual]
finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support
it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 26

4
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quoting United
States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “[A]n order is
‘contrary to the law’ when it ‘fails to apply or misapplies relevant
statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’” Id. (quoting United States v.
Winsper, No. 3:08-CV-631-H, 2013 WL 5673617, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 17,
2013)).
II. Defendant’s objections to Judge Stafford’s order
striking ECF No. 83 and motion for leave to submit
video evidence (ECF No. 94)
The Court will first address Defendant’s “motion for leave to
reinstate Exhibit 83 and to submit video evidence in support of
Defendant’s protective order request.” (ECF No. 94, PageID.1920.)
Regarding Defendant’s “motion for leave to reinstate Exhibit 83,”
the Court construes this as an objection to Judge Stafford’s order striking
ECF No. 83. (ECF No. 87.) On October 15, 2025, Judge Stafford issued
an order striking ECF No. 83, which is “a 97-page document containing
Exhibits E through A16.”3 (ECF No. 87, PageID.1716.) The document was
stricken because it “did not identify whether these exhibits relate to
3 The Court notes that ECF No. 83 specifically contains Defendant’s Exhibits
E, F, J, V, W, X, Y, Z, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14,
A15-1, A15-2, and A16.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 26

5
another permissible filing,” and “the exhibits are untethered to any
motion or other authorized filing” and are thus improper. (Id. at
PageID.1716–1717.)
Defendant explains that these exhibits were intended to support
her objections to Judge Stafford’s order and emergency motion to stay.
(ECF No. 94, PageID.1921.) She states that her exhibits were uploaded
separately from that filing “[d]ue to the Pro Se Portal’s 5MB upload
limit,” that “it contains supporting exhibits referenced throughout ECF
No. 82,” and that “they are substantive supporting materials for that
filing.” (Id.) As such, Defendant requests that her filing be reinstated and
no longer stricken.
Defendant’s objection regarding Judge Stafford’s order striking her
filing is overruled as moot. This objection is moot because every exhibit
in Defendant’s stricken filing appears in subsequent, duplicative filings.
(See ECF No. 84 (containing Exhibits E, F, J, V, W, X, Y, and Z); ECF No.
84-1 (containing Exhibits Z, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11,
A12, A13, A14, A15-1, and A15-2); ECF No. 84-2 (containing Exhibits
A15-1, A15-2, A16); ECF No. 84-4 (containing Exhibits E, F, J).)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 26

6
Reinstating the stricken document is unnecessary because all stricken
exhibits are already in the record.
Additionally, despite her argument that the stricken document
“contains supporting exhibits referenced throughout ECF No. 82,” many
of the exhibits in the stricken document are not referenced in Defendant’s
objections and are thus not relevant to her filing.4
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s objection to Judge
Stafford’s order striking ECF No. 83 is overruled.
Defendant also moves for leave to submit “video evidence” to the
Court. (ECF No. 94, PageID.1923). Defendant’s proposed “video
evidence” consists of a “vast catalog of videos created and monetized by
Plaintiff that reference or target Defendant” which apparently number
in the hundreds and “span one to four hours each.” (Id. at PageID.1922.)
Despite Defendant’s representation that this number of videos exists,
that each video “reference[s] or target[s] Defendant,” and that the videos
are “crucial to demonstrate the pattern, frequency, and nature of
harassment,” she also admits that she “has not reviewed every file” and
4 Exhibits J, X, Z, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15-1, A15-2, and A16, while
submitted in the now-stricken filing, are never referenced in her objections. (See ECF
No. 82.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 26

7
that “neither she nor the Court has that much time or desire to review”
hundreds of hours of footage. (Id. at PageID.1923.)
Defendant’s motion for leave to submit video evidence to the Court
is denied. As stated by Judge Stafford, “[u]nder Rule 19(c) of the Court’s
electronic filing policies and procedures, “[m]edia files (see R1(i)), such as
an audio clip or video clip, may be filed only with leave of court,” and the
filing party must adhere to certain procedural requirements when
seeking leave to submit those files.” (ECF No. 75, PageID.824.)
Defendant’s motion for leave to submit these video files does not adhere
to these procedural requirements. More importantly, the Court cannot
conclude that these videos provide factual support to Defendant’s
arguments considering that Defendant herself has not reviewed all of the
footage and thus cannot attest that each video is relevant and actually
“demonstrate[s] the pattern, frequency, and nature of harassment.” (ECF
No. 94, PageID.1923.)
As such, Defendant’s motion for leave to submit video evidence is
denied.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 26

8
III. Defendant’s objections to Judge Stafford’s order (ECF
No. 82)
Defendant filed several objections to Judge Stafford’s order which
extended the period for service, allows for alternate service on Defendant,
and required Defendant to file a notice identifying her legal name and
postal address by November 3, 2025. (ECF No. 74, PageID.784.)
The Court notes that Defendant’s brief is not well organized,
repetitive, does not cite much, if any, caselaw, and is generally difficult
to understand. The Court attempts to summarize and address
Defendant’s objections as follows.
A. Defendant’s emergency motion to stay
The Court notes that Defendant’s filing regarding her objections to
Judge Stafford’s order consists of both objections to Judge Stafford’s order
and an emergency motion to stay Judge Stafford’s order requiring
Defendant to disclose her identity by November 3, 2025. (ECF No. 82,
PageID.1127–1133.)
The Court issued an order staying this November 3, 2025 deadline
pending resolution of Defendant’s objections. (ECF No. 95.) Because this
relief is already granted, Defendant’s emergency motion to stay is denied
as moot.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 8 of 26

9
B. Objection related to the suit’s “bad-faith
foundation”
In Defendant’s first objection, she argues that “The Lawsuit’s Bad-
Faith Foundation Vitiates Any Finding of ‘Good Cause.’” (ECF No. 82,
PageID.1134.) The Court construes this objection as objecting to Judge
Stafford’s authorization of alternate service and extension of the service
deadline pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(m) on the
basis that Judge Stafford’s finding of “good cause” for the extension was
erroneous. (See id. at PageID.1134–1137; see also id. at PageID.1140.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states,
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is
filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the
plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that
defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But
if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
In this objection, Defendant does not demonstrate that Judge
Stafford’s extension of the service deadline and permitting alternate
service was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Defendant argues that
the service deadline should not be extended because the lawsuit itself is
“bad-faith” and that such action would reward Plaintiff’s alleged
wrongdoings or “unclean hands.” (See ECF No. 82, PageID.1134–1137.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 9 of 26

10
She also asserts that Plaintiff should not be able to serve her and that
the Court’s efforts to facilitate service should cease due to unspecified
“Sixth Circuit and Michigan equity principles.” (Id. at PageID.1135.)5
Defendant cannot avoid or evade service on any basis. “While
Defendants certainly enjoy the right to have service effected upon them
in a manner consistent with the applicable laws and rules, they are not
permitted to willfully evade service of process.” Smith v. Burk, No. 1:19-
CV-1018, 2021 WL 12263260, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2021) (internal
citations omitted) (citing Friedman v. Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151,
1155–56 (6th Cir. 1991); Adams v. Allied Signal General Aviation
Avionics, 74 F.3d 882, 886 (8th Cir. 1996); Manufacturers’ Industrial
Relations Assoc. v. East Akron Casting Co., 58 F.3d 204, 206–07 (6th Cir.
1995)).
Here, there is no question that Plaintiff does not know Defendant’s
identity nor an address at which Plaintiff may properly serve Defendant.
Plaintiff’s alleged wrongdoings, even if true, are not an excuse for
5 While the Court recognizes that Defendant is self-represented, it is not the
Court’s role to conduct research for her. Without citations to authority or more
information on these purported “Sixth Circuit and Michigan equity principles,” the
Court is unable to credit these arguments.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 10 of 26

11
Defendant to evade service and Defendant has not shown any authority
demonstrating otherwise. Moreover, even if Plaintiff failed to show good
cause, good cause is not necessary for the Court to extend the service
deadline. “[A] district court, even in the absence of good cause, can
exercise discretion to extend the time.” Savoie v. City of E. Lansing, No.
21-2684, 2022 WL 3643339, at *4 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2022) (collecting
cases).
Defendant’s objection related to the suit’s “bad-faith foundation” is
overruled.
C. Objection related to Michigan Court Rule
2.105(J)
Next, Defendant argues that Judge Stafford’s order permitting
alternate service is contrary to Michigan Court Rule 2.105(J), which
Defendant believes “strictly governs substituted/alternate service.” (ECF
No. 82, PageID.1138.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides that an individual
may be served by “following state law for serving a summons in an action
brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district
court is located or where service is made.” In Michigan, where the district
court is located, an individual may be served by “delivering a summons
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 11 of 26

12
and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally” or “sending a
summons and a copy of the complaint by registered or certified mail,
return receipt requested, and delivery restricted to the addressee.” Mich.
Ct. R. 2.105(A). Service by registered or certified mail is only complete
once “the defendant acknowledges receipt of the mail,” and “[a] copy of
the return receipt signed by the defendant must be attached to proof
showing service.” Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(A)(2).
The Michigan Court Rules also permit the Court to approve
alternative means of service. Michigan Court Rule 2.105(J)(1) provides,
“[o]n a showing that service of process cannot reasonably be made as
provided by this rule, the court may by order permit service of process to
be made in any other manner reasonably calculated to give the defendant
actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.”
Regarding requests for alternative means of service, Michigan Court
Rule 2.105(J)(2) states,
A request for an order under the rule must be made in a verified
motion dated not more than 14 days before it is filed. The motion
must set forth sufficient facts to show that process cannot be served
under this rule and must state the defendant’s address or last
known address, or that no address of the defendant is known. If the
name or present address of the defendant is unknown, the moving
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 12 of 26

13
party must set forth facts showing diligent inquiry to ascertain it.
A hearing on the motion is not required unless the court so directs.
The Court finds that Michigan Court Rule 2.105(J)(2) was
adequately followed. On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “supplemental
motion to compel disclosure of identity and confirmation of address used
by ‘Jane Doe.’” (ECF No. 51.) In support of this motion, Plaintiff filed a
declaration in which she declared under penalty of perjury that the
Sheridan, WY address appears to not be suitable for service because of
its link “to shell corporations, fraud reports, and service evasion
schemes,” and that Plaintiff is unable to ascertain Defendant’s identity
or true address for service. (Id. at PageID.491.) Although Plaintiff’s
motion itself is not verified, Plaintiff’s declaration is sufficient because it,
like a verified motion under this Rule, is a sworn statement that “set[s]
forth sufficient facts to show that process cannot be served under
[Michigan Court Rule 2.105].” Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(J)(2). Further,
Defendant’s identity is unknown to Plaintiff, as acknowledged numerous
times by Defendant herself. (See ECF No. 82, PageID.1127 (describing
herself as “improperly named” Danielle Robertson); id. at PageID.1143
(describing “Danielle Robertson” as a “non-existent entity”).)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 13 of 26

14
Defendant’s argument that Michigan Court Rule 2.105(J)(2)
“requires . . . a supporting affidavit with specific facts showing due
diligence at ordinary methods (personal service or restricted-delivery
certified mail to the proper addressee), including dates, times, locations,
process-server attempts, skip traces, postal inquiries, etc.” is
unsupported by citations to authority, and these requirements do not
appear in the language of the Rule itself. (ECF No. 82, PageID.1138.)
Finally, it is not clear how an attempt at ordinary methods of service
could be made when Defendant’s identity is unknown.
Thus, Defendant’s objection related to Michigan Court Rule 2.105
is overruled.
D. Objection related to “evasion narrative”
Defendant also objects on the basis of “The Evasion Narrative Fails:
Alias ≠ Concealment; Non-Existent LLC ≠ Organization.” (ECF No. 82,
PageID.1138–1139.) In this objection, Defendant argues that Plaintiff
knew that her previous attempts at service were unsuccessful, that the
use of multiple aliases cannot be construed as “proof of evasion,” and that
information related to her use and/or cancellation of a registered agent
in Dover, Delaware is “legally irrelevant.” (Id.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 14 of 26

15
Defendant’s objection does not demonstrate that Judge Stafford’s
order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As set forth by Judge
Stafford in her order, “Robertson has used several aliases and addresses
to evade service. Robertson cannot have it both ways. She may not use
anonymity simultaneously as a shield to protect her privacy and as a
sword to undermine the litigation.” (ECF No. 74, PageID.778.)
Defendant’s arguments—that Plaintiff’s attempts to serve her alias
“Danielle Robertson” and non-existent LLC are “not diligence” but “a
pretext to create a record for alternate service” or “harassment” because
Plaintiff was aware that these entities did not exist, that Defendant’s use
of many usernames was not an attempt to evade service, and that
Defendant’s prior use of a registered agent is irrelevant—are not well
taken. (ECF No. 82, PageID.1138–1139.) Plaintiff is required to attempt
to serve Defendant, and it is not clear how Plaintiff could have
legitimately served Defendant’s correct identity when Defendant’s
identity is unknown. Additionally, it is not clear why any of these
arguments entitle Defendant to avoid service.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 15 of 26

16
Defendant is “not permitted to willfully evade service of process.”
Smith, 2021 WL 12263260, at *2. As such, Defendant’s objection is
overruled.
E. Objection related to service to Defendant’s email
Defendant argues that Judge Stafford’s order authorizing Plaintiff
to serve Defendant by sending the complaint and summons to
Defendant’s email, danimontana2022@gmail.com, is not reasonably
calculated to give notice according to due process principles. (ECF No. 82,
PageID.1139–1140.) In support of this argument, Defendant continues to
argue that Plaintiff is acting in bad faith and that Plaintiff’s attempt to
serve Defendant via email would be “performative harassment.” (Id.)
Defendant’s argument is unrelated to due process and therefore
fails to demonstrate that Judge Stafford’s order is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. Again, Defendant is not entitled to evade service.
Defendant’s objection is overruled.
F. Objections related to “Rule 4(m) Defects”
Defendant argues that “Plaintiff Did Not—and Cannot—Cure Rule
4(m) Defects.” (ECF No. 82, PageID.1140.) To the extent this objection
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 16 of 26

17
repeats her previous arguments, it is overruled for the reasons set forth
in this opinion.
Similarly, Defendant’s objection titled “90-day clock” is overruled.
(Id. at PageID.1141–1142.) Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff failed to
meet the service deadline is irrelevant because Judge Stafford extended
the summons and the time to serve. (ECF No. 74, PageID.780–781.)
Defendant’s argument that this extension “cannot retroactively cure a
Rule 4(m) failure” is not supported by any citation to authority and thus
fails to demonstrate that Judge Stafford’s order is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
G. Objection related to disclosure of Defendant’s
name and an address
Defendant objects to Judge Stafford’s order to disclose her name
and an address where service can be effected. (See ECF No. 82, PageID.
1128–1133, 1136, 1140–1141.) She claims that the order permits
premature discovery and “tramples anonymous-speech protections in the
face of documented threats.” (Id. at PageID.1140–1141.) Defendant also
takes issue with Judge Stafford’s refusal to consider her improperly-filed
media exhibits. (Id. at PageID.1128, 1132.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 17 of 26

18
First, Defendant’s argument that Judge Stafford’s order permits
premature discovery is rejected. The Court reiterates that Plaintiff’s
subpoenas to nonparty Block Inc. were quashed because they were
premature pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). (See ECF
No. 62.) Plaintiff’s inability to obtain early discovery has no connection to
Defendant’s ability to stay anonymous.
Second, Defendant’s objections related to the Judge Stafford’s
refusal to consider her media exhibits are overruled. Defendant did not
properly seek leave to submit media exhibits pursuant to Rule 19(c) of
the Court’s Electronic Filing Policies and Procedure. (See ECF No. 75,
PageID.824–824; ECF No. 82, PageID.1129 (describing the exhibits as
“URLs”)); see also supra II. Judge Stafford’s refusal to consider
Defendant’s videos is warranted.
Third, Defendant’s contention that Judge Stafford’s order
“ignore[d]” exhibits submitted by Defendant is unsupported by the
record.6 (ECF No. 82, PageID.1129, 1145.) Judge Stafford’s order clearly
6 Defendant states at several points, without citation to legal authority, that
the Court should hold an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 82, PageID.1145, 1151.)
Defendant’s request is surprising considering that an evidentiary hearing would
require her to come to Court, in person, therefore making any request for anonymity
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 18 of 26

19
demonstrates familiarity with the exhibits submitted by both parties.
(See ECF No. 74, PageID.775–777.)
Fourth, Defendant claims that her exhibits to her objections
demonstrate Plaintiff’s “Collaboration with Documented Violent
Individuals” and the threats Defendant faces. (ECF No. 82,
PageID.1145–1147; see also ECF Nos. 84, 84-1, 84-2, 84-3, 84-4, 85
(exhibits to Defendant’s objections).) However, the Court cannot consider
much of the evidence submitted with Defendant’s objections because they
are improperly filed and presented to the Court. Throughout Defendant’s
exhibits, Defendant includes inappropriate commentary and argument.
(See, e.g., ECF No. 84, PageID.1274 (Defendant arguing in her “Exhibit
V” and “Exhibit W” that Plaintiff’s actions were “fraudulent” or
“intentional” misrepresentation); id. at PageID.1275 (Defendant
including in her “Exhibit X” a 230-word narrative urging the Court to
“see it from my perspective” and describing, in her own words, events
that allegedly occurred).) “The inclusion of such statements, notes, or
arguments on the exhibits themselves is neither a proper method of
moot. In any event, Defendant has not demonstrated that an evidentiary hearing is
required at this stage of the case.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 19 of 26

20
providing supporting exhibits nor a proper method of presenting
arguments to the Court.” Redus v. Revenue Cycle Serv. Ctr., LLC, No.
3:22-CV-01029, 2025 WL 2324078, at *6 n.3 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 11, 2025),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:22-CV-01029, 2025 WL
2535628 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 2, 2025). The place for argument and
explanation is in the brief, not in exhibits. The Court is concerned that
Defendant’s inclusion of arguments in her exhibits is an effort to
circumvent reasonable page limits and, as such, will not consider any
statement by Defendant included with her exhibits.
Additionally, Defendant’s exhibits are repetitive and too long.
Defendant’s exhibits to her objections total 461 pages. (ECF Nos. 84, 84-
1, 84-2, 84-3, 84-4, 85.)7 While such a voluminous evidentiary record
could be appropriate, Defendant’s submissions are inappropriately
lengthy because they are needlessly repetitive. As set forth above, see
supra II, Defendant filed the same exhibits in support of her brief two to
three times. (See ECF Nos. 83, 84, 84-1, 84-2.) Further, many of the
screenshots used in her exhibits are presented numerous times within
7 If the Court included Defendant’s stricken exhibits, her exhibits would total
558 pages. (See ECF No. 83.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 20 of 26

21
the same filing. (See, e.g., ECF No. 84-3, PageID.1436, 1500 (displaying
the same screenshot); ECF No. 85, PageID.1676, 1685 (displaying the
same screenshot).)
Moreover, hundreds of pages of Defendant’s exhibits are not
attributed to an exhibit number and are thus not clearly applicable to
any particular filing or argument. (See ECF No. 84-2, PageID.1356–1424;
ECF No. 84-3 (lacking exhibit numbers throughout the entire 88-page
filing); ECF No. 85, PageID.1605–1650, 1653–1709.)
Defendant’s brief also often lacks citations to her exhibits,
references exhibits that the Court cannot locate, or does not provide
necessary explanation or context to understand the exhibits presented to
the Court.8 For example, Defendant describes actions taken by a man
named Marquisio Watson, stating that “[d]uring one live, when Evans
and Watson argued, Plaintiff begged him not to drop her from the panel,
even as he was posting about me across his channel—with Plaintiff
assisting on panels.” (ECF No. 82, PageID.1146.) At no point in her
objection does Defendant explain why this incident demonstrates that
8 For example, the Court is unable to locate Defendant’s “Exhibits A3-1 & A3-
2” or Exhibit “A3-3.” (ECF No. 82, PageID.1146–1147.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 21 of 26

22
Watson’s threats can be attributed to Plaintiff, nor does Defendant
provide a citation to the record that supports her description of this
incident. The Court is unable to understand or credit Defendant’s
description of events without further information.
In short, because much of the factual record is improperly presented
and lacks clear explanation, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that
Judge Stafford’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Finally, Defendant generally objects to the correctness of Judge
Stafford’s opinion and that she “minimiz[es] [ ] Ongoing and Escalating
Harm.” (ECF No. 82, PageID.1144.) But Defendant does not cite to any
caselaw in support of her arguments, and much of her argument
relitigates matters already considered by Judge Stafford or concerns
improperly presented facts. Defendant’s exhibits and explanations are
deficient and fail to demonstrate that Judge Stafford’s decision is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
Defendant’s objection is overruled.
H. Objection related to “jurisdictional challenges”
Defendant’s objection titled “Jurisdictional Challenges” is also
overruled. (ECF No. 82, PageID.1142–1143.) The Court notes that this
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 22 of 26

23
objection does not specifically identify a part of the order to which it
objects, in violation of Local Rule 72.1(d). Additionally, Judge Stafford’s
order does not make any determinations regarding jurisdiction.
To the extent that Defendant intends to challenge Judge Stafford’s
entire order on the basis that she lacks jurisdiction to issue the order,
that objection is also overruled.
Defendant first claims that the Court lacks federal question subject
matter jurisdiction because “the foundation of the suit is flawed, resting
on a fraudulent DMCA claim.” (ECF No. 82, PageID.1143.) The merits of
Plaintiff’s claims are not a proper basis to challenge federal question
subject matter jurisdiction. See Teamsters Loc. Union 480 v. United
Parcel Serv., Inc., 748 F.3d 281, 286 (6th Cir. 2014) (“Subject-matter
jurisdiction is not a merits question . . . . Subject-matter jurisdiction
‘presents an issue quite separate from the question whether the
allegations the plaintiff makes entitle him to relief.’ (quoting Morrison v.
Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 254 (2010))).
The Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over a
suit if “a federal question [ ] appear[s] on the face of the complaint.” Chase
Bank USA, N.A. v. City of Cleveland, 695 F.3d 548, 554 (6th Cir. 2012)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 23 of 26

24
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331). Here, Plaintiff brings claims of copyright
infringement under federal law. (See ECF No. 1, PageID.7; ECF No. 75,
PageID.825.) As such, the suit arises from a federal law and the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.9
Defendant’s arguments related to service and personal
jurisdiction are overruled. The Court permits alternate service and
issued an extension of the deadline for service.
Finally, Defendant’s argument that the order for Defendant to
reveal her identity should be “postponed until the plaintiff can
demonstrate a prima facie case supporting the claims” is overruled. (ECF
No. 82, PageID.1143.) Defendant does not provide any legal basis or
authority for that argument and thus fails to demonstrate that Judge
Stafford’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
9 Even if the Court lacked federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the
suit, Defendant’s argument that the Court lacks diversity subject matter jurisdiction
would not succeed. The Court is unable to determine whether there is complete
diversity in this case because Defendant refuses to share information about herself.
Defendant “may not use anonymity simultaneously as a shield to protect her privacy
and as a sword to undermine the litigation.” (ECF No. 74, PageID.778.)
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 24 of 26

25
IV. Defendant’s 	statement 	related 	to 	“litigation
misconduct”
Defendant accuses Plaintiff of “engag[ing] in pre-suit scrubbing and
post-filing concealment of core materials.” (ECF No. 82, PageID.1147–
1149.) It is not clear what relief Defendant seeks in this part of her filing.
To the extent this section of the brief intends to object to Judge Stafford’s
order, it is overruled. Defendant does not specify the part of Judge
Stafford’s order to which she objects, in violation of Local Rule 72.1(d).
Additionally, Defendant’s argument that this “misconduct” “warrant[s]
adverse inferences and weigh against compel[ing] [Defendant’s] identity
or alternate service” is perfunctory and unsupported by any authority.
(ECF No. 82, PageID.1149.)
To the extent that this section is intended to be a motion pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) (see ECF No. 82, PageID.1148),
it is denied as premature. Discovery in this case has not begun.
V. 	Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s objections to
Magistrate Judge Stafford’s order (ECF No. 82) are OVERRULED,
Defendant’s motion to stay is DENIED AS MOOT (id.), Defendant’s
objections to Magistrate Judge Stafford’s order striking ECF No. 83 are
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 25 of 26

26
OVERRULED (ECF No. 94), and Defendant’s motion for leave to submit
video evidence is DENIED. (Id.)
Further, the Court’s order staying Defendant Danielle Robertson’s
deadline to file a written notice identifying her legal name and postal
address is VACATED. (ECF No. 95.) Defendant must file this written
notice by December 15, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 4, 2025 	s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 4, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 118, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 26 of 26