Spencer, Heru v. The Church of Prismatic Light et al

Filing 149

ORDER Plaintiff Heru Spencer's responses to defendant Tiffany Wait's discovery responses and objections, Dkt. 141 , is STRUCK as unauthorized by the court. See Dkt. 146 (striking unauthorized responses ). Spencer's motions for subpoenas, Dkts. 135-140, are DENIED. Defendants Wait and Clark have until February 3, 2025, to file their responses to plaintiff's discovery requests, Dkts. 129-131, as modified in this order. The court will accept no additional discovery requests from Wait or Spencer. Clark has until January 13, 2025, to file her discovery requests, if any. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor on 01/03/2025. (acd),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

HERU SPENCER
and DJEDI ORDER d/b/a
THE CHURCH OF PRISMATIC LIGHT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CHURCH OF PRISMATIC LIGHT,
TIFFANY FAITH WAIT,
and JERI CLARK,

ORDER
22-cv-257-wmc

Defendants.
At the December 12, 2024 telephonic scheduling conference, the court ordered the
parties to submit their discovery requests to the court by January 13, 2025 so the court could
review and modify the requests as appropriate prior to requiring the opposing party’s response.
Dkt. 126. This order addresses plaintiff Heru Spencer’s discovery requests for defendants
Tiffany Wait and Jeri Clark, Dkts. 129–131, and his requests for subpoenas, Dkts. 135–140
and 144–145. 1
A. Spencer’s discovery requests for Wait and Clark
The court has reviewed Spencer’s interrogatories and requests for production for
defendants Clark and Wait. Dkts. 129–131. As noted in the court’s prior discovery order
concerning Wait’s discovery requests, Dkt. 128, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount

1

Spencer has also filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff The Church of Prismatic Light. Dkt. 132.
The court will address that motion in a separate order.

in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery
need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The court
will order defendants Wait and Clark to respond to Spencer’s requests to the best of their
ability with the following exceptions and modifications.
1. Spencer’s Interrogatories
Interrogatories Nos. 1, 4, and 5. Spencer asks about Clark’s and Wait’s earnings,
and he asks how much the defendant Church made “in donations, gifts, sponsorships, TikTok
monetization, and any other monetization.” Dkts. 129, ¶¶ 1, 4, 5 & 130, ¶¶ 1, 4, 5. Spencer
notes in his similar request for production that such information “could demonstrate consumer
and commerce confusion,” and use of the trademark in interstate and international commerce.
Dkt. 131, ¶ 9. He does not explain how this is so, and without a more concrete nexus between
the defendant Church’s use of the asserted trademark, the court is not convinced that the scope
of the defendant Church’s financial reach or Wait and Clark’s personal financial gains are
relevant to the case at this point. If anything, the requested financial information speaks to
damages, and that issue is premature. Because the minimum probative value of the requested
information is outweighed by other considerations, the court will not require either Wait or
Clark to produce any financial information for themselves, the defendant Church, or any other
individual at this time. The court is open to revisiting this issue as the case progresses.
Interrogatory No. 2. Spencer asks defendants whether they have interviewed with
certain media outlets and were planning to appear on a late-night talk show. Dkts. 129, ¶ 2 &
130, ¶ 2. To the extent either defendant made a media appearance or gave an interview that

2

concerned Spencer and plaintiff Church of Prismatic Light, they must disclose that
information.

Otherwise, defendants’ unrelated media appearances are not tethered to

Spencer’s claims, so defendants need not include this irrelevant information.
Interrogatories Nos. 14, 16, 19, and 20. Spencer requests that defendants explain:
•

Whether “the public was confused who first used the name ‘the Church of Prismatic
Light’” when the defendant Church was founded, Dkts. 129, ¶ 14 & 130, ¶ 14;

•

Why “everyone on TikTok [thought] the trademark name belonged to you and the
church in Oklahoma,” Dkts. 129, ¶ 16 & 130, ¶ 16; and

•

Whether “the newspapers and the public still think you created the name and the
church,” Dkts. 129, ¶ 19 & 130, ¶ 19.

These interrogatories require defendants to speculate about the beliefs and opinions of other
people and presume that a general confusion between the two churches exists. As discussed
below, defendants must produce any comments, messages, videos, or other documentation in
which an individual expresses confusion between the two churches and/or mistakes one church
for the other, but defendants are not required to speculate beyond their personal knowledge
about what other people may have been thinking.
As for Interrogatory No. 20, Spencer asks defendants what they have done to “correct
the general confusion around the two churches, who started the church, and who owns the
trademark name.” Dkts. 129, ¶ 20 & 130, ¶ 20. In response, defendants can state whether
they have taken any steps to mitigate confusion, without admitting that such confusion does
exist.
Remaining Interrogatories. Defendants will be required to provide sworn responses
to Spencer’s remaining interrogatories in addition to those modified above. Specifically, Clark

3

and Wait must respond to Interrogatories Nos. 2–3, 6–13, 15, 17–18, and 20–25 to the
best of their ability. But in their responses, defendants need not speculate about information
or events outside their personal knowledge.

Specifically, the court notes that there is

duplication in the interrogatories to each defendant even though some appear better directed
to one defendant or the other. Clark and Wait need not attempt to answer for the other—
Clark should answer only to her personal knowledge, and likewise, Wait should answer only to
her personal knowledge.
2. Spencer’s requests for production
Defendants will also be required to produce certain documents in response to Spencer’s
requests for production, but the court STRIKES certain requests as overbroad, duplicative,
irrelevant, and disproportionate to the needs of this case.
Requests Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 9. As discussed above, defendants do not need to respond
to Spencer’s requests for financial information. Dkt. 131, ¶¶ 1, 2, 5, 9. Production of such
information would be premature at this stage.
Request No. 7. Also as discussed above, defendants do not need to produce any
documentation in response to Spencer’s request concerning “[c]ommunication with the media”
except for any such communications that concerned Spencer and his Church of Prismatic Light.
Id., ¶ 7.
Remaining Document Requests. Spencer’s remaining requests for production seek
communications from, with, or within the defendant Church and defendants, and their
followers. Id., ¶¶ 3, 4, 6, 8. To the extent Spencer requests all meeting minutes, emails, direct
messages,

private

messages,

social

media

comments

and

conversations,

written

communications, or texts, that is much too broad. So, the court will modify these requests and

4

order defendants to produce only those documents and recordings in their possession that
reference Spencer and plaintiff Church of Prismatic Light.
If Spencer requests documents that defendants do not possess, defendants must swear
they have no such documents under oath.
B. Spencer’s requests for subpoenas
The court has also reviewed Spencer’s requests for subpoenas, Dkts. 135–140 and 144–
145, and will not issue any at this time. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 authorizes the
court where an action is pending to issue a subpoena requiring attendance at a deposition or
production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things; however, the
rule provides heightened protections for nonparties from unnecessary and burdensome
discovery.
Spencer requests subpoenas for the depositions of defendants Wait and Clark, and
nonparties Ida Hamilton, Samantha Costa, Maili Rafaele, and Katrina Rose Wolff. Spencer
does not explain why he seeks to depose any of these individuals, so the court cannot determine
whether their depositions would be necessary at this stage and the least burdensome means of
obtaining the information sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (a court must limit the
extent or frequency of discovery if the discovery sought can be obtained from a more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source).
Perhaps equally problematic, Spencer also requests that the depositions be conducted
through the court’s Zoom platform “so that a court reporter can record the conversation.” E.g.,
Dkt. 135 at 1. The court will not facilitate Spencer’s depositions or act as an intermediary;
specifically, the court cannot lend a party a court reporter or pay for the services of a court
reporter. If Spencer means to depose someone orally, he will have to pay the court reporter or

5

stenographer costs, as well as witness fees, but he has not indicated that he is prepared to do
so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(A) (requiring the noticing party to pay for recording costs).
Spencer also requests subpoenas for documents from defendant The Church of
Prismatic Light Inc and nonparty ByteDance Ltd. and its subsidiary TikTok, Inc. Dkts. 144
& 145. The court will not issue these subpoenas either. Specifically, Spencer would seek
production from the defendant Church of all “electronic stored data, direct messages comment
sections & all videos from [the Church’s social media accounts], financial documents, business
documents, internal emails, direct messages, communications, minutes, meetings minutes.”
Dkt. 145 at 1. From ByteDance, Spencer would seek production of all “electronic stored data,
direct messages comment sections & all videos from” the social media accounts of defendants
and two nonparties, as well as “the information of monetization on all of these accounts, any
ByteDance contracts or talent contracts with these accounts,” and “any brand name deals or
contracts as well.” Dkt. 144 at 1 & Dkt. 144-1 at 1. These requests are far too broad and
disproportionate to the needs of this case because they seek all information from the target
accounts regardless of whether the information is relevant to Spencer’s claims.

Also, as

discussed above, Spencer is requesting production of certain documents from defendants Wait
and Clark and, so these subpoenas seek duplicative information.
The court will discuss the need for any further document production and depositions
with the parties at the telephonic status conference to be set once the parties have filed their
sworn responses to all approved discovery requests. 2

2

Spencer has filed his response to Wait’s discovery requests. Dkt. 147. Defendant Clark has
until January 13, 2025 to file any discovery requests. Dkt. 126.

6

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Heru Spencer’s responses to defendant Tiffany Wait’s discovery responses
and objections, Dkt. 141, is STRUCK as unauthorized by the court. See Dkt. 146
(striking unauthorized responses).
2. Spencer’s motions for subpoenas, Dkts. 135–140, are DENIED.
3. Defendants Wait and Clark have until February 3, 2025, to file their responses to
plaintiff’s discovery requests, Dkts. 129–131, as modified in this order:
a. Clark, Dkt. 130, and Wait, Dkt. 129, must respond to interrogatory nos.
2– 3, 6–13, 15, 17–18, & 20–25.
b. Clark and Wait must produce all documents and recordings in their
possession that reference Spencer and plaintiff The Church of Prismatic
Light, which are responsive to the modified requests for production nos. 3,
4, & 6–8, Dkt. 131.
4. The court will accept no additional discovery requests from Wait or Spencer. Clark
has until January 13, 2025, to file her discovery requests, if any.

Entered January 3, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge

7