bears, bears, beards and tech
![screenshot of a proposed order:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
Alyssa Mercante,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 24-CV-8471 (MKB) (LKE)
Jeff Tarzia, [PROPOSED] ORDER
Defendant.
X
WHEREAS, Defendant was ordered to produce certain discovery from the “SmashJT” Discord
server (with unique ID 434085551080079373) (the “Server”);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has raised objection to the format and blanket Attorneys’ Eyes Only
designation applied in what was produced on April 29 and April 30, 2026;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties have agreed and stipulated, by and through their counsel, and
ask the Court to So Order as follows:
1. Access. Defendant shall provide read-only access to “mod” channels on the Server for the two
accounts — Remy Green (“remygreen” account with unique ID previously provided) and
Kathryn Tewson (“BiscuitsMontana” account with unique ID previously provided) (together,
the “Accounts”) — already on the Server. This does not require Defendant to provide access to
any other counsel, associates, paralegals, experts, or third parties at Plaintiff’s direction without
Defendant's written consent. General-channel access shall continue at current permission level.
This agreement only applies to the Server and no other Discord server.
2. Pre-Review Stage. The parties shall move through production in two stages. At the first stage,
Defendant shall provide the access contemplated in ¶ 1, above. During that stage:
a. AEO designation. All material observed in the server—mod channels going forward,
and general channels retroactive to the date Plaintiff's counsel joined—is designated
AEO under ECF 52 ¶ 5 to the extent it implicates third-party privacy interests or
identifying information about non-parties. The designation attaches conditionally, when
the ¶ 5 trigger is met; it is not a representation that all observed material is AEO.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:uuhproo7lsog7xp5lk3gladi/bafkreifcoweu5v3kqay2dzwtz7iv67quwlizkxanuexvutsutnyhaxowma)
![Il. Defendant's Motion Fails on the Merits.
A.
Defendant is an administrator on the server and maintains full access and control.
The substance of Defendant's motion also falls far short. First, he says he does not have control of the relevant documents. Nonsense. Defendant's role on his own Discord is "Admin." Exhibit 5. Indeed, during the meet and confer, Defendant's counsel suggested the discrepancy in search results likely was "because [Defendant]'s an admin." On Discord, the "Admin" role "is the most powerful role permission. It grants all permissions and bypasses all channel restrictions|.!" That is, there is no power, access, or ability restricted to other members that Defendant does not possess. So, Defendant's claim that he is "unfamiliar with its administrative functions" (Motion at
3) has nothing to do with whether he legally has custody and control. As the Court put it well the last time Defendant pled this sort of incompetence, "then you may need to consult with someone else to get that information to [Plaintiff] because there's someone who knows how to do this."
2026-02-09 Tr. at 28-29.
B. Defendant does not meaningfully address the interaction between access for Plaintiff, audit logs, and Defendant doing review.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:uuhproo7lsog7xp5lk3gladi/bafkreie5hxcvjewhs7awpfpbuwz2kzkf6mf2hhykchozcngfr3bd4lxyca)
bears, bears, beards and tech