Overview
Melina Chatarina Emmy Göransson is Steven K. Bonnell II’s former spouse, a resident of Sweden, and a non-party witness in Doe v. Bonnell (1-25-cv-20757). She is the target of plaintiff’s only foreign-discovery filing, Doe v Bonnell Hague motion (ECF 145) (October 7, 2025), and is named by plaintiff both as a corroborating witness and as one of the women alleged to have received non-consensual intimate imagery from Bonnell. As of April 2026 she has not been deposed; the Hague Convention request has been transmitted to the Swedish Ministry of Justice but has not produced testimony.
Key Facts
- Relationship to Bonnell: former spouse. Explicitly named in the Amended Complaint (ECF 120 ¶34) as a relevant witness.
- Residence: Sweden. The specific address and Swedish region have not been made public in the filings reviewed.
- Communicated with plaintiff about the lawsuit before filing. Doe v Bonnell ECF235 — Bonnell Opposition to Trial Continuance states: “Plaintiff’s own document production confirms that Plaintiff communicated extensively with Ms. Göransson about this lawsuit months before filing it.”
- Plaintiff’s stated purpose for seeking her deposition: corroborate Pxie’s allegations regarding lack of consent; testify about Bonnell’s character; identify additional women to whom Bonnell transmitted explicit content; as a potential “another victim of Bonnell’s unlawful conduct” in her own right.
- Hague Convention timeline:
- October 7, 2025: Plaintiff files Doe v Bonnell Hague motion (ECF 145) seeking Letter of Request. Motion is unopposed by Bonnell.
- Court grants leave to depose (ECF 166).
- Mid-December 2025: Hague Convention letter transmitted to U.S. Department of State and submitted to Swedish Ministry of Justice.
- February 2026: Swedish Ministry of Justice confirms the request is being processed.
- April 2026: still no deposition scheduled; Plaintiff cites the pending foreign deposition in Doe v Bonnell continuance motion (ECF 227) as a reason to continue the May 18, 2026 trial.
- One of ~15 women named in pattern allegations: plaintiff’s complaint alleges that ~15 women contacted her after the November 2024 leak reporting they had received sexually explicit images of other women from Bonnell without consent. Göransson is one of the women plaintiff has named specifically (alongside “Stasia,” “Chaeiry,” and others).
Newsletter Relevance
Göransson is the reachability-routing counter-example. Of all the potential foreign witnesses and actors in this case, she is the one plaintiff actually invoked the Hague Convention to reach — not Solo (Ben Conway), the UK-based catfisher who caused the underlying harm. That targeting choice is evidence for a sharper version of Reachability Routing: the problem isn’t only that international civil discovery is slow and fragile. It’s that the party with standing to invoke it has no incentive to aim it at the proximate cause of the harm. Plaintiff’s Hague motion is being aimed at a peripheral witness favorable to plaintiff’s case theory, not at the person the system’s outraged readers assume the civil system should be trying to reach.
Connections
- Steven K. Bonnell II — former spouse; would testify to his character and conduct
- Jane Doe (Pxie) — communicated with plaintiff about the lawsuit months before it was filed; now a potential corroborating witness
- Doe v. Bonnell (1-25-cv-20757) — non-party witness
- Reachability Routing — her Hague motion is the direct evidence of what the concept looks like operationally
Source Appearances
- Doe v Bonnell Hague motion (ECF 145) — the primary filing; establishes her as the target of the only foreign-discovery motion in the case
- Doe v Bonnell ECF139 — Plaintiff Opposition to MTD (False Minor Footnote) — first mention of her Sweden residence and the pending Hague request
- Doe v Bonnell ECF163 — Motion for Protective Order (Deposition Scheduling) — notes the Hague request is pending (ECF 145/166)
- Doe v Bonnell ECF216 — Plaintiff Rule 56(d) Motion to Defer MSJ — plaintiff argues the pending Göransson deposition is among the reasons to defer summary judgment
- Doe v Bonnell ECF218 — Bonnell Opposition to Rule 56(d) Motion — defense argues plaintiff’s eight-month delay in seeking foreign discovery is not excusable
- Doe v Bonnell ECF235 — Bonnell Opposition to Trial Continuance — cites plaintiff’s own prior filings acknowledging Göransson’s testimony “may still [be] secure[d] … for purposes of trial” even if not obtained before discovery cutoff
- Doe v Bonnell continuance motion (ECF 227) — Göransson deposition is the “foreign deposition (via letter rogatory)” referenced as pending
Open Questions
- What is her actual relationship to the conduct plaintiff alleges — recipient of non-consensual imagery, corroborating spouse, pattern victim, or some combination?
- What was the nature of her pre-suit communication with plaintiff? Months of communication before filing suggests she may be more than a peripheral witness — possibly a co-organizer, pattern witness, or mutual support contact.
- Will the Swedish Ministry of Justice actually produce her deposition before trial? As of April 2026 the answer looks like “no.”
- If her deposition does proceed, what is her posture toward testifying — cooperative, reluctant, or hostile to either side?