The Civic Node

Doe v Bonnell ECF163 — Motion for Protective Order (Deposition Scheduling)

4 min read

Original source

Summary

Bonnell’s November 4, 2025 motion for a protective order directing that both parties’ depositions be coordinated during the same week, filed the day after Plaintiff failed to appear for her duly noticed deposition. The filing chronicles a months-long back-and-forth over deposition scheduling and culminates in Plaintiff’s no-show on November 3, 2025. Bonnell asks the court to require both depositions during the week of November 24–25, seeks sanctions of over $10,875 in fees and costs incurred from the wasted trip to Miami, and argues Plaintiff cannot refuse her own deposition while demanding Bonnell appear for his.

Key Points

  • September 17, 2025: Plaintiff’s counsel first requested Bonnell’s deposition between October 22 – November 19.
  • September 26, 2025: Plaintiff offered November 5 or 6 for Bonnell’s deposition but claimed Plaintiff was unavailable all of November for her own deposition.
  • October 2, 2025: Bonnell proposed both depositions on November 24–25; Plaintiff’s counsel rejected this.
  • November 3, 2025: Bonnell’s counsel traveled to Miami for Plaintiff’s noticed deposition at 10:00 a.m. EST; neither Plaintiff nor any of her counsel appeared; Bonnell’s counsel waited until 10:30 a.m.
  • Plaintiff did not seek a protective order before her noticed deposition date, despite having previously inquired about Bonnell’s position on a prospective protective order.
  • Plaintiff’s counsel had previously said “We will not waste the Court’s time, or Plaintiff’s resources, by filing a motion for a protective order.”
  • Bonnell’s requested relief: protective order coordinating depositions for November 24 (Plaintiff) and 25 (Bonnell), plus sanctions of $10,875+ under Rules 26(c) and 37(a)(4).
  • Legal standard: courts routinely coordinate depositions occurring in the same location; strong presumption plaintiff must sit for deposition in the forum where she filed suit.
  • Magistrate Judge Torres responded November 5, 2025 with an order staying Bonnell’s November 6 deposition pending resolution (ECF 167), and separately ordering Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be entered under Rule 37.

Newsletter Angles

  • The deposition scheduling standoff is a recurring pattern in this litigation: Plaintiff takes aggressive positions, forces Bonnell to seek judicial intervention, then the court’s resolution creates cascading procedural consequences (here, the stay on Bonnell’s deposition blocked him from being deposed before the December 16 discovery deadline).
  • From a “process is the punishment” framing: even when Bonnell “wins” a motion (Plaintiff has to appear for deposition), the procedural machinery grinds on — her no-show triggers a stay on his deposition, which becomes a central grievance in her later Rule 56(d) motion.
  • The dollar amounts here — $10,875 for a wasted deposition trip — illustrate the concrete financial costs of discovery gamesmanship in a case where both sides are litigating at maximum intensity.

Entities Mentioned

Concepts Mentioned

  • Catfishing as Legal Gap — tangential; the deposition dispute is partly downstream of Bonnell’s jurisdictional challenge
  • streamer-civil-litigation — the logistics of deposing a pseudonymous plaintiff across state lines are procedurally unusual

Quotes

“We will not waste the Court’s time, or Plaintiff’s resources, by filing a motion for a protective order … .” — Plaintiff’s counsel (Peters), October 27, 2025

“Plaintiff cannot have it both ways.” — ECF 163 at 1

Notes

  • This motion directly caused the Stay Order (ECF 167, November 5, 2025) that prevented Bonnell’s deposition from proceeding before the December 16, 2025 discovery cutoff — making it the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s later Rule 56(d) motion (ECF 216) and motion for trial continuance (ECF 227/235).
  • The deposition dispute is one of several parallel procedural fights running simultaneously: Rule 11 sanctions (ECF 183), motion to dismiss (ECF 132), discovery deficiency letters, and the Abbymc subpoena effort all overlap during October–November 2025.
  • Melina Göransson (Bonnell’s ex-wife in Sweden) is also under a Hague Convention deposition request (ECF 145/166) pending at this time.

Graph View

Backlinks