The Civic Node

Doe v Bonnell ECF218 — Bonnell Opposition to Rule 56(d) Motion

4 min read

Original source

Summary

Bonnell’s February 26, 2026 opposition to Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion (ECF 216), arguing Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the MSJ substantively is attributable to her own lack of diligence over ten months of discovery, not to any obstruction by Bonnell. The brief systematically rebuts each of Plaintiff’s three grounds for deferral — no Bonnell deposition, deficient document production, and potential spoliation — arguing that each was a self-inflicted wound and that Rule 56(d) does not provide shelter from the consequences of inaction.

Key Points

  • The “active discovery period was only three-and-a-half months” argument (ECF 216) is described as “absurd”: discovery opened when the case was filed; the parties never agreed to stay discovery; no court order stayed discovery during the protective order motion.
  • Even accepting Plaintiff’s framing, seven months of discovery would have been adequate under Eleventh Circuit precedent (Reflectone, Mijne).
  • Plaintiff’s failure to depose Bonnell: Plaintiff failed to appear for her own noticed deposition on November 3, 2025 without seeking a protective order. The Court’s resulting stay (ECF 167) was a consequence of Plaintiff’s own conduct. She had already cross-examined Bonnell under oath at the June 3, 2025 preliminary injunction hearing.
  • Plaintiff’s failure to file timely discovery motions: despite accusing Bonnell of spoliation since the very first hearing (April 4, 2025), Plaintiff never filed a spoliation motion during the ten-month discovery period. The Court itself noted in October 2025: “It is now October of 2025 and there is no such [spoliation] motion on the docket.”
  • Göransson deposition in Sweden: Plaintiff waited nearly eight months (until October 7, 2025) to file the Hague Convention motion, then previously admitted in that motion’s reply brief that Göransson’s testimony might not be needed until trial. She cannot now argue it’s essential to oppose summary judgment.
  • The sole dispositive issue is jurisdictional — whether any post-October 1, 2022 transmission of the video occurred. Bonnell’s deposition testimony on this narrow factual question would add nothing given Bonnell already testified on this point at the preliminary injunction hearing where Plaintiff cross-examined him.
  • All exhibits in the MSJ were previously produced during discovery; Bonnell withheld no documents cited in the motion.
  • Rule 56(d) “does not shield litigants from the consequences of their own inaction”; case law requires denial where the party “had ample time and opportunity for discovery, yet failed to diligently pursue her options.”
  • The Rule 56(d) motion amounts to Plaintiff “admit[ting] that no evidence exists to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”

Newsletter Angles

  • The opposition reframes the entire litigation history as a story of plaintiff-side inaction: filed the case, refused a protective order for three months (delaying discovery), failed to appear for deposition, never filed a spoliation motion, waited 8 months to seek foreign discovery — and now asks for more time. Whether that framing is fair depends heavily on the deposition stay.
  • The jurisdictional argument has now been tested at every procedural stage: TRO, preliminary injunction, Rule 12(b)(1), and now summary judgment. Each time, Bonnell has advanced the same core claim: the only provable transmission predates CARDII. After a year of litigation, Plaintiff has produced no direct evidence to contradict it.
  • The “process is the punishment” critique cuts both ways: Plaintiff is using procedural motions to delay a dispositive ruling; Bonnell is using the same procedural tools to force an early resolution.

Entities Mentioned

Concepts Mentioned

  • Catfishing as Legal Gap — implicitly: the MSJ is grounded in the catfishing revelation from AH’s deposition
  • Reachability Routing — not addressed here; Bonnell focuses on the diligence argument, not rebutting the CDN theory

Quotes

“By failing to oppose Bonnell’s MSJ and instead pursuing relief under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff admits that no evidence exists to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction here.” — ECF 218 at 1

“It is now October of 2025 and there is no such [spoliation] motion on the docket.” — Court’s October 6, 2025 Order, quoted at ECF 218 at 8

“Even assuming, arguendo, that discovery was constrained during the pendency of her motion for protective order, Plaintiff still had approximately seven months to conduct discovery, which is more than adequate as a matter of law.” — ECF 218 at 4

Notes

  • Filed February 26, 2026; the MSJ (ECF 210) and Rule 56(d) motion (ECF 216) are still pending as of the April 2026 MIL filings.
  • The Court is also, at this time, deciding whether to sanction Plaintiff and her attorneys for the November 3 deposition no-show (per ECF 167).
  • Melina Göransson’s full name appears in this filing (Göransson), establishing the Swedish ex-wife as a named figure in the record.

Graph View

Backlinks