The Civic Node

Doe v Bonnell ECF231 — Plaintiff Opposition to Bonnell Omnibus MIL

5 min read

Original source

Summary

Plaintiff’s April 13, 2026 opposition to Bonnell’s omnibus motion in limine (ECF 222). Plaintiff contests each of Bonnell’s three exclusion requests: (1) evidence about Rose’s minor status is factually disputed and relevant; (2) Abbymc’s evidence cannot be excluded based on Bonnell’s own failure to enforce his subpoena; (3) Plaintiff’s pseudonym should be maintained through trial under binding Eleventh Circuit authority. The filing also reveals that Rose testified at her deposition that Solo showed her the videos Bonnell sent — including “a handful” — meaning Bonnell effectively transmitted content to a minor through an intermediary even under Bonnell’s own catfishing framing.

Key Points

  • Minor allegation: Bonnell did not properly confer on the hearsay/authentication/Rule 403 arguments before filing the MIL — failure to confer is itself grounds for denial under S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1.
  • Rose deposition testimony reveals important nuance: Solo showed Rose (ECF 185-2, deposition cites) “a handful of videos that Destiny sent” via the “impostor” account. Rose also knew that images she and others took of themselves would be provided to Bonnell. Plaintiff argues this means Bonnell intended to share with Rose, sent the video to an account in her name, and Rose received “at least a handful” of those videos — making the “transmitted to a minor” assertion non-false even under Bonnell’s catfishing theory.
  • Rule 404(b) argument for minor evidence: even if the “catfishing” defense is accepted, evidence about the minor-age context is still probative of Bonnell’s “knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake in engaging in sexually explicit exchanges” and the “foreseeability and risk inherent in disseminating intimate material in anonymous online environments.”
  • Abbymc exclusion: The key factual disputes Bonnell’s obstruction narrative —
    • Abbymc is a non-party not under Plaintiff’s control; Plaintiff’s counsel expressly told Bonnell’s counsel they did not represent Abbymc for purposes of service.
    • Abbymc was reportedly homeless for an extended period, making an address unavailable.
    • Bonnell successfully served Abbymc November 21, 2025 (nearly a month before the December 16 deadline); he then failed to move to compel or seek contempt. Having chosen not to enforce his own subpoena, Bonnell cannot manufacture prejudice.
    • A motion in limine is not a substitute for a motion to compel.
    • Bonnell knew Abbymc personally (had an intimate relationship with her starting May 2023) and was in contact with her well after suit was filed; she was not a stranger to him.
  • Abbymc exhibit authentication: Abbymc attested under penalty of perjury she personally sent the message; her declaration describes the same November 3, 2023 communication. Authentication threshold under Rule 901 is “not high”; remaining disputes go to weight, not admissibility. The exhibit is also admissible as a prior consistent statement (Rule 801(d)(1)(B)) and as a contemporaneous statement (Rule 803(1)).
  • Pseudonym: Court granted pseudonymity at the outset (ECF 7) with no limitation to pretrial; Bonnell never moved to modify or dissolve the order. The CARDII statute specifically provides for pseudonymity (15 U.S.C. § 6851(b)(3)(B)). Doe v. Neverson (11th Cir. 2020) reversed denial of trial-stage pseudonymity; concrete record here of Bonnell publicizing the case, disclosing sensitive information, and targeting Plaintiff, counsel, and witnesses online.
  • The pseudonym does not create unfair prejudice: Bonnell has long known Plaintiff’s identity and had full discovery. Plaintiff uses “Pxie” publicly (not her legal name); the GiveSendGo fundraiser that Bonnell cites as public use of her legal name was originally posted under that name but does not constitute a waiver.

Newsletter Angles

  • The Solo-as-intermediary argument is the most legally novel: Plaintiff’s position is that even under Bonnell’s catfishing theory, he was transmitting explicit content to “Rose’s account” knowing Rose would see it — meaning the catfishing defense doesn’t insulate Bonnell from the minor argument but merely changes its structure.
  • The CARDII pseudonymity provision (§ 6851(b)(3)(B)) directly supports Plaintiff’s position; this is likely how future CARDII plaintiffs will argue for trial-stage anonymity.
  • The Abbymc subpoena enforcement point is legally correct: Bonnell had nearly a month to move to compel after serving her; he did not. This failure to enforce arguably waives any claim of prejudice — even if Plaintiff did obstruct earlier access.

Entities Mentioned

Concepts Mentioned

Quotes

“Rose admitting she was shown ‘a handful of videos that Destiny sent’ via the ‘impostor’ account.” — ECF 231 at 3 (citing Rose deposition, ECF 185-2)

“Defendant ‘simply waited to cry prejudice after discovery closed and the case was set for trial.‘” — ECF 231 at 9, quoting Go Mobile Flooring v. Blue Banyan Solutions (M.D. Fla. 2023)

“Defendant knew Abbymc for years before the Plaintiff did.” — ECF 231 at 6

Notes

  • Filed same day as ECF 230 (Bonnell’s opposition to Plaintiff’s MIL) — a coordinated cross-filing of MIL oppositions on April 13, 2026.
  • Plaintiff’s footnote 2 also takes a shot at Bonnell’s Rule 11 motion: “Plaintiff is the victim, and Defendant has admitted to his ‘despicable conduct,’ which is a violation of the law, thus he destroyed his own reputation.”
  • The Rose deposition excerpts cited here (ECF 185-2) indicate that Plaintiff’s own opposition to the Rule 11 motion (ECF 185) contains significant deposition testimony that is partially inconsistent with Bonnell’s Rule 11 motion characterization.
  • Trial date: May 18, 2026. Calendar Call pending. Plaintiff separately filed a continuance motion (ECF 227, opposed at ECF 235).

Graph View

Backlinks