Original PDF (RECAP archive via CourtListener) · 7 pages · filed October 7, 2025 · unopposed
Summary
Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a Letter of Request under the Hague Convention, seeking to compel deposition testimony and document production from Melina Göransson — Bonnell’s former spouse, a resident of Sweden. This is the only foreign-discovery motion in the Doe v. Bonnell (1-25-cv-20757) docket. It targets Göransson, not Solo (Ben Conway). No letter rogatory has been filed against Solo, in the UK or anywhere else.
Filed 231 days after the complaint (filed February 18, 2025) and 70 days before the December 16, 2025 discovery cutoff. ECF 235 (April 17, 2026) notes this timing in support of defendant’s argument that plaintiff was not diligent in pursuing foreign discovery. As of April 19, 2026, the Letter of Request has not yet produced deposition testimony; ECF 227 lists “a foreign deposition (via letter rogatory) remains pending” as one ground for continuing the May 18, 2026 trial.
Key Points
- Target: Melina Chatarina Emmy Göransson, Bonnell’s former spouse, Swedish resident.
- Jurisdiction: Sweden. The motion invokes the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad (23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. No. 7444) and the comity-based Aerospatiale five-factor test.
- Unopposed: Certificate of conferral states that “Defendant does not oppose this motion.” This is procedurally significant: Bonnell’s team let the letter rogatory proceed without contesting it, likely because Göransson’s testimony, if she actually appears, is likely to be contested on relevance/admissibility grounds at trial rather than at the request stage.
- Stated purpose (from the motion): Göransson is “expected to corroborate Plaintiff’s allegations, including those allegations regarding Bonnell’s lack of consent to disclose the Video”; “is—or is believed to be—another victim of Bonnell’s unlawful conduct”; “would testify to Bonnell’s character”; and is “expressly mentioned in the Amended Complaint as a relevant witness” at ECF 120 ¶34.
- Aerospatiale factors (plaintiff’s argument): (1) importance to litigation — high, Göransson is “uniquely positioned”; (2) specificity — request is specific; (3) US-origin of information — conduct and communications originated in the US; (4) alternative means — unavailable, Göransson’s knowledge is “unique and central”; (5) comity balance — Swedish interests do not outweigh US interests.
- Mechanics: Motion attaches a proposed Letter of Request as Exhibit A in the form recommended by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. A certified Swedish translation by Kammarkollegiet (Sweden’s Legal, Financial, and Administrative Services Agency) to be provided upon approval.
- No Solo, no UK. The motion does not request foreign discovery from the United Kingdom, does not name Solo or “Ben Conway” or any Solo alias, and does not invoke any mechanism directed at the catfisher. The wiki’s earlier treatment of this motion (as evidence that plaintiff was “trying to reach Solo in the UK”) was a narrative-driven misreading.
Newsletter Angles
- The Hague motion reframes Reachability Routing. Earlier wiki notes treated the pending letter rogatory as at least a gesture toward reaching Solo. The actual motion shows plaintiff using the available foreign-discovery tool against a peripheral witness who supports plaintiff’s case theory, not against the actually-culpable foreign actor. No party in this case has asked any court to help reach Solo. The tools exist; the incentive to use them does not. This is a sharper version of the reachability argument: the problem isn’t just that international civil discovery is slow. It’s that the party with standing to invoke it has no incentive to aim it at the person who caused the harm.
- “Unopposed” is itself a data point. Bonnell’s team did not fight the Göransson Hague motion. That suggests the defense calculus is: (a) the letter rogatory will take long enough that Göransson’s deposition is unlikely to materialize before trial, (b) if it does, her testimony on relevance/admissibility is disputable later, and (c) fighting the request itself would look obstructionist and invite sanctions arguments. The Hague mechanism’s slowness is doing work for the defense here, not against it.
- Timing. Plaintiff waited 231 days after filing suit to seek the Letter of Request. Doe v Bonnell ECF235 — Bonnell Opposition to Trial Continuance cites this as evidence of lack of diligence. If the continuance is denied and trial proceeds May 18, 2026, the Göransson deposition will almost certainly not have been completed.
Entities Mentioned
- Steven K. Bonnell II — Defendant; subject of the testimony being sought
- Jane Doe (Pxie) — Movant
- Melina Göransson — Target of the letter rogatory; Swedish resident; Bonnell’s former spouse
- Judge Jacqueline Becerra — ruling court (via magistrate)
- Judge Edwin G. Torres — referred magistrate
Concepts Mentioned
- Reachability Routing — the motion is the actual record of what “reaching across borders” looks like in this case, and what it is not being used for
Quotes
“The sought-after discovery from Melina Chatarina Emmy Göransson (‘Göransson’) is relevant to the claims in this action, will likely prove highly material to the prosecution of this action, lead to admissible relevant evidence, and is proportional to the needs of this case.”
“Göransson is expected to corroborate Plaintiff’s allegations, including those allegations regarding Bonnell’s lack of consent to disclose the Video. Moreover, Göransson is—or is believed to be—another victim of Bonnell’s unlawful conduct. Finally, Göransson would testify to Bonnell’s character, as it is relevant to this case.”
“Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2), undersigned counsel hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff has conferred with Defendant’s counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion, and that counsel for Defendant represented that Defendant does not oppose this motion.”
Notes
- Cited authorities are standard Hague Convention / Aerospatiale / Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b) references. No novel legal theory.
- This source page was created on April 19, 2026 as part of a correction pass triggered by a reader fact-check (r/Destiny). Prior to that correction, the wiki and the Piece 1 article draft had propagated a misreading that treated the letter rogatory referenced in ECF 227 as a UK/Solo filing. That misreading was never supported by any docket entry. ECF 145 is the only foreign-discovery motion in the case.
- The proposed Letter of Request itself (Exhibit A to this motion) is not separately extracted in the wiki. If the Göransson deposition proceeds and produces testimony relevant to the article series, a new source page will be created at that point.