A federal civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Doe v. Bonnell, No. 1:25-cv-20757, filed on 18 February 2025. The plaintiff, a streamer and political commentator, alleges that Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, who streams as Destiny, disclosed an intimate video of her without her consent. She proceeds under the pseudonym "Jane Doe" by court order, and is not named here.
The complaint pleads the federal civil remedy for disclosure of intimate images (15 U.S.C. section 6851), Florida's sexual cyberharassment statute (Fla. Stat. section 784.049), intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. According to contemporaneous reporting of the complaint, the plaintiff and Bonnell had a sexual encounter in 2020 that was recorded with her consent; the video is alleged to have reached a person using the screen name "Rose" in October 2022, and to have surfaced on the message board Kiwi Farms in 2024 before spreading further. Reporting puts the damages sought at one million dollars.
Bonnell denies deliberate disclosure. He has said publicly that the leak happened without his knowledge, consent or authorization, has called the accusation that he shared the video deliberately baseless, callous and malicious, and filed an answer with affirmative defenses and a jury demand rather than settling. He testified under oath at an evidentiary hearing in June 2025.
Nothing in the case has been decided. The plaintiff's requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction were both denied. Mediation failed in December 2025. As of 31 August 2026 the case has been removed from the court's trial calendar with no new trial date set, Bonnell's motion for summary judgment has been stayed, and the court is yet to rule on the plaintiff's motion for sanctions over the alleged spoliation of evidence. There is no verdict, no settlement and no criminal charge.
Docket entry 300. Consideration of Bonnell's summary judgment motion is stayed until the court rules on the spoliation sanctions motion, so the merits are on hold behind the evidence question.
Bonnell published "It Might Be Ending" on his YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeKev9I3kR8, recorded outside the courthouse on the day of the hearing and continued on stream afterwards. He described the hearing as running around three hours and said he attended in person with his counsel. Recording is not permitted in federal court and phones were held outside the courtroom. His account, and that of others who attended with him, is therefore the source for the detail recorded against 19 August above, rather than a transcript. None of it is a court finding.
Bonnell said the judge indicated she wanted to rule on the pending motion for summary judgment before October, and that if she did not, trial would fall in January or February because of an eight-week criminal trial already on her calendar. Bonnell said he expected a ruling in early September.
Bonnell said the judge questioned the volume of material filed under seal, restated that filings form part of the public record and that sealing is exceptional, and directed both sides to list by docket number everything they wanted sealed or unsealed so that she could rule on all of it at once. The deadline given was Monday 24 August 2026.
One of the six spoliation categories concerned messages between Bonnell and Dan Saltman. Bonnell said the judge removed the category from consideration after the plaintiff's counsel confirmed they had neither issued a subpoena to Saltman nor sought his deposition, and had no evidence that written communications existed beyond an argument that their absence was implausible.
Bonnell said the judge indicated she did not consider spoliation established on the record as it stood, and gave the plaintiff until the end of the following day, 20 August 2026, to file evidence supporting the claim, with the defence response due Monday 24 August. An evidentiary hearing on spoliation was expected within roughly two weeks. The plaintiff was seeking adverse-inference instructions across six categories of allegedly destroyed evidence.
Bonnell said the hearing opened with roughly fifteen minutes in which the judge addressed filings served the day before or the morning of the hearing, said they left no adequate time to prepare, and indicated that late filings would be struck at the next hearing. Bonnell and another attendee also described the judge noting that the civil docket had reached around 250 entries without either side having filed a motion to compel.
Docket entry 292. A further evidentiary hearing on the motion is to be set by separate order.
Docket entry 284. The court reset the sanctions hearing to 19 August 2026 and vacated the trial setting, noting the motions pertain to evidence central to the resolution of the plaintiff's claims. No new trial date has been set.
Docket entry 262, brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2). Bonnell opposed it on 1 June 2026 at docket entry 271. This motion becomes the pivot of the case.
Docket entry 240, memorialising a status conference on all pending motions. The plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion to defer summary judgment was denied and her motion to continue the trial granted in part.
Docket entry 210, with a statement of undisputed material facts at docket entry 211.
Docket entry 199. The final mediation report before mediator Helen Preddy records that the case did not settle.
Docket entry 186.
Docket entry 183.
Docket entry 167. The court directed her to address why sanctions should not be entered under Rule 37 for her non-attendance.
Docket entries 154 and 157. The plaintiff's motion to seal the transcript was denied and an earlier sealing order vacated.
Docket entry 143, with the parties retaining a right to de novo review. Her motion to compel a non-party to remove videos was denied the same day at docket entry 142.
Docket entry 132. Briefing completed with a sur-reply on 13 November 2025. No ruling appears on the public docket.
Docket entry 120, after leave was granted at docket entry 119. This is the operative pleading.
Docket entry 87. A hearing of two hours and thirty-five minutes before Chief Magistrate Judge Torres on the preliminary injunction. Both were sworn and testified.
Docket entry 32, following a status conference. The preliminary injunction request was referred to the magistrate judge.
Docket entry 23. This date was later vacated; see the entry for 23 July 2026.
Docket entry 17. He contests the claims rather than settling.
Docket entry 7. Sealing and unsealing disputes continue throughout the case.
Docket entry 6. The pseudonym is a court order, not a choice by the plaintiff or the press.
Doe v. Bonnell, No. 1:25-cv-20757, assigned to Judge Jacqueline Becerra and referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres. Docket entry 1.
Filed later as an exhibit to the plaintiff's spoliation motion, docket entry 263.
An allegation, not a finding. Reporting of the complaint places the disclosure on or about 4 October 2022. Bonnell denies deliberately sharing the video.
