eBay Cyberstalking Showdown: Suit Hangs On Ex-Security Director's Testimony & CIA Background
UPDATE 5-16-25
Judge Patti Saris has denied requests to lift the protective blocking discovery into ex-Security Director Jim Baugh's alleged CIA past, saying "the additional classified details Defendants seek are, at best, marginally relevant" and "requiring further disclosure of classified information, beyond what is already known and available, would impose a significant burden that outweighs any speculative probative value."
...I deny the motion for the following reasons:
First, the protective order was the product of extensive negotiation and was entered with the consent of all parties more than a year ago. The motion to vacate the order, filed after the close of discovery, is untimely. This Court does not lightly disturb a stipulated protective order once entered.
Defendants argue that Baugh’s recent decision to testify for the plaintiffs at trial and his limited waiver of Fifth Amendment rights were unexpected and justify the late request to vacate. But Defendants were aware of Baugh’s key role from the outset of the criminal investigation. A party cannot sleep on its rights during discovery and expect rescue when it belatedly awakens.
Second, Defendants contend that Baugh’s prior CIA employment is relevant to impeaching his credibility, arguing that he secretly worked as an embedded government operative within American companies, including eBay, and that his work allegedly involved deception to achieve objectives specified by his government “handlers” without his employers’ knowledge.
But the public statements Defendants cite to from Baugh’s criminal case characterize his covert work with the CIA as occurring prior to his employment at eBay. There is no indication in the existing record that his government-linked activities overlapped with his role at eBay. The additional classified details Defendants seek are, at best, marginally relevant...
...Requiring further disclosure of classified information, beyond what is already known and available, would impose a significant burden that outweighs any speculative probative value.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 663
UPDATE 4-11-25
eBay has now joined in the calls to either reject ex-Senior Security Director Jim Baugh's testimony in cyberstalking scandal trial or, if allowed to move forward, give the defendants the opportunity for additional discovery and depositions to prepare for trial.
In a stunning turn of events, eBay accuses Baugh of "auctioning off" his testimony (or lack thereof) to the highest bidder, saying Baugh's attorney's attempted to strike a deal to purchase his silence instead of taking the Steiners' deal to ensure his cooperation.
If the Court does not strike Plaintiffs’ notice, then it should permit the additional discovery sought by Ms. Jones.
It is plain from Plaintiffs’ notice that they procured Baugh’s testimony by agreeing to dismiss the claims against him, raising serious questions about Baugh’s credibility that Defendants are entitled to explore in discovery.
Indeed, Baugh not only sold his testimony, but he made clear it was for sale to the highest bidder.Shortly after the summary judgment hearing, eBay’s counsel contacted Baugh’s counsel to ascertain whether Baugh would testify.
In response, Baugh offered to sell eBay his silence: “Our suggestion is that if eBay were to indemnify Mr. Baugh (for any judgment, and his attorneys fees, currently in the neighborhood of $200k) he would agree not to voluntarily provide testimony in Steiner v eBay et al and would continue to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege.”
Baugh’s attempt to auction his testimony only underscores the questions surrounding his credibility, and eBay—not to mention an eventual jury—is entitled to know the full details of Plaintiffs’ purchase of his testimony.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 627
As the eBay cyberstalking scandal civil case continues toward trial, whether or not claims against CEO Devin Wenig, Comms Chief Steve Wymer, and SVP Global Ops Wendy Jones move forward hangs on crucial details the executives argue can only be discovered by deposing Senior Security Director Jim Baugh and lifting a protective order blocking access to information about Baugh's purported government intelligence background.
The bizarre corporate plot unfolded in the summer of 2019, targeting Ina and David Steiner for their reporting on eBay at EcommerceBytes and seeking to unmask the identity of unsuckEBAY (also known as FidoMaster/Dan Davis) an anonymous source and commenter who also sparked the ire of top executives at the company.
Court records revealed sordid details of the harassment that included disturbing deliveries of live insects, bloody pig masks and funeral wreaths as well as threatening messages, doxxing that ultimately escalated to in-person stalking and an attempted break-in at the hands of high-level eBay security personnel.
Liz Morton
Baugh, Director of Global Resiliency David Harville, Security Manager Philip Cooke, Sr Manager Special Operations Brian Gilbert, Sr Manager Global Intelligence Stephanie Popp, Global Intelligence Manager Stephanie Stockwell, and Security Analyst Veronica Zea contracted through security company Progressive F.O.R.C.E Concepts all pleaded guilty and have been sentenced for their roles in these crimes.
The ongoing ~$500 Million civil lawsuit names the seven criminal defendants plus eBay, ex-CEO Devin Wenig, ex-Communications Chief Steve Wymer, ex-SVP Global Operations Wendy Jones, and security company Progressive F.O.R.C.E Concepts (PFC), claiming direction and support for the harassment came from the very top of eBay's c-suite.
Wenig, Wymer and Jones are seeking to be released from the lawsuit before it goes to trial, with motions for summary judgement arguing the Steiners' claims against them are largely based on information from Baugh's criminal sentencing letter, which would be inadmissible hearsay, and that Baugh has previously indicated he would exercise his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself if called to testify in the civil matter.
Liz Morton
Judge Patti Saris agreed with the defendants, saying in a March 10th hearing that she would not allow the criminal sentencing letter to be admitted and that plaintiffs would need to show in good faith that Baugh will testify and be willing to answer questions - which could be difficult to arrange since Baugh is currently still serving his sentence in federal prison in Texas and is not expected to be released until next year.
But you can't use the sentencing memo because most courts have rejected it, and I think they tend to be unreliable, and they're hearsay anyway.
So the question is, how are you going to get it in? And if it's only through Mr. Baugh and not through any of the other defendants who might testify, I don't understand how I'm going to rely on it in a summary judgment proceeding...
...The only thing that is open in my mind is whether or not there is a good-faith basis for believing that Mr. Baugh will testify and not take the Fifth Amendment, or whether he's willing to come here at all, since he's currently more than 100 miles away from our jurisdiction. I'm not sure exactly how one does that.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 623-7
Judge Saris allowed the Steiners a few weeks to file a follow up with the court advising whether Baugh will testify, leading to a March 27th bombshell when the Steiners cut a deal with Baugh to release him from the $200M in damage they sought from him directly in this suit in exchange for his testimony against Wenig, Wymer, and Jones.
Liz Morton
However, the deal with Baugh was limited. He agreed only to answer questions about a narrow scope of issue pertaining to "relevant conduct" related to the criminal case, leaving open the possibility he could still choose to take the 5th on broader questions about his previous employment history, including his alleged work for the CIA and FBI.
Wenig, Wymer, and Jones argue that deal is one-sided and should be rejected by the judge - or if not rejected, they have requested to be allowed additional time for discovery and deposition they were denied due to Baugh's previous assertion of his 5th Amendment rights.
The question of Baugh's claimed government intelligence background has hung over this civil suit from the beginning.
In his sentencing letter in the criminal case against him Baugh claimed that he worked in Clandestine Services of the CIA, continued to assist the CIA and FBI with intelligence gathering activities on a voluntary, unpaid basis after returning to the private sector.
Crucially, he also claims that eBay knew of this background when hiring him and that he was specifically brought on board because his prior government work demonstrated an "ability to solve difficult problems through unconventional means."
Strangely, after this letter was initially filed on the public docket, the Department of Justice stepped in to request to have the document sealed, insisting that it contained classified national security information.
Since then, the DOJ has continued to insert itself into discovery and depositions in the civil matter, shutting down most lines of inquiry regarding Baugh's alleged intelligence history - which has only fueled further speculation about whether or not his claims are true.
While Baugh's sentencing letter remains sealed, personnel file documents recently released from discovery in the civil case shed new light on his purported CIA past and career path that brought him to eBay in 2016.
Liz Morton
Now, Wymer is requesting for that protective order to be lifted and for defendants to be allowed to pursue discovery and depositions related to Baugh's undercover history, revealing that he believes this work continued while Baugh was at eBay without corporate knowledge and that being able to prove he did not know about Baugh's covert operations is crucial to his defense in this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs have given notice that they intend to drop all claims against Defendant Jim Baugh in exchange for his testimony against the remaining Defendants in this case.
After consistently making clear that he would invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than testifying substantively in this case, Baugh has now indicated for the first time that he intends to testify at trial..
As the record currently stands, a protective order issued at the request of the United States Government will prohibit the parties from eliciting any testimony from Baugh that would reveal the nature of his relationships with Government entities, or any details—or claimed details—of that relationship..
This broad ban would be highly prejudicial to Wymer’s defense, as well as to other defendants, in any trial. Wymer and other Defendants must be able to obtain and present some evidence of Baugh’s purported covert operations experience to challenge Baugh’s credibility and underscore why Wymer, and any other Defendant who knew nothing of Baugh’s secret background, could not have anticipated Baugh’s crimes..
It is a matter of public record that Baugh claims to have “assist[ed] U.S. government intelligence and/or law enforcement agencies with various undercover operations from 2014-2018.”.
eBay hired Baugh in 2016. This means that if Baugh is to be believed, he was conducting undercover operations on behalf of the United States Government while he was working at eBay..
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 622
Before Baugh took a plea deal in the criminal case, he filed a motion to compel discovery which sought records of his government service from 2014-2018.
However, just because that is the time period for which Baugh requested records for discovery, that doesn't necessarily mean his government service only occured during that time - in fact, the now sealed letter indicated his voluntary work with the CIA and FBI went on for a longer period.
That apparent discrepancy could raise questions about the credibility of Baugh's claims, if the protective order is lifted.
Wymer went on to argue that he had no knowledge of Baugh's intelligence background or ongoing undercover operations while at eBay and that his lack of knowledge is critical to his defense for several reasons.
Wymer’s lack of any knowledge about Baugh’s covert operations background is central to his defense on three fronts. First, evidence concerning Baugh’s patterns of deceptive conduct are highly relevant to the credibility of Baugh’s attempts to shift blame to other Defendants for his own actions in harassing the Plaintiffs.
Second, any Government training Baugh received in conducting covert operations without detection is also highly relevant to Wymer’s defense that he could not reasonably have uncovered Baugh’s harassment campaign.
And third, the details of Baugh’s Government experience underscore why a person who did not know the covert facts of Baugh’s background could not have reasonably anticipated him construing Wymer’s vague and hyperbolic messages about the Plaintiffs’ website as directives to harm Plaintiffs personally.
Wymer reasonably believed he was interacting with an ordinary, law-abiding professional, not someone whose secret backstory seems ripped straight from the pages of a spy thriller.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 622
The motion to vacate the protective order points out that the Government had previously simply claimed Baugh's letter contained information that could “endanger[] United States national security” but they did not formally invoke the state secrets privilege, which prevents the disclosure of national security information in civil cases when certain requirements are met.
Wymer argues if the protective order is to stay in place the Government must formally invoke that privilege and meet the legally required showing of need under that privilege - otherwise the order should be lifted and defendants should be allowed to pursue discovery and depositions related to Baugh's background.
Wendy Jones joined in Wymer's call to lift the protective order, quoting Judge Saris in saying that Baugh's testimony at trial could be the "linchpin" in the Steiners' claims against Jones in particular.
Ms. Jones should be allowed to develop evidence, including through deposition and trial testimony, that goes to Baugh’s bias, lack of credibility, and patterns of conduct. As this Court noted during the March 10, 2025, summary judgment hearing, Baugh’s allegations presented in his sentencing memorandum—if he repeats them at trial—could be the “linchpin” of Plaintiffs’ case against Ms. Jones.
Should Plaintiffs’ proffer and Baugh’s testimony be permitted, Ms. Jones is entitled to fully examine Baugh’s potential testimony and his credibility in light of his full and actual work history.
Doing so requires amending the existing protective order. Baugh’s former government work is relevant to the question whether he was trained in techniques to manipulate his coworkers and hide his actions from those with whom he worked most closely.
That issue is critical to Ms. Jones’s defense. The simple fact that Baugh worked for the Government at some point before (or during) his time at eBay does not itself suggest a propensity to commit criminal acts or render all of Baugh’s future criminal conduct foreseeable, as Plaintiffs have suggested.
What is relevant about his former employment, however, is his knowledge, experience, and practice of operating covertly. To the extent Baugh was trained to conceal information—to deceive, to formulate cover stories—that information is critical to evaluating Plaintiffs’ story that Ms. Jones “must have known” about the Natick operation.
To the extent that Baugh previously undertook operations that those closest to him were unaware of or in which he deflected blame or responsibility, that too is plainly probative as to whether he was capable of pulling off a similar deception here.
It is also essential to the evaluation of his credibility as a witness in this case. Discovery of this aspect of his background would be assist Ms. Jones in explaining to jurors how Baugh was able to conceal from individuals at eBay, including Ms. Jones herself, his criminal conduct and why his carefully constructed story deflecting blame upward—a story he may well continue to tell jurors at trial—should not be believed.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 624
Wenig joined in as well, though his filing takes the time to call out that he does not believe lifting the protective order will have any bearing on his pending motion for summary judgement as none of his direct communications with Baugh were explicitly about the Steiners.
Information concerning Mr. Baugh’s previous work for the Government, and any special training he received, will not impact Mr. Wenig’s pending motion for summary judgment because Mr. Wenig did not engage with Mr. Baugh about the Steiners, or know that others were engaging with Mr. Baugh about the Steiners (and Mr. Wenig’s wife, contrary to Plaintiffs’ allegation, did not engage with Mr. Baugh at all)...
...On the contrary, Mr. Wenig communicated with Mr. Baugh about security issues only, which were clearly within Mr. Baugh’s remit.
Thus, new evidence regarding Mr. Baugh’s Government work will not create a material factual dispute, much less defeat Mr. Wenig’s arguments that summary judgment is appropriate as to the claims brought against him.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 625
That line of argument relies on a thin technicality as the communications in question between Wenig and Baugh about "security issues" were specifically about Fidomaster/unsuckEBAY.
For example, in an August 6, 2019 email chain, Wenig expressed his desire to see the unsuckEBAY Twitter account shut down - assigning the task to Baugh, with Chief Legal Counsel Marie Oh Huber and Wymer copied.
Wymer responded, confirming he had previously discussed the issue with Baugh and explored all angles with Twitter but had been unable to get the account killed.
Oh Huber echoed the frustration, but her and another member of eBay legal, Aaron Johnson, advised there wasn't a strong claim to appeal to Twitter to take action.
Baugh appeared to be trying to placate his bosses by offering that his team had been investigating for weeks and were close to discovering the identity and location of unsuckEBAY.
Oh Huber accepted that answer with a smiley face emoji, saying she would hold off on pursuing further legal steps in light of Baugh's investigation.
Wymer added more fuel to the fire the next day by making it clear how utterly vexed by the situation he was, saying any effort to "solve" both their unsuckeBay and EcommerceBytes problems should be explored...Whatever. It. Takes.
As part of that discussion, Baugh separately texted with Wenig about his efforts to track down the identity of the person behind the unsuckEBAY account, including having security analysts pose as a fake disgruntled ex-employee named "Marissa" who claimed to have daming videos of eBay execs behaving badly she wanted to leave at a hotel for unsuckEBAY to retrieve.
The assertion that communications with Baugh about unsuckEBAY had nothing to do with the Steiners is laughable, as the US Attorney's Office clearly laid out in the criminal cases that Baugh designed the harassment campaign as a "White Knight Strategy" with the specific goal to influence the Steiners' reporting and gain their assistance in unmasking the anonymous source behind the Fidomaster/ unsuckEBAY account.
Notably, US Attorney Seth Kosto called out the White Knight Strategy as particularly egregious, abhorrent to First Amendment values and cause for significant sanction in his sentencing memorandum in the criminal case against Security Manager Philip Cooke.
Liz Morton
First, Cooke and his co-conspirators targeted the Victims based on what they had written and published, and because they had made space for others to publish in comments beneath the Newsletter’s articles. Journalism about public companies, especially the world’s largest ecommerce brands, is important to investors, merchants, and customers alike.
That some at eBay disagreed with the Newsletter’s coverage, and that Baugh shared that sentiment as justification to target the Victims, is abhorrent to First Amendment values.
While there is no good reason to harass and intimidate anyone, the logic that led to the Victims’ suffering is absurd. Accepting for purposes of argument that Cooke and others were focused on Fidomaster and his online critiques, they harassed the Victims as a means of identifying and discrediting Fidomaster. That Cooke and others targeted innocent third parties is worthy of significant sanction...
...Cooke asserts that, in the August 6 meeting, he tried to talk his colleagues out of at least some parts of the harassment campaign. But what remained, even in his telling, was a series of increasingly harassing messages directed to a journalist, to set up a sting, to enable Gilbert to make a false offer of assistance, to predispose Victim 1 to help eBay with its Fidomaster problem.
Source: USA v. Cooke 1:20-cr-10126 Doc 21
And while Wenig may be able to say his direct communications with Baugh did not include anything explicitly about the Steiners, that conveniently ignores the multiple court documents which show his "inappropriate" comments about the Steiners that were made to Wymer - which in some cases were then passed on from Wymer to Baugh.
For example:
On March 13, 2019, Executive 1 [Wenig] messaged Executive 2[Wymer] about a "list of sites for sellers that didn't include Ina today. We should find a way to promote it. It's a way to diminish her without saying it. I tweeted it out. Take a look."
Executive 2 [Wymer] immediately messaged two eBay employees about the same list: "How can we promote it just to 'eff with her? Totally diminishing for her. I just had Executive 1 [Wenig] tweet it out. Take a look."
On April 20, 2019,discussing the Wall Street Journal's coverage of Wenig, Wenig texted to Wymer , "Fuck them. The journal is next on the list after Victim 1 [Ina Steiner]."
On May 31, 2019, commenting on the Newsletter's coverage of eBay that day, Wymer texted to Wenig, "Shockingly reasonable..." Wenig replied, "I couldn't care less what she says."Seconds later, Wenig added, "Take her down."
Source:Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 1 Exhibit A
The voluminous filings in both the civil and criminal cases make it clear that both the executives and the security department believed there was a connection between the Steiners and the person behind the unsuckEBAY account, who was an anonymous source for some of the Steiners' reporting while also contributing comments on their site and amplifying their coverage across social media.
For Wenig to now claim the two subjects (the Steiners and Fidomaster/ unsuckEBAY) were completely separate and unrelated is disingenuous and not supported by a full reading and understanding of the criminal and civil records related to this matter.
eBay has responded to my BBB complaint twice. The first time they told me that I deserved below standard because my shipping scans were below the threshold. However, I had to quote their own website to them saying that shipping numbers cannot lead to downgrade to Below Standard.
The second response they just said I would be restored on May 20th completely ignoring the issue at hand, admitting an issue existed, or offering any type of solution.
If this concerns you, this happened to you, or worried it may happen, please take action. In fact, take action anytime eBay is doing somethning wrong. They will change nothing if you don't say anything. If enough people speak up, they do make changes.
Promoted Listings has changed the game and removing the ability for someone to promote not only cost eBay the revenue, it makes a persons listings invisible. Today is my last day Below Standard and I will finish with 91.8% reduction in impressions, 53.8% drop in listing page views, and 78% drop in revenue.
Your fortunate to get the negative feedback removed. I just had to escalate to the customer service team getting a couple removed where the customer did not read the listing and one complained a part was not included that wasn't being sold and the other didn't read that the vacuum had an issue requiring repair. My appeals were denied without explanation. I have not had them remove feedback since they changed the process over a year ago. I have to escalate to social media and they fight me on it every time.
Most importantly - please take action. Submit feedback on their website, contact the social media team on Facebook, or however you prefer. These issues will remain if we just stay quiet. I let this go before, not this time. Today I will return to Above Average but I am fighting this until something changes.