Ex-eBay Security Director Cuts Deal To Testify Against Execs In Cyberstalking Civil Suit
UPDATE 4-3-25
Ex-eBay execs Wendy Jones, Devin Wenig, and Steve Wymer are objecting to the Steiners' late breaking deal with ex-Senior Security Director Jim Baugh, arguing the one-sided agreement would lead to testimony which would be inadmissible at trial.
In a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Proffer of Future Testimony filed today, Jones' attorneys say the court should reject the deal.
On March 10, 2025, during oral argument, the Court observed that the statements in Defendant Jim Baugh’s sentencing memorandum were inadmissible, but invited Plaintiffs to represent to the Court on or before April 1 that (1) Mr. Baugh would appear to testify at trial, and (2) Mr. Baugh would not assert his Fifth Amendment rights.
On March 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Status Report indicating that Plaintiffs traded Mr. Baugh’s dismissal from the case for his future “cooperat[ion]” on testimony and a narrow waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights—without a general agreement from Mr. Baugh not to assert them...
...Mr. Baugh has reportedly agreed to testify and waive his Fifth Amendment rights only as to a specific scope of testimony (that benefits Plaintiffs), but not as to the full scope of examination that would be necessary for his testimony to be admissible at trial.
In exchange for his dismissal from the case, Mr. Baugh reportedly will not assert his Fifth Amendment protection as to “Relevant Conduct” related to his charged offenses, “as that term is defined in the United States Sentencing Guidelines.”
That precisely drawn waiver fails to allow for adequate cross-examination, which would cover, among other issues, the parallel harassment campaign Mr. Baugh planned against a prosecutor in Arkansas who was allegedly investigating his father...
...As a result, the testimony Plaintiffs have negotiated to occur would be inadmissible. As the First Circuit and other courts have made clear, one-sided assertions of the Fifth Amendment that limit cross examination warrant striking the witness’s direct testimony. So too here.
That leaves Plaintiffs right back where they started: unable to show they can offer the necessary evidence in admissible form at trial.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 615
The memo goes on to argue that if Judge Saris were to allow testimony to move forward under this agreement, she should at least permit additional discovery and deposition.
Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiffs’ half-measure assurances—and it should not—it would then need to permit additional discovery necessitated by Plaintiffs’ late-breaking deal.
First, if Mr. Baugh is to withdraw his prior sweeping invocations of the Fifth Amendment andtestify at trial, he must sit for a deposition. Plaintiffs chose not to depose Mr. Baugh (even if only to elicit assertions of the Fifth). They chose not to pursue the deal they just struck, however distasteful, earlier in the litigation.
They cannot now proffer Mr. Baugh’s testimony without providing Defendants a chance to probe its scope and test his credibility.
Second, there must be discovery on the agreement reached between Plaintiffs and Mr. Baugh. It is critical to understand,through documents and testimony of those involved in the deal, precisely what Plaintiffs requested and what Mr. Baugh agreed to provide.
Mr. Baugh’s shocking removal as a defendant in this case—a case that centers on his own criminal conspiracy—is central to the credibility of any testimony that might be offered by those involved.
Third, Mr. Baugh must answer the prior discovery he refused to answer while asserting the same Fifth Amendment rights he is now willing to selectively waive for Plaintiffs’ and his own advantage.
Defendants must then be permitted sufficient discovery to pursue any leads that result from the additional discovery just described.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 615
Wenig's attorneys filed their own joinder, agreeing with Jones' arguments about the inadmissibility of Baugh's testimony and adding that even if Judge Saris were allow the testimony to move forward, it would not affect Wenig's pending motion for summary judgement.
Devin Wenig joins in Wendy Jones’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Proffer of Future Testimony or, in the Alternative, Motion for Supplemental Discovery (ECF 614; ECF 615) for the reasons outlined in Ms. Jones’s motion.
In short, Plaintiffs’ report to the Court of their eleventhhour decision to trade a complete release of all claims against Jim Baugh for an agreement now
that he will purportedly “cooperate with any efforts to secure his appearance at trial to testify, whether in person or by video” and answer questions within the scope of “Relevant Conduct to the Criminal Case” falls short of the summary judgment requirement of admissible evidence.Plaintiffs’ self-serving Status Report provides no details as to whether Mr. Baugh’s proffered testimony will mirror the statements of his counsel in his sentencing memorandum, and Mr. Baugh’s partial waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege is too limited to allow for adequate crossexamination.
Mr. Wenig files separately because, as explained in his summary judgment motion and at oral argument, even if Mr. Baugh were to provide testimony consistent with his sentencing memorandum, none of that testimony affects, much less defeats, Mr. Wenig’s pending motion for summary judgment.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 617
The defendants are seeking a hearing to make oral arguments on these motions as well as asking the Court to withhold a decision on the pending motions for summary judgment until additional discovery, including a deposition of Baugh, can be completed.
eBay's ex-Senior Security Director Jim Baugh, who is currently serving a federal prison sentence for his part in criminal cyberstalking and harassment campaign, has agreed to testify against eBay execs as part of agreement reached to resolve civil claims against him in ongoing lawsuit.
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 led by Jim Baugh.
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 all pleaded guilty and have been sentenced for their roles in these crimes.
eBay signed a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice that forced the company to admit to a detailed recitation of all the relevant facts involving six felony offenses with eBay paying a $3 Million fine and undergoing 3 years of enhanced compliance monitoring in order to avoid further criminal prosecution related to this matter.
But importantly, that $3 Million was paid to the US Treasury, not the victims, leaving the Steiners to pursue compensation through the civil court system.
The ongoing 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.
The Steiners originally sought $700 Million in total damages, which has now been reduced to $500 Million after some claims for punitive damages were dismissed while others were allowed to move forward following a November ruling by Judge Patti Saris.
Those original claimed damages were broken out amongst the various named defendants with eBay and Baugh(as the ringleader of the criminal activity) alleged to be the most liable at $200 Million each.
Lawyers for eBay and the executive defendants filed motions for summary judgement last month, arguing Judge Saris should not allow certain claims to be heard by a jury and should instead issue immediate rulings to dismiss some or all of the Steiners' claims.
Wenig, Wymer and Jones based many of their arguments for dismissal on their belief that crucial details revealed in Baugh's letter to the court at the criminal sentencing were inadmissible hearsay.
Liz Morton
The Steiners argued those details should not be excluded or used as a basis to dismiss the claims, since Baugh could be called to testify at trial to confirm the information contained in his sentencing letter and other documents from the criminal case.
Judge Saris set an in person hearing on the motions for summary judgement for March 10th, where it appeared her decision may rest heavily on whether or not Baugh would testify if the civil case proceeds to trial, and she ordered the plaintiffs to provide a status update to the court on that subject no later than April 1, 2025.
The Steiners filed their status update today, indicating that Jim Baugh will testify against Wenig, Wymer, and Jones at trial and that he will not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination.
Importantly, it appears in order to secure Baugh's cooperation, the Steiners have agreed to resolve their claims against him in this matter - though it's not yet clear if that means they are dropping the entire $200M they were seeking to recover from him or if they may have settled for a lower amount.
Stay tuned for updates in this developing story!
JaeLynn
