Ex-Execs Seek To Sidestep Accountability With Split Trial In eBay Cyberstalking Scandal Suit
UPDATE 11-17-25
Victims Ina & David Steiner of EcommerceBytes decry delayed justice as eBay cyberstalking scandal civil trial date is once again moved, now scheduled for March 2, 2026.
Liz Morton
UPDATE 10-23-25
Ex-CEO Devin Wenig requests to have current January 5, 2026 trial date moved to April due to attorney Abbe Lowell's scheduling conflicts.
Those conflicting, high profile cases are:
- Trump v Cook - Mr. Lowell represents Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook in litigation arising from the Trump administration’s efforts to fire her.
- US v David Huerta - Mr. Lowell is co-lead trial counsel for David Huerta, California president of the Service Employees International Union who was charged with obstruction, resistance or opposition to a federal officer for action during an ICE raid.
- US v Letitia James - Mr. Lowell represents New York Attorney General Letitia James in her recent indictment on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.
Both the plaintiffs, Ina and David Steiner, and defendant eBay Inc. oppose the request the delay the trial.
UPDATE 9-24-25
Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler has submitted her Alternative Dispute Resolution report, advising Judge Patti Saris that mediation continues to be unsuccessful and "further efforts to settle this case at this time are unlikely to be productive", so the trial should remain on the schedule for January 2026.
UPDATE 9-5-25
In a status conference/Daubert hearing held today, Judge Patti Saris set an official date of January 5, 2026 for the first trial in the eBay cyberstalking scandal lawsuit.
The hearing was in person and a transcript is not yet available, but from ruling notes it appears Judge Saris allowed security personnel who pleaded to criminal charges to be split into a separate trial, but Wenig, Wymer, Jones and eBay will still be tried together.
The matter has also been referred to a Magistrate Judge for Alternative Dispute Resolution to see if a settlement can be worked out before trial. Stay tuned for updates!
In a bid to sidestep the full weight of eBay’s cyberstalking scandal, ex-CEO Devin Wenig, ex-Chief Communications Officer Steve Wymer, and former Global Operations chief Wendy Jones are pushing to split their cases from the corporation and security staff who carried out the crimes.
If the request is granted, it would allow the executives to face a far narrower trial, raising fresh questions about accountability at the highest levels of eBay during the 2019 harassment campaign which targeted journalists Ina and David Steiner for their reporting at EcommerceBytes and sought to unmask the identity of an anonymous source and commenter, Fidomaster/unsuckEBAY.
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 Senior Security Director 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 contracted through security company Progressive F.O.R.C.E Concepts (PFC) all pleaded guilty and have been sentenced for their roles in these crimes.
The Steiners' lawsuit, filed in 2021, named the seven criminal defendants plus eBay, Wenig, Wymer, Jones and PFC, claiming direction and support for the harassment came from the very top of eBay's c-suite.
The executive and corporate defendants had sought to get some or all of the claims thrown out at summary judgment, arguing the Steiners' claims against them are largely based on information from Baugh's criminal sentencing letter that would be inadmissible hearsay.
But US District Court Judge Patti Saris recently rejected at least some of those arguments, releasing PFC from the suit and paring back some claims while allowing others to continue to trial.
Liz Morton
Since their efforts to escape trial completely were not successful, Wenig, Wymer and Jones are now seeking to have the claims against them split into a separate trial, arguing that proceeding with one trial against all the named defendants would be confusing for a jury and possibly prejudicial to their individual defenses.
In a motion for separation of trials filed jointly today, the three executives contend that splitting the trial up is the only way for them to receive a fair hearing, arguing that it would make the most sense to set the dividing line between defendants which have pleaded guilty to criminal charges and those which have had no criminal charges brought against them in this matter.
A trial that includes the Executive Defendants together with Defendants who have made extensive and varying admissions would be unwieldy, unworkable, and deeply unfair.
Indeed, putting Defendants who have admitted criminal liability at the same trial table as the three remaining Defendants—who were not charged criminally, who contest key allegations other Defendants admitted in their quest for a better deal or a lighter sentence, and for whom res judicata does not apply—would inevitably impact the evidence the jury hears and color jurors’ assessment of the case against the remaining Defendants.
The risk of jury confusion and prejudice is selfevident.
The most straightforward solution to both the practical challenge of trying numerous defendants and the need to avoid undue prejudice is to separate the Defendants into two groups: Defendants with criminal admissions and those without.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 730
That would lump eBay in with the security personnel, based on the fact that the company was charged criminally with 6 federal felonies for which they struck a deal with DOJ to pay a $3 Million fine and undergo 3 years of enhanced compliance monitoring to avoid further prosecution.
Liz Morton
After the Convicted Defendants’ criminal indictments and guilty pleas, eBay signed the DPA with the Department of Justice in which it admitted criminal responsibility in exchange for putting the criminal investigation behind it. Deferred Prosecution Agreement, United States vs. eBay, Inc., No. 24-cr____ (D. Mass. Jan. 11, 2024).
Pursuant to the DPA, eBay agreed to a 21-page statement of facts conceding a wide range of conduct, including statements and suggestions about the culture and conditions at eBay during the relevant time. The DPA conceded certain allegations and characterizations that the Executive Defendants dispute. Moreover, merely by including certain statements in the DPA, eBay apparently conceded that those statements (even if true) were somehow relevant to a crime.
By contrast, Ms. Jones, Mr. Wenig, and Mr. Wymer were never criminally charged and maintain that they did not direct, endorse, turn a blind eye to, or otherwise support the criminal conspiracy orchestrated by Defendant Baugh.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 730
The executives say that including all defendants in one trial would be prejudicial against them, because it would be difficult for a jury to parse which evidence applies only against the criminal defendants and is not admissible against the defendants who were not charged with or pleaded guilty to any crimes.
Severance is necessary to avoid the clear prejudice the Executive Defendants would suffer if they were tried jointly with seven individuals and a company that have already admitted to criminal liability for many of the same allegations the jury is supposed to evaluate...
...A jury will not be able to compartmentalize prejudicial evidence that is admissible against eBay and the Convicted Defendants, but inadmissible against the Executive Defendants.
The number of Defendants and their differing roles is a recipe for confusion. Compounding that risk, the Executive Defendants’ mere proximity in the courtroom to individuals who have pleaded guilty to disturbing criminal conduct will preclude a fair and individualized assessment of the evidence against them.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 730
The matter is further complicated by the fact that it isn't entirely clear yet whether ring leader Jim Baugh will continue to be a defendant in this lawsuit.
The Steiners cut a deal with Baugh in March, agreeing to let him out of the ~$200 Million in alleged damages ascribed to him in exchange for his testimony against the executives, but Judge Saris has yet to rule on whether this agreement will be allowed and has not yet officially released Baugh from the litigation.
That agreement led eBay and the executive defendants to demand the opportunity to conduct further discovery and depositions against Baugh, and requesting that a protective order which has so far prevented questions about Baugh's alleged CIA past be lifted to allow the defendants to adequately prepare for trial and put forward their best defences against Baugh's testimony.
Unfortunately, while Judge Saris did allow for additional discovery and depositions, she did not lift the protective order, leaving many questions about Baugh's past government service still unanswered.
Liz Morton
As this lawsuit has stretched out over 4 years, Judge Saris has also frequently urged the parties to engage in mediation to work toward settling at least some of the claims, saying in a hearing last year, "I don't see any way in which a jury could decide this with the number of defendants...I just don't have a big enough courtroom for that number and it's confusing to a jury" - a quote that Wenig, Wymer, and Jones are now using to bolster their arguments for why the claims against them should be split out into a separate trial.
As the Court has observed, a single joint trial in this case would be “confusing to a jury” given “the number of defendants.”
In addition to the prejudice caused by the introduction of inadmissible evidence, the sheer volume of Defendants and variety of evidence presents an independent risk of prejudice, because a joint trial will make it difficult for jurors to keep even the admissible facts straight.
A joint trial would therefore deprive the Executive Defendants of their right to the individualized consideration of the evidence relevant to them.
This case involves 12 different Defendants, each alleged to have been involved in different activities to varying degrees, each named in some separate and some overlapping claims, and each with varying criminal liability.
There is a substantial risk that “[t]he jury may simply resolve the confusion by considering all the evidence to pertain to all the plaintiffs’ claims, even when it is relevant to only one [defendant].”
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 730
The execs also quote Judge Saris in describing the amount the Steiners are seeking in combined damages as "eye-popping" as a reason for why, if the trials are split, the group of defendants which ends up with the multi-billion dollar deep pocketed corporation should go first - while also taking subtle swipe at the Steiners for believing the value of their claims should be equal to a lottery jackpot.
...Here, maximizing the chances of settlement means holding the trial involving eBay first.
eBay is a multi-billion-dollar corporation...As the Court noted in a prior order, the damages Plaintiffs are seeking are “eye-popping.” Whether a jury would ever award such astronomical damages is an open question.
Getting a jury to weigh in on that critical question as to eBay would provide guidance to either the company (which may further open its checkbook if a jury is willing to entertain, for example, punitive damages) or Plaintiffs (who may learn that a Boston jury does not value the case in the same range as a lottery jackpot).
The individual Defendants are only a small piece of the financial puzzle and, if settlement discussions are to move forward meaningfully, further clarity on the company’s exposure will be critical.
Source: Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al 1:21-cv-11181 Doc 730
In total, the Steiners had originally sought ~$700 Million in combined punitive and compensatory damages, portioned out amongst the various defendants with eBay and Baugh at the top of the list with $200 Million portions alleged against each.
As first reported by Value Added Resource in December 2024, eBay had tried to cut out the ~$466 Million in punitive damages, but Judge Saris denied their appeal of her earlier ruling which had allowed punitive damages to remain in play.
Liz Morton
Since then, various decisions had whittled the total amount down to about $500 Million, then the Steiners' deal with Baugh took another $200 Million off the table.
This latest ruling on summary judgement removed Progressive F.O.R.C.E Concepts from the litigation entirely (removing the $50 Million in potential damages apportioned to them), denied some claims of defamation, and took $5 Million in compensatory damages for lost consulting fees out of the equation as well.
The Steiners have subsequently also withdrawn their claims for ~$10 Million in alleged loss of goodwill and lost profits for the EcommerceBytes business.
While neither the Steiners nor any of the defendants have provided an exact amount for where that leaves potential total damages being sought, based on all of these previous decisions, it's likely down to around $200 Million or less at this point in time.
The case is Steiner et al v. eBay Inc. et al case number 1:21-cv-11181 in US District Court of Massachusetts.
Stay tuned for updates as the eBay cyberstalking lawsuit continues and remember - VAR+ subscribers get exclusive access to the Value Added Resource eBay cyberstalking case document archive!
