FOLLOW US

A Massachusetts couple, who were harassed by eBay Inc. employees over critical blog posts, are pushing back against the company's efforts to force them to disclose confidential sources allegedly scared off by the ordeal.

Journalists Ina and David Steiner, who run the blog EcommerceBytes, told U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris on Friday that eBay's motion to compel them to reveal these sources or stop seeking damages related to them is both untimely and inappropriate. The Steiners argue that journalistic privilege protects their right to withhold the names of these sources, stressing the importance of safeguarding press freedoms in the ongoing EBay stalking case.

EBay Stalking Case: Defending Journalistic Privilege

"The public relies on the ability of news reporters to keep their promises of confidentiality to their sources," the Steiners wrote in their opposition. They emphasized that without such protections, critical information exposing powerful institutions may never come to light. This defense is crucial as the couple seeks to prevent eBay from accessing their confidential communications under the guise of legal strategy in the EBay stalking case.

The Steiners insist that no documents relevant to eBay's request are protected by reporter's privilege, rejecting the company's attempts to access information they claim is outside the scope of their lawsuit. According to their argument, journalistic integrity and source confidentiality should not be sacrificed, even as they pursue damages from eBay.

eBay Pushes Back on Damages Claims

eBay counters that the Steiners are seeking more than $12 million in damages, asserting that eBay’s actions hurt the couple’s publication by scaring away potential sources. The company argues that the Steiners are “improperly using the reporter’s privilege as both a sword and a shield” in the EBay stalking case.

"If they wish to pursue claims that put at issue whether and to what extent sources stopped providing information to plaintiffs … they cannot shield information about those sources behind a claim of privilege," eBay argued. The company further contends that the Steiners cannot have it both ways—either they release the source information or drop that aspect of their damages claim.

Steiners: eBay’s Claims are ‘False’

The Steiners reject eBay's arguments, describing the company's interpretation of their damages claim as "myopic" and "false." They assert that their legal strategy does not hinge on the sources eBay seeks, and that their case in the EBay stalking case can proceed without disclosing confidential information.

The Stalking Case's Dark History

The Steiners were the targets of an extensive harassment campaign led by seven eBay employees after the couple published blog posts critical of the company. The employees, members of eBay’s internal security team, were criminally charged and pled guilty to charges including harassment and witness tampering. Some received prison sentences, while others were placed on probation. In addition to these criminal penalties, eBay agreed to pay $3 million under a deferred prosecution agreement, avoiding direct charges related to interstate stalking and obstruction of justice.

EBay Stalking Case:  Legal Battle Beyond Sources

The Steiners' legal battle with eBay has also involved debates over the applicable law for punitive damages. eBay accused the couple of seeking punitive damages under California law while using Massachusetts law to govern other liability claims. Both parties have exchanged motions on this issue throughout the summer as they work to resolve key points in the ongoing EBay stalking case.

Legal Teams

The Steiners are represented by several prominent law firms, including Finkelstein & Partners LLP and Diller Law LLP, while eBay is represented by Sidley Austin LLP.