A private investigator must reveal the name of the person who hired him to spy on Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve and former Washoe County Commissioner Vaughn Hartung, but a judge ruled Thursday that the order would be stayed if the case is appealed.
David McNeely had installed a hidden GPS tracker on Schieve and Hartung’s vehicles after a customer paid him to investigate local authorities.
“Mr. McNeely will comply with the recommendation no later than September 9, 2024,” wrote Washoe County District Judge David Hardy.
The recommendation refers to a recommendation made in June by the Discovery Commissioner, who advises the court in disputes about what the parties in litigation must tell each other.
The Discovery Commissioner expressed his opinion in June that McNeely’s client – who identifies as John Doe in legal documents – should give Schieve and Hartung his real name so they can pursue their lawsuit for violation of her right to privacy.
Despite the deadline to announce the name, Judge Hardy said he would be inclined to grant a stay – that is, a stay of trial – if McNeely or John Doe decide to appeal the new order.
“This Court recognizes the irreparable harm that would result if John Doe’s identity were disclosed now, but an appellate court later reached a different conclusion,” he added in a footnote.
McNeely had already appealed Hardy’s initial ruling last year that he must name John Doe. The Nevada Supreme Court denied his motion but said it could not rule on John Doe’s separate request to protect his identity until the district court had ruled on the matter.
On Thursday, the district court denied John Doe’s request for a temporary restraining order regarding his name.
If the case goes to court again, it would likely be John Doe’s last attempt to remain anonymous.
The length of time it takes courts to decide appeals can vary widely, but it is notable that it took about a year from the time Hardy first asked McNeely to reveal John Doe’s name until the Nevada Supreme Court upheld that decision.
In that motion, McNeely claimed that his clients’ names were a trade secret and that disclosing them would harm his business.
The Supreme Court disagreed in a decision signed by all seven justices.
“The district court has discretion to compel private investigators to disclose information (because) Nevada does not recognize privilege between private investigators and their clients,” they said.
At the same time, John Doe had asked the Supreme Court to decide whether he could remain anonymous because he was politically active by spying on officials to uncover misconduct.
The judges said his motion was “not ripe for consideration” because the district court had not yet heard his arguments.
Now that the motions have been heard and denied, John Doe is faced with the question of whether it is worth the time and expense to wait to see if the Nevada Supreme Court rules in his favor.
Lawyers in the case did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
More: Read the key arguments from both sides on whether John Doe should remain anonymous.
Mark Robison is the Reno Gazette Journal’s state politics reporter and occasionally ventures into other topics. Email comments to [email protected] or comment on Mark’s Greater Reno Facebook page.
