GPS tracker update: Court adviser finds John Doe request to stay anonymous 'unpersuasive'

In the lawsuit over a GPS device used to track Reno’s mayor , a new filing this week by Washoe County District Court says the anonymous person who paid for the spying must reveal his name.

“In this case, John Doe has not shown that disclosure of his identity will reveal highly personal and sensitive information about him, or that disclosure will subject him to a significant risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm,” Discovery Commissioner Wesley Ayers wrote in his order this week.

The anonymous John Doe, who hired a private investigator to spy on Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve and then-Washoe County Commissioner Vaughn Hartung, had requested a protection order to keep his identity a secret after the Nevada Supreme Court ordered the private investigator to reveal who hired him.

The case has been going since December 2022, not long after Schieve’s mechanic found the GPS tracker on her car and she filed a civil lawsuit for invasion of privacy against private investigator David McNeely, his company 5 Alpha Industries and whoever hired him.

John Doe’s “claims of harassment are unpersuasive, as are his arguments that disclosure of his identity will violate his First Amendment rights,” Ayers wrote.

“John Doe has not shown that his right to engage in anonymous political activity immunizes him from liability for alleged tortious conduct in this case. Most or all of the other pertinent factors militate against granting his request for anonymity.”

Discovery commissioners are charged with resolving problems that arise from pretrial disputes in district court civil cases, and judges almost always follow their advice.

Other discovery recommendations in GPS case

Two other Ayers filings this month sided with John Doe.

In one, the discovery commissioner granted John Doe’s motion seeking to keep McNeely from revealing who hired him – as ordered by the Supreme Court – until the district court decides on John Doe’s motion for a protection order to keep his name secret.

In the other filing, Schieve and Hartung’s attorneys had asked that all of John Doe’s filings be stricken from the record because he’s not a valid party to the case.

Ayers rejected their argument and said that – for now – John Doe can continue to participate anonymously until there’s a final decision from the court on whether he must reveal his name.

What about a second John Doe?

In a footnote, the discovery commissioner addressed an argument floated by Schieve and Hartung’s attorneys that maybe the person interacting with the court as John Doe isn’t even really the person who hired the private investigator .

Ayers also rejected this idea, this time in a footnote. He acknowledged that it’s a possible concern but wrote the court “presumes that John Doe’s counsel of record has performed the necessary inquiry to ensure that he is not being improperly used by someone to commit a fraud upon the Court.”

And, he concluded, that if John Doe is an impostor, that bridge will be crossed when the court gets there.

What’s next?

District Court Judge David Hardy will make a ruling, informed by the discovery commissioner’s recommendations, on John Doe's request for a protection order to hide his identity. This could happen in the next few weeks, if not days.

Based on the latest filings, it seems likely he will dismiss the request, which would require McNeely to say who hired him.

John Doe could then file an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. A decision there would mostly likely be the final word on whether John Doe will have to come out from behind the mask of anonymity.

Mark Robison is the state politics reporter for the Reno Gazette Journal, with occasional forays into other topics. Email comments to mrobison@rgj.com or comment on Mark’s Greater Reno Facebook page .

This article originally appeared on Reno Gazette Journal: GPS tracker update: Court adviser finds John Doe request to stay anonymous 'unpersuasive'