Trackergate: NV Supreme Court Rules PI Must Disclose Client’s Identity

Yesterday, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled (see below) that a private investigator hired by a “John Doe” must disclose his client’s identity who had hired him to investigate Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve and former Washoe County Commissioner Vaughn Hartung ahead of an election. McNeely chose to use a GPS tracking device placed on their respective vehicles.

The Globe has extensively reported on this civil case know as “Trackergate.”

The ongoing litigation has had a series of twists and turns as the civil complaint, filed by Schieve and later joined by Hartung, demanded that private investigator David McNeely of 5 Alpha Industries reveal the identity of his client who had hired him to investigate alleged “malfeasance, corruption and serious misconduct” by Shieve and Hartung.

Washoe County Judge Hardy previously ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and ordered McNeely to divulge the name of his client. In his order, Judge Hardy wrote: “The protection Mr. McNeely seeks could create unfettered immunity for a tortfeasor who acted through an investigator – either as a tacit, unknowing participant or an intentional co-conspirator…This outcome is not contemplated by Nevada law and would work an injustice to plaintiffs who suffer tortious invasions to privacy.”

Days after Hardy’s ruling, the client “John Doe” filed a motion for summary judgement with the Nevada Supreme Court and revealed that he had not ordered McNeely to place the tracking device. John Doe further claimed that “Defendant John Doe is a resident of Washoe County who is concerned with potential corruption and malfeasance in local government.” John Doe says he hired McNeely to investigate “serious misconduct” by Schieve and Hartung.

In their unanimous ruling, they rejected McNeely’s claim that his client’s identity was a trade secret. The court found that private investigator David McNeely must disclose the identity of his client, noting that the District Court can compel private investigators to disclose information regarding a client. The court concluded that the State does not recognize privilege between private investigators and their client.

The court further found that John Doe’s claim that his first amendment right to anonymously investigate elected officials was “not ripe for review.”

Hartung indicated that he was pleased with the ruling. The Globe has reached out to Mayor Schieve for comment and will update the story if and when her response is received.