Raymond James Gets Restraining Order Against a Former Intern

Raymond James & Associates Inc. and two of its investment bankers got a temporary restraining order against a former intern who allegedly engaged in a “cyber-harassment campaign” targeting the bankers after they decided not to offer him a full-time position.

Judge Matthew W. McFarland of the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio partially granted the requested TRO Jan. 17, ordering that Paul T. Saba Jr. be prevented from accessing email accounts previously used in his campaign, or from creating new email accounts with the same aim.

McFarland also stopped Saba from coming within 100 yards of plaintiffs Timothy VanBenthuysen and Richard Redvanley, their residences, or any Raymond James office. But the judge declined to grant the bank’s “broad” request to enjoin Saba’s speech, for now, “because it would amount to a prior constraint before a final adjudication.”

As Saba’s internship ended in 2024, VanBenthuysen told Saba there were no positions open for him. Saba allegedly began a cyber-harassment campaign that spread “false and malicious” information about the plaintiffs, through the use of several fictitious email accounts.

The emails, sent to Raymond James employees as well as individuals outside the company, allegedly accused the plaintiffs of illegal insider trading and rape. Saba later opened another email account impersonating VanBenthuysen, using it to invite numerous recipients to join “a fictitious neo-Nazi banking club,” Raymond James claimed.

The barrage of emails and resulting security threats forced Raymond James to close its Atlanta offices for two days, the company said.

McFarland said his denial of Raymond James’s request to enjoin Saba’s speech “is not to diminish the gravity of the allegations in this case, or the effects felt by Plaintiffs.” But “the First Amendment and the corpus of case law is unmistakable: the Court cannot preliminarily enjoin Defendant’s speech—let alone in an overbroad or imprecise manner—before a final adjudication on the merits,” he said.

The bank satisfied each of the four elements necessary for a partial TRO to be granted on the issues that don’t involve a prior restraint on Saba’s speech, McFarland said.

First, Raymond James and the individual plaintiffs showed a likelihood that they would succeed in their defamation claim against Saba, McFarland said.

Second, Raymond James, VanBenthuysen, and Redvanley made a sufficient showing of irreparable harm without a TRO, McFarland said.

“If allowed to continue, Defendant’s conduct will cause great harm to Plaintiffs’ business, as his actions have already targeted colleagues and clients alike,” McFarland wrote. “Monetary damages cannot fully compensate Plaintiffs for the loss of customer goodwill and trust” that resulted from Saba’s efforts, he said.

Third, an assessment of harm to the opposing party showed that, “there is no indication that the temporary restraining order would harm parties beyond this lawsuit,” McFarland said.

Finally, the public interest is served by granting “limited relief” focusing on Saba’s potential unlawful conduct rather than pure speech, McFarland said.

Raymond James represents itself. Reminger Co. LPA represents VanBenthuysen and Redvanly.

The case is Raymond James & Assocs. Inc. v. Saba, 2025 BL 16222, S.D. Ohio, No. 1:25-cv-00010, order 1/17/25