Barker v. Insight Global, LLC

Filing 125

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 105 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 5. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JOHN BARKER,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No.5:16-cv-07186-BLF (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 5

v.
INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 105

Defendants.

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18
19

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report #5 (“DDJR #5”), Insight Global (“Insight”) seeks an

20

order requiring production of certain employment compensation documentation it claims to need

21

to support its counterclaims (a) that plaintiff Barker disclosed “confidential” compensation

22

information to Beacon Hill about three of his former Insight colleagues (Cronin, McArthur, and

23

Verduzco), and (b) that he violated his contractual obligations to Insight by soliciting the

24

aforementioned 3 individuals to quit Insight and come to work for Beacon Hill. Insight

25

propounded requests for production of documents to Barker and served subpoenas on Beacon Hill

26

and the 3 individuals. (For convenience, Barker, Beacon Hill, as well as the 3 individual non-

27

parties will, unless the context indicates otherwise, be jointly referred to here in the singular as

28

“Barker.”).

1

Barker objected to the discovery requests as too broad and overreaching. Then, Insight

2

proposed what it characterized as a narrowed version of what it wanted. Barker said no to that as

3

well. Barker’s proposed compromise was rejected by Insight. In DDJR #5, the court once again

4

is called upon to referee a dispute between the two sides on the proper scope of allowable

5

discovery.

6

This is what Insight wants:

7

1. Any Beacon Hill offer letters to plaintiff, Cronin, McArthur, and Verduzco with related

8
9

correspondence;
2. Any Beacon Hill employment agreement signed by plaintiff, Cronin, McArthur, and
Verduzco with related correspondence, including texts or e-mails about oral

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

agreements;

12
13
14
15

3. Documents sufficient to show the initial Beacon Hill salary/compensation package for
plaintiff, Cronin, McArthur, and Verduzco; and
4. A reopening of the depositions of plaintiff, Cronin, McArthur, and Verduzco to
question them about the to-be produced documents.
DISCUSSION

16
17

Insight tells the court it needs documents to show that plaintiff Barker divulged

18

“confidential” salary information about his 3 former co-workers to Beacon Hill and that he

19

solicited the 3 to come to work at Beacon Hill. However, requests seeking, in effect, all

20

documents concerning the establishment of plaintiff’s, Cronin’s, McArthur’s, and Verduzco’s

21

employment with Beacon Hill are not cabined by the discrete issues Insight says it wishes to

22

address. This is another example of Insight’s interest in getting hold of a mass of information,

23

which may or may not contain information on the issues at hand, rather than asking for discovery

24

on the issues themselves.

25

Insight has not satisfied the court that the offer letters, employment letters, and the

26

associated correspondence, etc. as pertain to Cronin, McArthur, and Verduzco should be

27

produced, except as follows: documents which constitute, state, discuss, mention, allude to, or

28

reference (a) whether or not they had been solicited by plaintiff Barker, and (b) whether plaintiff
2

1

Barker disclosed their Insight compensation to Beacon Hill. Responsive documents, if any, shall

2

be produced.

3

Insight also argues that the personnel documents of Cronin, McArthur, and Verduzco (and

4

including plaintiff Barker’s as well) should be produced because they might show that Barker had

5

promised the other 3, as part of his alleged “solicitation,” that Beacon Hill would cover their

6

attorney fees if they were sued for jumping ship to Beacon Hill. This “promise to pay attorney

7

fees” issue is also the subject of DDJR #1, which remains under submission. The court defers

8

ruling at this time and will do so in conjunction with its ruling on DDJR #1.

9

As for plaintiff Barker, Insight has not persuaded the court that his personnel documents
should be turned over, except as follows: documents that constitute, state, discuss, mention, allude

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to, or reference: (a) whether or not he had or was or, prospectively, would solicit Cronin,

12

McArthur, or Verduzco to quit Insight and come to work for Beacon Hill, and (b) whether he

13

disclosed compensation information about the 3 to Beacon Hill. Also, on account of plaintiff

14

Barker’s complaint, and not because of the counterclaim (which was the ostensible springboard for

15

DDJR #5), plaintiff Barker shall produce documents sufficient to show his complete, initial

16

compensation package from Beacon Hill. There are two reasons for this. One is because his

17

claim for wrongful termination seeks damages for lost “front pay” (future earnings), and what he

18

earned at Beacon Hill would offset any such damages. The second is because Insight has offered

19

some evidence suggesting that Beacon Hill paid to plaintiff Barker the amount of his deferred

20

compensation that Insight refused to pay him when he was fired. If this is true, it might (the court

21

offers no opinion on this) undercut his claim against Insight to recover that compensation.

22

Responsive documents will be produced.

23

Barker shall produce documents within 15 days from the filing of this order. Any

24

documents withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine shall be

25

properly described in a privilege log. Barker shall certify that all responsive documents have been

26

produced. Except as stated in this order, Insight’s request for an order to produce documents is

27
28
3

1
2
3

denied. No depositions will be reopened.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2017

4
5
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4