Barker v. Insight Global, LLC

Filing 247

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi in case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF; re (77), (78) Supplemental Discovery Dispute Letters in case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF. (vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

JOHN BARKER,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC,

16
17

Case No.17-cv-00309-BLF (VKD)

Plaintiff,

14
15

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTERS

v.

12
13

Case No.16-cv-07186-BLF (VKD)

Re: Dkt. Nos. 77, 78

v.
BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.

18
19

On April 18, 2019, the Court denied Insight Global’s motion to compel additional

20

discovery from Mr. Barker, Beacon Hill and several non-parties regarding Mr. Barker’s and

21

Beacon Hill’s solicitation of Insight Global employees, finding that Insight Global had not shown

22

that the discovery was relevant and proportional. See Dkt. Nos. 71, 72, 76 at 5. The Court also

23

denied, on the same grounds, Insight Global’s motion to compel additional discovery from Mr.

24

Barker, Beacon Hill and several non-parties regarding Mr. Barker’s and Beacon Hill’s alleged

25

misappropriation of Insight Global trade secrets. See Dkt. Nos. 72, 76 at 6. The Court permitted a

26

further submission regarding each dispute. Dkt. No. 76 at 5, 6.

27
28

On April 29, 2019, the parties jointly submitted discovery dispute letters on both disputes.
The Court considers and resolves each dispute separately.

1

I.

DKT. NO. 77
In 2017, the Court considered Insight Global’s request for discovery of similar scope in the

2
related case Barker v. Insight Global, No. 16-7186. In response to a discovery dispute concerning
3
this request, Judge Lloyd ordered as follows:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

The gist of Insight’s counterclaim is that Barker “solicited and
encouraged” (and in 3 instances “caused”) Insight employees to quit
and go to work for Beacon Hill. Insight is entitled to discovery
relevant to those allegations. Accordingly, Barker, McArthur,
Cronin, and Verduzco shall review their text messages and,
regardless of subject header (if any), and excluding what has already
been produced, produce messages that constitute, state, discuss,
mention, allude to, or reference:
1. Barker directly or indirectly (i.e., through a third person)
soliciting any Insight employee to quit and go to work for
Beacon Hill;
2. Barker not soliciting any Insight employee to quit and go to
work for Beacon Hill;
3. Barker directly or indirectly (i.e., through a third person)
encouraging any Insight employee to quit and go to work for
Beacon Hill;
4. Barker not encouraging any Insight employee to quit and go
to work for Beacon Hill;
5. Barker attempting either by words or actions to disrupt
relationships between Insight and any of its employees or
cause any of them to quit.

20

Nonresponsive portions of messages may be redacted except where
they should be disclosed to establish context for the responsive
portion(s). If attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine is
claimed, the claimant shall furnish a proper privilege log. Privacy
objections are overruled.

21

No. 16-7186, Dkt. No. 87 at 4-5. In a later order addressing another discovery dispute in the same

22

case, the Court also ordered that Mr. Barker produce “documents that constitute, state, discuss,

23

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

24

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

25

he disclosed compensation information about [the three former Insight Global employees] to

26

Beacon Hill.” No. 16-7186, Dkt. No. 125 at 3. The Court also ordered Messrs. McArthur,

27

Cronin, and Verduczo to produce “documents which constitute, state, discuss, mention, allude to,

28

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

19

2

1

plaintiff Barker disclosed their Insight compensation to Beacon Hill.” Id. at 2-3.
Mr. Barker and former Insight Global employees Messrs. McArthur, Cronin, and Verduczo

2
3

represent that they have fully complied with the Court’s prior orders, including the review and

4

production of responsive text messages. Dkt. No. 77 at 6-7. Beacon Hill says that it has also

5

conducted and produced documents in response to similar discovery requests. Id. at 7. They also

6

say that they have all submitted to deposition questioning on these same topics. Id. Insight Global

7

essentially argues that the additional discovery it seeks is warranted because the representations

8

made by Mr. Barker, Beacon Hill, and the non-parties cannot be trusted, and because they all

9

acknowledge deleting some text messages before a search was conducted and the testimony about

10

communications that may have occurred was vague and evasive. Id. at 5-6.
If, as appears to be the case, Mr. Barker, Beacon Hill, and the non-parties have complied

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

with the Court’s prior orders, the Court sees no reason to require that compliance again or expand

13

the scope of the prior orders. However, the Court is bothered by what seems to be a quibble about

14

what the word “solicit” means. Id. at 7. If, for example, Mr. Barker, Beacon Hill, and the non-

15

parties have searched for and produced documents that reflect Mr. Barker or Beacon Hill “asking

16

with earnestness” Insight Global employees to come work for Beacon Hill, but have left out of

17

their production documents that reflect Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill merely “asking” (without

18

earnestness) Insight Global employees to come work for Beacon Hill, they are on thin ice.

19

Counsel for Mr. Barker, Beacon Hill, and the non-parties shall file a declaration with the Court no

20

later than May 9, 2019 explaining how those entities have parsed the Court’s prior orders and

21

disclosing where they have drawn the line between responsive and non-responsive documents. At

22

this time, the Court is not persuaded that discovery of individuals’ telephone records and meeting

23

schedules is at all likely to produce relevant evidence, particularly given the extent of discovery

24

that Insight Global has already obtained and the speculative nature of what it says these records

25

may reveal.

26

II.

27
28

DKT. NO. 78
In permitting a supplemental submission regarding Dkt. No. 72, the Court stated “Insight

Global should be prepared to identify the alleged trade secrets about which it seeks discovery.”
3

1

Dkt. No. 76 at 6. Insight Global describes the trade secrets and confidential information that are

2

the focus of its efforts to obtain discovery as follows: “compensation information of IG

3

employees” and unspecified information contained in “confidential computer files regarding 17

4

client accounts in the Sacramento area and 49 of their hiring managers.” Dkt. No. 78 at 3-4.

5

Insight Global also says it wants discovery so that it can determine whether Beacon Hill obtained

6

other confidential or trade secret information from other former Insight Global employees. Id.

7

Insight Global does not otherwise specify its trade secrets.

8
9

In March 2018, the Court considered Insight Global’s request for discovery related to the
confidential computer files regarding 17 client accounts that Mr. Veduzco accessed shortly before
leaving Beacon Hill for Insight Global. Dkt. No. 39. Beacon Hill represents to the Court that it

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

complied with this order. Dkt. No. 78 at 7. In addition, Mr. Barker, Beacon Hill, and the non-

12

parties represent that they have no responsive documents or information evidencing trade secret

13

misappropriation by Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill. Id. at 6.

14

Had Insight Global identified its trade secrets with particularity it might be possible for it

15

to demand further discovery relating to those trade secrets that did not have the quality of a fishing

16

expedition. As it stands, the only specific confidential or trade secret information that Insight

17

Global cites is the compensation information of its employees and whatever may have been in the

18

confidential files of the 17 client accounts Mr. Verduzco accessed. The Court previously ordered

19

discovery intended to yield information regarding whether any confidential information

20

concerning the 17 client accounts had been misused by Beacon Hill. Insight Global does not

21

suggest that it has developed any such evidence of misuse after receiving that discovery. If Mr.

22

Barker, Beacon Hill, and the non-parties have not produced to Insight Global documents or

23

information in their possession, custody, or control reflecting confidential compensation

24

information of Insight Global employees obtained without Insight Global’s permission, they shall

25

produce those documents and that information immediately. Counsel for Mr. Barker, Beacon Hill,

26

and the non-parties shall file a declaration with the Court no later than May 9, 2019 confirming

27
28
4

1
2
3

their compliance with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 3, 2019

4
5
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
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
5