Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-00309/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-00309-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN BARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTERS

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC,

Defendant.

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

Re: Dkt. Nos. 77, 78

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 29, 2019, the parties jointly submitted discovery dispute letters on both disputes. 

The Court considers and resolves each dispute separately.

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 79 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I. DKT. NO. 77

In 2017, the Court considered Insight Global’s request for discovery of similar scope in the 

related case Barker v. Insight Global, No. 16-7186. In response to a discovery dispute concerning 

this request, Judge Lloyd ordered as follows:

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. 

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 79 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

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

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

what the word “solicit” means. Id. at 7. If, for example, Mr. Barker, Beacon Hill, and the nonparties have searched for and produced documents that reflect Mr. Barker or Beacon Hill “asking 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

may reveal. 

II. 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.” 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 79 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insight Global does not otherwise specify its trade secrets.

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 

complied with this order. Dkt. No. 78 at 7. In addition, Mr. Barker, Beacon Hill, and the nonparties represent that they have no responsive documents or information evidencing trade secret 

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

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

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

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

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

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

discovery intended to yield information regarding whether any confidential information 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 79 Filed 05/03/19 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

their compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 79 Filed 05/03/19 Page 5 of 5