Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-07186/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-07186-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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 DEPOSITION OF 

BEACON HILL

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC,

Defendant.

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

Re: Dkt. No. 60

Insight Global moves to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Beacon Hill. For the 

reasons stated on the record during the hearing on February 12, 2019 (Case No. 16-cv-07186-BLF, 

Dkt. Nos. 211, 212; Case No. 17-cv-00309-BLF, Dkt. No. 61), and as further explained below, the 

Court grants the motion to compel as to the certain noticed topics and denies the motion as to 

others.

Insight Global’s January 18, 2019 deposition notice includes 45 topics on which it seeks 

deposition testimony of Beacon Hill for use in these related actions. Beacon Hill objects to the 

notice on several grounds, including the relevance and scope of many of the topics.

Insight Global contends that the noticed topics are relevant to the following claims and 

defenses: (1) breach of contract of contract against Mr. Barker, based on his alleged misuse of 

trade secret and confidential information of Insight Global; (2) interfering with contract and 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 216 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 6
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

inducing breach of contract against Beacon Hill; (3) trade secret misappropriation against Mr. 

Barker and Beacon Hill; and (4) Insight Global’s forfeiture defense to Mr. Barker’s claim for 

deferred compensation under the Second Amended and Restated Insight Global, LLC 2013 

Incentive Unit Plan (“the Plan”). Although Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill disagree on the scope and 

merits of these claims and defenses, they seem to agree that these claims and defenses are at issue, 

with the exception of Insight Global’s forfeiture defense.

Insight Global argued that Mr. Barker’s alleged direct or indirect solicitation of Insight 

Global employees violated the terms of the Plan, which justifies forfeiture of the deferred 

compensation he seeks in his complaint against Insight Global in Case No. 16-cv-01786. Beacon 

Hill contends that AMN1invalidates all employee non-solicitation provisions. See Case No. 16-

cv-01786, Dkt. No. 201. The parties did not address this issue in the joint submission, but during 

the hearing, Insight Global argued that even if a non-solicitation provision is unenforceable in an 

employment agreement under California state law, ERISA preempts state law with respect to 

conditions of payment for deferred compensation in an ERISA plan, and therefore Mr. Barker’s 

(and Beacon Hill’s) solicitation of Insight Global employees is relevant to Insight Global’s 

defense to Mr. Barker’s claim for deferred compensation under the Plan.2 See, e.g., Clark v. 

Lauren Young Tire Center Profit Sharing Trust, 816 F.2d 480, 481 (9th Cir. 1987) (ERISA 

preempts state law with respect to non-competition forfeiture clauses). In response, Beacon Hill 

argued at the hearing that it disagreed that the non-solicitation provision in the Plan is enforceable, 

but did not explain the basis for its disagreement.

The Plan includes several conditions for payment of deferred compensation, including the 

following condition in section 10(c)(iii):

Induce or attempt to induce any Person who (A) is an employee of the 

Company of any of its Affiliates to leave the employ of the Company 

or any of its Affiliates or any of their respective customers or clients 

or (B) is or had been, during the two years prior to such inducement 

or attempted inducement, an employee of the Company or any of its 

Affiliates or any of their respective customers or clients, to solicit, 

 

1 AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., 28 Cal. App.5th 923 (2018).

2

Insight Global asserts other defenses to the Mr. Barker’s claim for deferred compensation.

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 216 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 6
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

divert or take away from the Company or any of its Affiliates any staff 

or personnel;

Case No. 16-cv-07186, Dkt. No. 209, Ex. 2 at 6. The Plan also includes a severability provision, 

which states in part: “If at any time any of the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Plan shall be held 

invalid or unenforceable or are prohibited by the laws of the jurisdiction where they are to be 

performed or enforced, by reason of being vague or unreasonable as to duration or geographic 

scope of scope of activities restricted, of for any other reason, such provisions shall be considered 

divisible and shall become and be immediately amended to include only such restrictions and to 

such extent as shall be deemed to be reasonable and enforceable by the court . . . .” Id., Ex. 2 at 8, 

¶ 17. In addition, the Plan specifies certain conditions for payment of deferred compensation 

“shall not apply to Employees who are residents of California of the State of California at the time 

of termination of employment.” Id. Section 10(c)(iii), the employee non-solicitation provision, is 

not specifically identified. Neither party addressed the severability of section 10(c)(iii) in the joint 

submission.

So far as the Court can tell, Insight Global’s defense to Mr. Barker’s claim for deferred 

compensation is still at issue in Case No. 16-01786. Accordingly, Insight Global is entitled to 

discovery of Mr. Barker’s direct or indirect solicitation of Insight Global employees in violation of 

section 10(c)(iii) of the Plan.

Several of the topics in Insight Global’s deposition notice encompass matters that are at 

most only tangentially relevant to a claim or defense or seek testimony that is not proportional to 

the claims or defenses that are at issue. Other topics seek relevant and proportional deposition 

discovery, and others may be tailored so that they are limited to relevant and proportional

deposition discovery. Accordingly, Insight Global may proceed with a deposition of Beacon Hill 

on the following topics, as modified by the Court:

1. The documents produced by Beacon Hill Staffing Group, LLC (“Beacon Hill”) on 

January 15, 2019, (bates range Barker-000289 through 000313), and any additional 

documents related to the “privilege log” documents that Judge DeMarchi ordered produced 

in her Order (Dkt. 46) to the extent a supplemental production is made.

3. Beacon Hill’s recruitment and hiring of John McArthur, Connor Cronin, and Bryan 

Verduzco (the “Three Former IG Employees Hired by BH”), but only as that subject 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 216 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 6
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

matter relates to (a) Mr. Barker’s role in soliciting employees as described in section 

10(c)(iii) of the Plan, or (b) the use of Insight Global’s alleged trade secrets or 

confidential information.

4. Barker’s communications with Beacon Hill employees about some or all of the 

Three Former IG Employees Hired by BH prior to their start date of employment with 

Beacon Hill, including any discussions about (1) their employment at Insight Global; (2) 

their compensation at Insight Global; (3) negotiations with them regarding joining Beacon 

Hill; and (4) the compensation and other terms / conditions offered to them as part of their 

initial employment packages at Beacon Hill.

6. Initial compensation and terms / conditions of employment offered to other persons 

hired into Account Executive, Senior Staffing Consultant, and Division Director roles at 

Beacon Hill during 2016 and 2017, and how those compare to what was offered to the 

Three Former IG Employees Hired by BH. How the compensation and other terms and 

conditions offered to the Three Former IG Employees Hired by BH as part of their initial 

employment packages at Beacon Hill compared to the employment packages offered by 

Beacon Hill to similarly qualified prospective employees for comparable positions during 

the year preceding the offers to the Three Former IG Employees Hired by BH.

8. Communications (including, but not limited to, phone calls, emails, and text 

messages) between Jeff McLaren and Barker about Insight Global employees during 

December 2016 and January 2017. Note: If Insight Global wishes to inquire about specific 

communications produced in discovery, it must identify those specific communications at 

least 48 hours in advance of the deposition. 

9. Communications (including but not limited to, phone calls, emails, and text 

messages) between Jeff McLaren and Andy Wang about Insight Global employees during 

December 2016 and January 2017. Note: If Insight Global wishes to inquire about specific 

communications produced in discovery, it must identify those specific communications at 

least 48 hours in advance of the deposition.

12. The recruitment of Tim Silva, Hilton Brown, Jeremy Kelley, and any other persons 

employed in San Francisco by Insight Global, but only as that subject matter relates to (a) 

Mr. Barker’s role in soliciting employees as described in section 10(c)(iii) of the Plan, or 

(b) the use of Insight Global’s alleged trade secrets or confidential information.

17. Beacon Hill’s offer letter to Barker.

18. Barker’s written employment agreement with Insight Global.

19. Documents produced by Beacon Hill in response to Judge Lloyd’s Order on DDJR 

1 (Dkt. 39) on or about May 4, 2018 (bates range Barker-000257 through 000288), and the 

written responses ordered by the Court in its resolution of Dkt. No. 49 in Case No. 17-cv00309-BLF (Dkt. No. 62).3

 

3

It will not be sufficient for Beacon Hill’s corporate representative to simply parrot the written 

responses, as counsel for Beacon Hill suggested during the hearing. Rather, the corporate 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 216 Filed 02/19/19 Page 4 of 6
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

25. Any and all efforts Beacon Hill has taken to preserve information and documents 

(including emails and text messages) relating to this lawsuit and the related lawsuit, Barker 

v. Insight Global, LLC et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-07186, including Beacon Hill’s 

recordkeeping and document retention policies, practices, and procedures. Note: Inquiry 

must be limited to non-privileged matters, and may not include inquiry regarding what 

Beacon Hill was told to do or not do by counsel.

26. Any and all efforts Beacon Hill has taken to collect and produce documents 

(including emails and text messages) in this lawsuit, and to respond to discovery requests it 

has received in this lawsuit and the related lawsuit, Barker v. Insight Global, LLC et al., 

Case No. 5:16- cv-07186, including without limitation, the nature and scope of document 

and information searches it conducted and by whom. Note: Inquiry must be limited to 

non-privileged matters, and may not include inquiry regarding what Beacon Hill was told 

to do or not do by counsel.

30. Review, discussion, and/or consideration of Barker’s employment agreement with 

Insight Global during the process of recruiting and/or hiring him, including without 

limitation any instruction regarding compliance or non-compliance with Barker’s 

employment agreement with Insight Global. Note: Inquiry must be limited to those 

aspects of the employment agreement that are enforceable and are alleged to have been 

breached.

31. Information about Insight Global’s current or former employees; business 

relationships; customer accounts; customer contacts; and/or business practices that was 

provided to Beacon Hill by Barker, McArthur, Cronin, or Verduzco. Note: Inquiry must 

be limited to the trade secret or confidential information at issue in the case.

33. John McArthur’s separation of employment from Beacon Hill.Whether John 

McArthur resigned, was asked to resign, and/or was terminated from his employment with 

Beacon Hill.

38. Communications between Beacon Hill and Barker relating to the Second Amended 

and Restated Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan (“IUP”).

44. Non-privileged communications with Barker about the instant lawsuit and/or 

Barker’s claims against Insight Global in the related lawsuit, Barker v. Insight Global, LLC 

et al., Case No. 5:16- cv-07186. 

Except as otherwise encompassed in the foregoing topics, Insight Global may not inquire 

about the matters described in topics 2, 5, 7 (but see topic 19), 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 

23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45.

 

representative should be prepared to answer reasonable clarifying questions about the documents 

and the written responses, including questions about the nature and source of the data on which 

Beacon Hill relies for its written responses. The corporate representative is not expected to have 

memorized the contents of spreadsheets or databases.

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 216 Filed 02/19/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

For now, the Court will not permit Insight Global to inquire into the full scope of topics 

20-24. However, if Insight Global obtains facts via the written responses ordered by the Court in 

its resolution of Dkt. No. 49 in Case No. 17-cv-00309-BLF (see Dkt. No. 62) or via the deposition 

testimony permitted in topic 19 that supports a reasonable belief that particular business was 

obtained by Beacon Hill as a result of information accessed by Bryan Verduzco shortly before his 

departure from Insight Global, the Court may permit some deposition regarding those matters.

The parties shall confer regarding a mutually agreeable date and location for the deposition 

of Beacon Hill, keeping in mind the Court’s guidance regarding the expectation of professional 

courtesy in the scheduling of depositions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 216 Filed 02/19/19 Page 6 of 6