Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-07186/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-07186-26/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 RULE 30(B)(6) 

DEPOSITION OF INSIGHT GLOBAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 230, 239

As directed by the Court, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill have made a supplemental 

submission in support of their request for an order requiring Insight Global to produce a Rule 

30(b)(6) designee (Mr. Lowance or another representative) for further deposition on noticed 

Topics 5, 11, 12, 13 and 15. That supplemental submission reflects that the parties have slightly 

narrowed their dispute, and have conferred further about the bases for their respective positions.

Having considered the parties’ original submission (Dkt. No. 230) and their supplemental 

submission (Dkt. No. 239), as well as the arguments presented at the hearing on April 16, 2019, 

the Court grants in part and denies in part Mr. Barker’s and Beacon Hill’s request for further 

deposition testimony, as set forth in detail below.

I. SUMMARY OF THE DISPUTE

The question presented by this dispute is whether the deposition questions Mr. Lowance 

did not answer were within the scope of the deposition topics for which he was designated, and if 

so, whether Insight Global’s privilege/work product objections to those questions were proper.1 

Insight Global designated Mr. Lowance for the following topics:

 

1

Insight Global does not oppose the discovery on other grounds.

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 1 of 18
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

5. The Second Amended and Restated Insight Global LLC 2013 

Incentive Unit Plan.

11. The basis for Insight’s decision not to pay Mr. Barker his accumulated 

units of value under the Second Amended and Restated Insight Global 

LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan.

12. The identity of all persons who participated in the decision not to pay 

Mr. Barker his accumulated units of value under the Second Amended 

and Restated Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan.

13. Every document, including without limitation every policy, on which 

Insight relied in its decision not to pay Mr. Barker his accumulated 

units of value under the Second Amended and Restated Insight Global 

LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan.

15. Insight’s enforcement of non-solicitation of customers provisions, 

non-solicitation of employees provisions and non-compete provisions 

against its California employees, including without limitation any 

notifications or reminders by Insight to its California employees of 

their alleged non-solicitation or non-compete obligations or any 

claims that an employee breached his or her alleged non-solicitation or 

non-compete obligations.

Dkt. No. 230 at ECF 11-12.

Of the 93 deposition questions in dispute, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill have withdrawn 

three questions (#9, #79, #83), and appear to concede that an additional eight questions (#15, #76, 

#77, #78, #80, #81, #82, #92) are outside the scope of the noticed topics.2 See Dkt. No. 239 at 

ECF 2, 9, 27, 28, 30. Insight Global has offered to provide responses to eleven questions, 

including one that is concededly outside the scope (#5, #7, #8, #11, #12, #13, #14, #44, #45, #81 

and #87), albeit in the form of written answers, not deposition testimony. See Dkt. No. 239 at 

ECF 2, 33. The 72 questions that remain in dispute are reproduced in the chart at the end of this 

order. For each question, the Court first considers whether the question is fairly within the scope 

of the noticed deposition topic, and for those that are, the Court then considers whether Insight 

Global’s privilege/work product objection is well taken.3 

 

2

In their supplemental submission, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill argue for the first time that Mr. 

Lowance or another Insight Global representative should be required to answer questions that are 

admittedly not within the scope of a noticed topics because Mr. Lowance’s individual deposition 

was noticed for the same day as the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. See Dkt. No. 239 at ECF 2. The 

Court will disregard this argument, as it is both inconsistent with the Court’s direction regarding 

the permissible contents of the supplemental submission and legally irrelevant.

3 Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill are correct that a party may not refuse to answer based solely on an 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 2 of 18
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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Questions Outside the Scope of the Noticed Deposition Topics

Of the 72 disputed questions, Insight Global agrees that thirteen questions are indeed 

within the scope of one or more noticed deposition topics (#20, #21, #23, #24, #31, #61, #62, #63, 

#64, #65, #67, #85, #86), and it raises only privilege/work product objections to those questions. 

For all but five of the remaining disputed questions, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill rely on Topic 15 

for their argument that the question is within the scope of a noticed topic. Accordingly, the Court 

begins with a consideration of the scope of Topic 15.

1. Topic 15

At its broadest, Topic 15 is directed to “Insight’s enforcement of non-solicitation of 

customers provisions, non-solicitation of employees provisions and non-compete provisions 

against its California employees.” Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill construe this topic broadly; Insight 

Global construes it more narrowly. The parties appear not to have conferred about their differing 

views of the scope of the topic in advance of the deposition. 

A reasonable interpretation of the scope of this topic is informed by both the further 

elaboration of the topic in the “including without limitation” clause, as well as the other topics in 

the deposition notice for which Insight Global produced other designees. The Court agrees that 

Topic 15 is not limited to “letters written to former employees about their contractual obligations 

to IG” (Dkt. No. 230 at ECF 5), as Insight Global contends, but encompasses more generally 

efforts by Insight Global to enforce non-solicitation and non-compete obligations against its 

California employees. However, it does not include, for example, Insight’s practice of including 

such obligations in its agreements with California employees, which is the subject of a different 

topic. 

Applying this interpretation, the Court finds that the following disputed questions are 

within the scope of Topic 15: #3, #4, #6, #22, #25, #27, #32, #33, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, 

#47, #48, #50, #60, #75. As to those topics, most of the disputed questions are phrased in a 

 

objection that a question is beyond the scope of a noticed topic, but should instead seek relief from 

the Court as provided in Rule 30(c)(2) and (d)(3). However, the Court will not order Insight 

Global to provide further deposition testimony unless that testimony falls within a noticed topic.

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 3 of 18
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

manner that suggests they are seeking the personal views of the deponent; however, the topic is

limited to positions taken or information known to Insight Global. Subject to the Court’s decision 

on the privilege/work product objections, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill must reformulate these 

questions so that they are addressed to Insight Global and not Mr. Lowance personally, or 

whomever Insight Global chooses to designate. As discussed below, such reformulations also

may be necessary to avoid privilege/work product objections. 

The following disputed questions are outside the scope of Topic 15, and Insight Global 

need not produce a designee to testify about them: #1, #2, #10, #16, #17, #18, #19, #26, #28, #29, 

#30, #34, #35, #42, #43, #46, #49, #54, #55, #56, #57, #58, #59, #66, #68, #69, #70, #71, #72, 

#73, #74, #88, #89, #91, #93.

2. Topics 5, 11, 12, 13

Topic 5 concerns the Second Amended and Restated Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive 

Unit Plan (“IUP”), and Topics 11, 12 and 13 concern Insight Global’s decision to not pay Mr. 

Barker his accumulated units of value under the IUP. The Court finds that disputed question #84 

is within the scope of Topic 5, and disputed question #90 is within the scope of Topics 11, 12 and 

13. As to those topics, subject to the Court’s decision on the privilege/work product objections, 

Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill must reformulate these questions so that they are addressed to 

information known to Insight Global, and not the individual deponent.

The following disputed questions are outside the scope of Topics 5, 11, 12 and 13, and 

Insight Global need not produce a designee to testify about them: #51, #52, #53.

B. Questions Barred by the Attorney-Client Privilege or Work Product Doctrine

As indicated in the summary chart below, there are 34 questions that the Court has 

determined (or Insight Global has agreed) fall within the scope of a noticed topic. The Court now 

turns to Insight Global’s privilege and work product objections to those questions.

It appears from Insight Global’s portion of the joint submission that most of its privilege 

and work product objections are closely tied to Mr. Lowance’s role as general counsel to Insight 

Global, and the fact that most of the questions at issue were phrased in a manner suggesting that 

Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill were seeking discovery of Mr. Lowance personally. While it is not 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 4 of 18
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

improper to designate counsel as a company representative, that designee’s role as an attorney 

cannot be used to insulate from discovery facts known to the company. Upjohn Co. v. United 

States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981) (“The privilege only protects disclosure of communications; it 

does not protect disclosure of the underlying facts by those who communicated with the 

attorney[.]”) At the same time, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may not compel personal deposition 

testimony of Mr. Lowance in the guise of seeking discovery of Insight Global under Rule 

30(b)(6).

The Court concludes that the following deposition questions, if reformulated to seek 

information in the possession, custody or control of Insight Global, are principally directed to 

obtaining factual information of Insight Global and not communications subject to the attorneyclient privilege or information subject to the attorney work product doctrine: #20, #21, #22, #23, 

#32, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #47, #48, #50, #60, #61, #62, #64, #67, #75, #84, #86, #90. By 

way of example, question #20 might be reformulated as follows: “Did any Insight Global 

representative ever discuss with any Insight Global employees that Insight Global was not going 

to enforce any longer the non-solicitation of customers and clients provision?” 

It may well be that complete answers to some of these reformulated questions would 

require the deponent to reveal privileged information of the company. Nothing in this order 

precludes such an objection on this ground during the further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. For 

example, question #36 might be reformulated as follows: “Why does Insight Global not point out 

[in the document under discussion], as it does in the IUP, that certain provisions do not apply to 

California employees?” An answer to that question might be purely factual—e.g., a change or 

difference in policy—or it might indeed require the deponent to reveal advice of counsel, or both. 

Nothing in this order requires Insight Global to reveal advice of counsel; however, it must respond 

with factual information known to the company to the extent the question calls for such 

information, regardless of the source of those facts.

A number of the remaining deposition questions do not appear to call for factual 

information, but instead seek Insight Global’s contentions or positions on matters having to do 

with its enforcement of non-solicitation and non-competition provisions. Insight Global does not 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 5 of 18
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

object to these questions on the ground that deposition testimony is not an appropriate means of 

discovering its contentions. However, it does object that several questions improperly seek 

disclosure of Insight Global’s legal conclusions, legal strategy, and/or the advice of counsel. The 

Court concludes that the following deposition questions, if appropriately reformulated, are 

principally directed to obtaining Insight Global’s contentions, as opposed to legal conclusions, 

legal strategy or advice of counsel: #3, #4, #6, #24, #25, #27, #31, #33. For example, question #3 

might be reformulated as follows: “How does Insight Global contend the noncompete covenant 

should be interpreted?” And, question #24 might be reformulated as follows: “Does Insight 

Global contend that Ms. Gravino’s calling on at least one account with whom she had contact 

while working at Insight Global is a violation of the at will employment agreement?” The Court 

expects the answers to these questions would not implicate any privilege or work product 

concerns; however, further questions probing why Insight Global so contends might well implicate 

such concerns. Nothing in this order requires Insight Global to reveal advice of counsel or 

attorney work product in response to such further questions.

With respect to question #63, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may not inquire about, or 

premise their question on an assertion of, Insight Global’s or its designee’s view of a decision of 

the California Supreme Court, and it may not seek an explanation for why Insight Global does not 

send letters of non-enforcement to its former employees, as that question appears to seek 

information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Likewise, with 

respect to question #65, Mr. Baker and Beacon Hill may not inquire about Insight Global’s legal 

analysis regarding what California law does and does not prohibit. Finally, with respect to 

question #85, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may not inquire as to whether committees within 

Insight Global have a conflict of interest, as that question seems designed to elicit a purely legal 

conclusion that likely also implicates attorney-client privilege. Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may 

not inquire further about questions #63, #65 and #85.

III. CONCLUSION

Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may take further deposition testimony of Insight Global 

regarding the following questions, subject to the Court’s direction that questions must be directed 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 6 of 18
7

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

to Insight Global and not to an individual deponent: #3, #4, #6, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #27, 

#31, #32, #33, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #47, #48, #50, #60, #61, #62, #64, #67, #75, #84, 

#86, #90. Insight Global may produce Mr. Lowance for further deposition or may produce 

another designee or designees to answer these questions. This further deposition questioning will 

be limited to a total of 2.5 hours. Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may ask reasonable follow up 

questions to follow up on answers to the permitted questions, but they may not inquire as to any 

matters the Court has concluded are outside the scope of a noticed topic or subject to valid 

privilege/work product objections. The parties shall cooperate to promptly schedule the further 

deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 7 of 18
1 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

1 You understand that covenants not to 

compete are unenforceable under 

California law; correct? 15:17-21.

No n/a 

2 When you executed the settlement 

agreement on behalf of Insight Global, 

did you understand this provision that I 

just read, paragraph 13, the no-hire 

restriction period? 16:1-7. 

No n/a 

3 The noncompete covenant to which 

employees are bound with Insight 

Global, what is your understanding of 

that phase [phrase]? 16:23-17:2.

15 No 

4 Did you believe that any of MacArthur, 

Barker, Brodusco [Verduzco] or Cronin 

were subject to this no-hire restriction 

period, paragraph 13, of the settlement 

agreement? 17:7-14. 

15 No 

5 Are any of the four subject to a 

noncompete covenant with Insight 

Global? 17:25-18:23. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

6 And you would agree that this 

settlement agreement is a [an] effort by 

Insight Global to enforce its restrictive 

covenants against its former employees; 

correct? 19:4-18. 

15 No 

7 To your knowledge, are any Insight 

Global California employees current or 

former subject to a noncompete? 19:23-

20:2. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

8 To your knowledge, has any current or 

former Insight Global employee, who 

worked in California, ever signed a 

covenant not to compete within a certain 

geographic area? 20:7-12. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

9 Glen Johnson came from Tech Systems; 

correct? 25:15-22. 

10 Did Insight Global fire [Chris Hubbard] 

for sexual harassment? 35:20-36:3. 

No n/a 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 8 of 18
2 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

11 Can you generally describe the efforts 

that Insight has undertaken to comply 

with the law in the various states where 

Insight conducts business regarding 

post-employment, restrictive covenants, 

and by that I mean covenants not to 

compete, nonsolicitation of customers, 

clients and employees and – provisions? 

41:17-42:9. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

12 For example, does Insight have a 

compliance program in place to ensure 

that it does not violate the law in the 

various jurisdictions where Insight 

conducts business? 43:3-8. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

13 What is Insight Global’s compliance 

program with respect to enforceability 

of restrictive covenants? 43:12-16. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

14 Does Insight do anything to comply 

with the laws in the various jurisdictions 

where Insight conducts business with 

respect to post-employment, restrictive 

covenants? 43:18-23. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

15 Do you know the employee turnover 

rate at Insight’s San Francisco office 

during the same period of time, 2013 to 

the present? 45:17-46:1. 

16 Are you familiar with the California 

Supreme Court’s last post-employment 

restrictive covenants case, Edwards v. 

Arthur Anderson? 46:3-8. 

No n/a 

17 When did you become familiar with the 

California Supreme Court’s, Edwards v. 

Arthur Anderson decision? 46:12-15.

No n/a 

18 Do you understand that nonsolicitation 

of customers’ provisions are 

unenforceable and unfair business 

practice in California? 46:17-23. 

No n/a 

19 Did Insight Global revise its at will 

employment agreements in response to 

the Barker lawsuit? 46:25-47:3.

No n/a 

20 Did you ever discuss with any 

employees at Insight Global that Insight 

Global was not going to enforce any

15 (not disputed) No 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 9 of 18
3 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

longer the nonsolicitation of customers’ 

and clients’ provisions? 47:7-48:13.

21 Were you privy to discussions regarding 

a stipulation to that effect? In other 

words, a binding stipulation that would 

be signed by Judge Fruman [Freeman]? 

48:15-19. 

15 (not disputed) No 

22 Have you seen the proposed stipulation? 

49:13-17. 

15 No 

23 When would a letter go to a former 

employee that joins a competitor? 

54:15-20. 

15 (not disputed) No 

24 It looks like you also wrote in this letter 

that Ms. Gravino had called on at least 

one account with whom she had contact 

while working at Insight Global. Is that 

a violation of her At Will Employment 

Agreement with Insight Global? 55:16-

57:4. 

15 (not disputed) No 

25 Is it a breach of any agreement with 

Insight Global for a former employee to 

do business with a customer or client 

who they had contact with at Insight 

Global? 57:6-12. 

15 No 

26 What is your understanding of what that 

[the inevitable disclosure theory] 

means? 57:14-21. 

No n/a 

27 Is it Insight’s philosophy that since we 

trained you as an employee, you can’t 

leave and go work for a competitor; 

everything you know, you learned from 

us? 58:4-14. 

15 No 

28 Do you agree with Mr. Bean’s statement 

with regard to employee knowledge, 

employee training at Insight Global, that 

if employees leave, whatever knowledge 

they are going to know about staffing is 

going to be learned from Insight Global 

and constitutes Insight Global’s trade 

secrets? 59:16-24. 

No n/a 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 10 of 18
4 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

29 In the course of your job, did you 

research and find the Supreme Court of 

California’s 2008 decision in Edwards 

vs. Arthur Anderson regarding 

nonsolicitation of customers’ 

provisions? 71:22-72:4. 

No n/a 

30 Have you ever read the Edwards’ case? 

72:8-10. 

No n/a 

31 In the next letter here, you are telling a 

former employee in 2014 that they 

cannot solicit or attempt to solicit any 

customers or clients with whom they 

had material contact while at Insight 

Global --- I think there is a typo, any 

staffing service business? Isn’t that an 

attempt to threaten an employee with an 

unenforceable customer nonsolicitation 

provision? 73:5-14. 

15 (not disputed) No 

32 And what do you mean by “if 

applicable,” in this context? 79:7-13. 

15 No 

33 Isn’t the purpose of this [the Separation 

Agreement] to restrain former 

employees of Insight Global? 83:23-

84:5. 

15 No 

34 You have known that since 2013, when 

you became general counsel of Insight 

Global, that California law forbids postemployment noncompetes; correct? 

85:15-24. 

No n/a 

35 Does Insight Global contend that all five 

or [of] these provisions are enforceable 

under California law? 86:3-7. 

No n/a 

36 Why not point out, as you do in the IUP 

plan that certain provisions don’t apply 

to California employees? 87:2-9.

15 No 

37 Why not just say this agreement not to 

compete doesn’t apply to California 

employees? 87:11-17. 

15 No 

38 Why do you include a business location 

at all in a separation agreement with a 

California employee? 95:13-23.

15 No 

39 What was your intent in drafting that 

sentence [Section 5-B of Separation 

Agreement]? 98:24-99:4. 

15 No 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 11 of 18
5 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

40 Was your intent to dissuade former 

Insight employees in California from 

going to work for the competition? 

99:8-16. 

15 No 

41 Isn’t it true, Mr. Lowance, that the 

purpose, intent and effect of these postemployment restrictive covenants in the 

standard Insight separation agreement, 

are to dissuade and inhibit former 

employees in California from accepting 

jobs with Insight’s competitors in the 

staffing industry? 103:3-20. 

15 No 

42 Do you make a distinction in your mind 

between solicitation and inducement? 

108:20-109:3. 

No n/a 

43 You would agree, Mr. Lowance, that if 

an Insight Global employee in San 

Francisco reached out to John Barker 

and asked about Beacon Hill, that that 

by itself would not be a violation of a 

nonsolicitation provision? 109:7-17.

No n/a 

44 Isn’t it true that Insight Global has never 

advised its California employees that 

any of these post-employment restrictive 

covenants do not apply to them? 

109:21-110:4. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

45 Are you aware of Insight Global ever 

telling any California employee that the 

nonsolicitation of customers and clients 

provision is not enforceable under 

California law? 110:6-13. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

46 When you authored this termination 

letter to my client, John Barker, you 

knew he was not subject to a 

noncompete under California law; 

correct? 113:13-18. 

No n/a 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 12 of 18
6 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

47 You say the “Documents contain 

restrictions designed to protect Insight 

Global’s confidential business 

information, and goodwill from actions 

by former employees including 

commitments not to one compete 

against Insight Global in its lines of 

business within certain geographic 

areas.” Why did you say that if he was 

not subject to a noncompete? 114:4-17. 

15 No 

48 Why did you write that he was subject 

to commitments not to compete against 

Insight Global in its lines of business 

within certain geographic areas? 

114:22-115:3. 

15 No 

49 Were you trying to confuse John Barker 

into thinking he couldn’t compete with 

Insight Global by writing this language? 

115:6-9. 

No n/a 

50 What did you mean when you said, he 

had a commitment not to compete 

against Insight Global in its lines of 

business within certain geographic 

areas? 115:11-116:12. 

15 No 

51 Why did the company terminate him for 

cause? 118:10-23. 

No n/a 

52 Why would you use the word “cause” if 

he is at will? What other reason would 

you use “cause” if he was an at will 

employee? 119:18-22. 

No n/a 

53 Did you understand, when you wrote 

this letter, that cause had a certain 

meaning? 120:12-17. 

No n/a 

54 Isn’t it true you wrote your termination 

letter to my client, John Barker, in a 

deliberately misleading manner to 

restrain competition by him? 121:25-

122:11. 

No n/a 

55 Isn’t true that you knew full well when 

you wrote your letter firing my client, 

John Barker, he was not subject to any 

legally enforceable covenant not to 

compete? 122:15-20. 

No n/a 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 13 of 18
7 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

56 Isn’t it true that you knew full well 

when you wrote your letter firing John 

Barker that he was not subject to any 

legally enforceable covenant not to 

solicit Insight’s current or prospective 

clients and customers? 122:24-123:6.

No n/a 

57 Isn’t it also true, Mr. Lowance, that 

when you wrote your letter firing my 

client, you knew full well that Section 7 

of the National Labor Relations Act 

prohibited any contract provision 

prohibiting Insight’s current or former 

employees for [from] making 

“disparaging statements about Insight or 

its employees”? 123:9-16. 

No n/a 

58 In fact that legal prohibition is 

confirmed in Insight’s own National 

employee handbook, correct, protected 

concerted activities? You can’t 

disparage an employer – hear about all 

the Facebook cases last year, two years 

ago? 123:19-124:2. 

No n/a 

59 Isn’t it true that you deliberately 

included the words “if applicable” in 

Insight’s form separation agreements to 

confuse Insight’s California employees 

and to restrain them from competing 

with Insight in the staffing industry? 

124:6-12. 

No n/a 

60 Isn’t it also true that Insight’s desires to 

restrain and intimidate former 

employees from competing with Insight, 

knowing that Insight’s current and 

former employees are not bound by any 

noncompete obligation or any 

nonsolicitation of customers’ provision? 

124:14-23. 

15 No 

61 Isn’t it true that Insight includes these 

post-employment restrictive covenants 

in your reminder letters to former 

employees and in Insight standard form 

separation agreements, to restrain the 

competition by former employees? 

124:25-125:7. 

15 (not disputed) No 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 14 of 18
8 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

62 And another is to intimidate current and 

former employees from competing. 

Isn’t that true? 125:9-23. 

15 (not disputed) No 

63 So knowing what you now know 

through the Barker lawsuit that 

California doesn’t recognize covenants 

not to compete, California Supreme 

Court back in 2008 ruled that 

nonsolicitation of customers’ provisions 

are unenforceable, they are a disguise 

noncompete – knowing that now, why 

don’t you send letters to your former 

employees to let them know that we 

won’t enforce these against you? 

125:25-126:14. 

15 (not disputed) Yes 

64 Is there any reason why when you 

revised the At Will Employment 

Agreements in February of 2017 for 

California employees or some California 

employees, that you didn’t notify former 

employees that they are no longer bound 

by that nonsolicitation of customers’ 

provision? 126:18-127:2. 

15 (not disputed) No 

65 There is no law prohibiting a former 

employee from having any contact with 

a former employer’s customer under 

California law; correct? 136:20-137:21.

15 (not disputed) Yes 

66 To ask one more question on this point, 

if a former Insight Global account 

manager working in California resigns 

or is terminated and then goes to work 

for another staffing firm, a competitor, 

there is nothing in either the At Will 

Employment Agreement or the law that 

would prevent the employee from 

receiving calls from former customers 

with whom they had contact with at 

Insight, is there? 137:23-138:8.

No n/a 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 15 of 18
9 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

67 It goes on to say, as that would 

necessarily require the use of that same 

confidential business information. Did 

you mean by this that a former 

employee would not be able to have any 

contact with a former customer who 

they had contact with while at Insight 

Global? 143:20-144:8. 

15 (not disputed) No 

68 The question is whether Insight Global 

considers the mere identities of plants 

[clients] and plant [client] hiring 

managers to be a secret? 146:5-19.

No n/a 

69 Did Insight Global target my client, 

Beacon Hill, because of the Barker 

lawsuit? Specifically, the Texas lawsuit, 

the Illinois lawsuit, the New York 

lawsuit? 153:24-154:8. 

No n/a 

70 In other words, John Barker wasn’t 

willing to play ball and Beacon Hill 

wasn’t willing to cave to Insight Global. 

So you decided – Insight decided to sue 

Beacon Hill as a practice retaliation? 

154:10-155:21. 

No n/a 

71 Isn’t it true that because John Barker 

and Beacon Hill were not willing to 

cave to Insight Global’s tactics that 

Insight Global, as a business practice, 

decided to compete through litigation? 

155:23-156:9. 

No n/a 

72 Wasn’t the reason because California 

does not recognize or enforce 

noncompetes? 157:14-25. 

No n/a 

73 You understand though, as of the date 

you signed this agreement that 

California did not allow noncompetes – 

post-employment noncompetes? 

158:17-25. 

No n/a 

74 When did you learn that California does 

not allow post-employment 

noncompetes? 159:4-160:3. 

No n/a 

75 Do you know why the parties agreed to 

a carve out for California law in the 

settlement agreement marked as 113? 

160:8-15. 

15 No 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 16 of 18
10 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

76 You were asked [sic] questions of 

current employees of Insight Global; 

correct? 162:17-163:3. 

77 Did you tell any of these employees 

employ [sic] who you are going to give 

raises to, that you were seeking legal 

advice? 163:5-10. 

78 Why these particular employees and not 

others in the San Francisco office? 

165:15-19. 

79 Do you know whether Austin March has 

resigned his employment with Insight 

Global? 168:4-11. 

80 Are the recruiters considered outside the 

[sic] salespersons? 173:14-25.

81 The reason I ask is, there is not a signed 

arbitration agreement in John Barker’s 

personnel file. Do you know one way or 

the other why he didn’t sign one or 

wasn’t asked to sign one if this was 

implemented in July of 2014? 176:11-

22. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

82 Were some California employees asked 

to sign the arbitration agreement and 

some not asked? 176:24-177:9.

83 Have you reviewed the party’s [sic] 

discovery responses served in this case? 

178:11-20. 

84 Why was the was the [sic] 2007 plan 

amended and restated, to your 

knowledge? 185:21-186:8. 

5 No 

85 Is there a conflict of interest to have the 

compensation committee having a stake 

at Insight Global, and then deciding a 

benefit claim under the plan? 196:6-15.

11, 12 (not 

disputed) 

Yes 

86 Why would it treat the Complaint as a 

claim for benefits under the plan, as 

opposed to paying those benefits out in 

the ordinary course? 202:5-10.

5, 11, 12, 13 (not 

disputed) 

No 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 17 of 18
11 

No. Question Within Noticed 

Topic? 

Privilege or Work 

Product? 

87 Were there any formal procedures 

implemented to ensure that company 

finances were not a factor in deciding 

John Barker’s claim for IUP benefits; 

and by company I mean Insight Global, 

LLC? 208:5-16. 

n/a Insight Global agrees to 

answer 

88 Would that make a difference as to 

whether she was solicited by John 

Barker, if she admitted that she told 

Barker in the presence of numerous 

witnesses as Brian Bradusco’s [Bryan 

Verduzco’s] engagement party, “take 

me wherever you go”? 217:7-14.

No n/a 

89 During your interviews with Insight 

Global employees in San Francisco, did 

any Insight employees indicate that had 

sought out John Barker for employment 

opportunities or advice? 220:3-9.

No n/a 

90 Why would you include a cause finding 

in the termination letter, if that wasn’t 

tied to the plan? 222:24-223:5.

11, 12, 13 No 

91 Do you think it is fair to require an 

employee in California to fly out to 

Georgia to litigate a claim under the 

separation agreement? 225:14-20.

No n/a 

92 Were there any employees in the San 

Francisco office of Insight Global that 

declined to meet with you and Mr. 

Marquardt when you came out to obtain 

the declarations or affidavits? 233:11-

21. 

93 Is there a difference in your mind 

between induce or intend to induce to 

and solicit? 236:23-237:2. 

No n/a 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 244 Filed 04/25/19 Page 18 of 18