Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-07186/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-07186-7/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.5:16-cv-07186-BLF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 6

Re: Dkt. No. 107

Insight Global, LLC (“Insight”) is a staffing services company. John Barker (“Barker”) 

was a long time employee of Insight and head of its San Francisco/San Jose office. On October 

26, 2016, Insight terminated Barker’s employment. Soon afterward, Barker obtained new 

employment with Beacon Hill Staffing Group, LLC (“Beacon Hill”), an Insight competitor.

Barker sued Insight for unpaid deferred compensation and also for a declaration that the 

non-compete and non-solicitation provisions of his employment contract were void under 

California Business and Professions Code § 16600.

Insight counterclaimed, accusing Barker of breaching his employment contract (1) by 

going to work for an Insight competitor without notifying Insight and (2) by soliciting some 

Insight employees to quit. Without regard to whether or not Barker had “solicited” them, Insight 

employees McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco did quit and take jobs at Beacon Hill.

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 110 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 2
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

Now, Insight wants to depose Jeff McLaren, a Beacon Hill executive who was reportedly

involved in bringing McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco on board at Beacon Hill. Barker opposes 

the timing of such a deposition.

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report #6, Barker asks the court to order a “stay” on the 

McLaren deposition until the presiding judge has ruled on his pending motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, a motion challenging the legal underpinning of Insight’s counterclaim. Barker opines 

that that motion will probably be granted (since the law is clear, he says, that any contractual 

prohibition on Barker from recruiting away an employee of Insight is void under California law). 

That outcome, says plaintiff, would make McLaren’s testimony completely irrelevant and, 

therefore, to force the deposition now would work out to be a waste of time and money. Insight 

does not agree on whether the motion is likely to be granted and further urges that McLaren’s 

testimony is relevant even if it were.

The court will not speculate on whether the motion will be granted (it’s not even set for a 

hearing until January 2018), or on whether McLaren’s testimony would or would not be worth 

having even if it were ultimately granted.

As the case stands right now, the counterclaim is still “viable,” and no one can know for 

sure what the future rulings of the presiding judge will be. There is no persuasive reason to deny 

Insight the deposition of McLaren at this time, and it may go forward.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 110 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 2