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 DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 198, 199

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC,

Defendant.

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

Re: Dkt. Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53

Several discovery disputes are pending before the Court in these two related actions. The 

Court heard oral argument on these disputes on January 18 and February 12, 2019. 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 resolves these disputes as follows:

I. INSIGHT GLOBAL V. BEACON HILL, CASE NO. 17-CV-00309

A. Insight Global’s Motion: Further Discovery re Dkt. No. 39 (Dkt. No. 49)

On March 29, 2018, this Court ordered Beacon Hill to produce documents as follows: “As 
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

to the Sacramento-area office of each company listed on Schedule A1. . . , Beacon Hill shall 

produce ESI sufficient to identify the following:

1. The date when any Beacon Hill San Francisco or Sacramento office employee first 

had contact with that customer.

2. The date when any Beacon Hill employee first had contact with that company at 

one or more of its other offices.

3. The date when any Beacon Hill San Francisco or Sacramento office employee first 

met with a hiring manager of the customer.

4. The date Beacon Hill first received a requisition from the customer to fill a 

temporary staffing need.

5. The date Beacon Hill first earned revenue from the customer.

6. The date Beacon Hill first received a staffing requisition from one or more other 

offices of the company.

7. The date Beacon Hill first earned revenue from one or more other offices of the 

company.”

Dkt. No. 39 at 4. Beacon Hill has produced documents Bates numbered Barker-000257 through 

000288 pursuant to this order. Insight Global says that it cannot glean the information it needs 

from the documents alone.

No later than February 26, 2019, Beacon Hill must serve a written explanation that 

provides the answers to each of these seven queries, with an attestation by both the person who 

provides the information on behalf of Beacon Hill and Beacon Hill’s counsel, in the form required

for interrogatory responses in Rule 33(b)(5). Beacon Hill’s written response may refer to and rely 

on its document production, so long as the responsive information is clearly described.

B. Beacon Hill’s Motion: Discovery re Damages (Dkt. No. 50)

Insight Global objects that the discovery Beacon Hill seeks in the interrogatories at issue is 

premature or the subject of expert discovery. These objections are not well taken, particularly at 

this stage of the case. In addition, while the Court appreciates that Insight Global may not have all 

the information necessary to provide a complete answer to a particular interrogatory, it may not 

 

1

“Schedule A” is a list of 17 Insight Global customers in the Sacramento area, described more 

fully in Dkt. No. 39.
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

avoid answering on that basis as to information that it does have. No later than February 26, 2019, 

Insight Global must serve amended responses to the Beacon Hill Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

2

Beacon Hill’s Request for Admission No. 7 asks Insight Global to admit that it has not lost 

any customers as a result of actions by Beacon Hill alleged in the complaint. The Court overrules 

Insight Global’s “vague and ambiguous” objection. Insight Global must answer this request in 

compliance with Rule 36(a)(4), including, where appropriate, specifying which portions are 

admitted or denied, and which portions must be otherwise qualified. Insight Global’s amended 

response must be served no later than February 26, 2019.

The Court denies the remainder of Beacon Hill’s motion, including the portion of the 

discovery letter brief regarding Mr. Barker’s Interrogatory No. 13 and Requests for Production 

Nos. 14, 17-20, 40, 46, 65 and 66.

C. Beacon Hill’s Motion: Discovery re Trade Secrets (Dkt. No. 51)

The Court overrules Insight Global’s objections to Beacon Hill’s Interrogatory No. 1. 

Insight Global must amend its response to this interrogatory to identify with reasonable 

particularity the trade secrets at issue. The amended response must avoid qualifying language, 

such as “including but not limited to,” and must avoid general, categorical descriptions, such as 

“non-public financial and business information about Insight Global and its employees.” Where

specific documents contain the alleged trade secrets, Insight Global may refer to a specific 

document or portion of a document in formulating its responses, so long as the trade secret is 

described with reasonable particularity. Insight Global must amend its answers to Interrogatories 

Nos. 2 and 3 as appropriate, in view of its amendments to Interrogatory No. 1.3 Insight Global’s 

 

2 This order is based on the discovery responses attached to the joint submission in Case No. 17-

cv-00309, Dkt. No. 50. Insight Global advises the Court that it has already served amended 

responses to most of the interrogatories at issue. As those amended responses are not before the 

Court, this Court expresses no opinion regarding whether those responses are sufficient.

3 This order is based on the discovery responses attached to the joint submission in Case No. 17-

cv-00309, Dkt. No. 51. Insight Global advises the Court that it has already served amended 

responses to all three interrogatories. As those amended responses are not before the Court, this 

Court expresses no opinion regarding whether those responses are sufficient.
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

amended responses must be served no later than February 26, 2019.

D. Barker’s Motion: Documents Cited in Interrogatories (Dkt. No. 52)

1. Interrogatory answers

Insight Global’s answers to Mr. Barker’s Interrogatories Nos. 6, 14, 16 and 18 rely in 

whole or in part on references to documents that are not identified with any specificity. Insight 

Global must amend its answers to these interrogatories. To the extent Insight Global wishes to 

rely on citation to documents in its answers, those answers must comply with Rule 33(d). These 

amendments must be served no later than February 26, 2019.

2. Document production

Mr. Barker objects to the form of Insight Global’s document production. The production 

at issue consists of electronically stored information (ESI), and was produced without metadata or 

other indicia reflecting how it was kept in the usual course of business. The documents were not 

organized and labeled to correspond to Mr. Barker’s document requests. Insight Global advises

the Court that, before the parties’ joint submission, it provided a detailed index for its production, 

and that after the joint submission, it provided a log that describes by category all of the 

documents Insight Global has produced to date.

Mr. Barker’s document requests to Insight Global ask that ESI be “printed out and 

provided, or produced in native electronic format.” Dkt. No. 52 at 11 (Ex. 1), 31 (Ex. 2). In its 

written responses to these document requests, Insight Global did not object to the form of 

production demanded. A party must produce documents as they are kept in the in the usual course 

of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the document 

request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). With respect to electronically stored information, if a 

request for production of documents does not specify the form of production, a party must produce 

it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii). Insight Global appears not have complied with these requirements, 

although it contends that its post-production index/log does comply with Rule 34(b).

The parties appear not to have discussed the form of production of ESI, even though Rule 

26(f)(3)(C) specifically requires counsel to discuss these matters as part of the initial conference of 
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

counsel. And Mr. Barker has waited until very late in the discovery process, after Insight Global’s 

production of ESI is complete, to bring the matter to the Court’s attention. In view of these 

circumstances, the Court directs the parties to confer specifically about the form of production of 

their respective documents, particularly ESI, keeping in mind that the obligations imposed by Rule 

34 are mutual. With respect to Insight Global’s document log, the parties shall confer further 

regarding whether it sufficiently remedies the problems outlined in their joint submission. The 

parties are strongly encouraged to reach a practical resolution to this issue. Any remaining dispute 

regarding the form of production of documents, including ESI, may be brought to the Court’s

attention by a further joint submission.

E. Barker/Beacon Hill Motion: Further Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Insight 

Global re Damages (Dkt. No. 53)

Insight Global shall produce a corporate representative(s) to testify regarding previously 

noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics directed to Insight Global’s damages claims, but such 

deposition shall be limited to two categories of documents and information: (1) damages-related 

documents produced by Insight Global on or after October 19, 2018, and (2) new information 

provided by Insight Global in the Court-ordered amendments to its answers to the interrogatories 

and request for admission that are the subject of the Court’s ruling on Dkt. No. 50, above. This 

further deposition will be limited to three hours. The parties shall confer regarding a mutually 

agreeable date and location, keeping in mind the Court’s guidance regarding the expectation of 

professional courtesy in the scheduling of depositions.

II. BARKER V. INSIGHT GLOBAL, CASE NO. 16-CV-07186

A. Insight Global Motion: Further Deposition of Barker (Dkt. No. 198)

Insight Global may depose Mr. Barker regarding the contents of the 24 documents 

produced by Beacon Hill pursuant to the Court’s December 13, 2018 order in Case No. 17-00309, 

Dkt. No. 46. The deposition may include questions about different or inconsistent statements, if 

any, that Mr. Barker may have made regarding the subject matter contained in the 24 documents. 

If, in his earlier deposition, Mr. Barker was asked about the subject matter contained in the 24 

documents and instructed not to answer on grounds of privilege, he may be asked such questions 
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

in this further deposition. Insight Global may not depose Mr. Barker on other subject matter, 

including other matters as to which other privilege objections were made. This further deposition 

will be limited to one hour. The parties shall confer regarding a mutually agreeable date and 

location, keeping in mind the Court’s guidance regarding the expectation of professional courtesy 

in the scheduling of depositions.

B. Insight Global Motion: Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Beacon Hill (Dkt. No. 199)

Insight Global has withdrawn the Rule 30(b)(6) notice that is the subject of this motion, 

and it has since served a new notice. That notice is the subject of separate discovery dispute letter 

filed in Case No. 17-00309 (Dkt. No. 60), which the Court will address in a separate order.

As explained at the hearing, the Court will order Beacon Hill to produce a corporate 

representative(s) to testify pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). However, the Court’s separate order will 

address the scope of that deposition. In all other respects the Court denies Insight Global’s motion 

in Dkt. No. 199. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge