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

COMPLAINT

Anthony J. Oncidi (State Bar No. 118135)

aoncidi@proskauer.com

Jeremy M. Mittman (State Bar No. 248834)

jmittman@proskauer.com

Pietro A. Deserio (State Bar No. 309230)

pdeserio@proskauer.com

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

2049 Century Park East

32nd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-3206

Telephone: (310) 557-2900

Facsimile: (310) 557-2193

Attorneys for Plaintiff

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, a 

Massachusetts limited liability company

Defendant.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00309

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC’S COMPLAINT 

FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF FOR:

(1) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE 

WITH CONTRACTUAL 

RELATIONS;

(2) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE 

WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC 

ADVANTAGE;

(3) INDUCING BREACH OF 

CONTRACT;

(4) VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND 

PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 

17200; AND

(5) TRADE SECRET 

MISAPPROPRIATION.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 21
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

1

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC (“Insight Global” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its 

attorneys, alleges the following against Defendant BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC

(“Beacon Hill” or “Defendant”) on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry under 

the circumstances:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This case is about a lawless and ongoing raid that Beacon Hill and its coconspirators have launched against Insight Global in a deliberate attempt to steal Insight Global’s 

employees, clients, and confidential business information. Beacon Hill has acted in concert with 

one or more former Insight Global employees, including John Barker and Bryan Verduzco, in

soliciting and encouraging a number of Insight Global employees to abruptly terminate their 

contractual relationships with Insight Global and to intentionally and deliberately interfere with 

Insight Global’s existing and prospective economic relationships with its clients. In the process,

Beacon Hill and its co-conspirators have tortiously inflicted economic damage upon Insight 

Global.

2. John Barker was subject to an express written agreement that he had entered into 

with Insight Global as a condition of his employment. As an express condition of employment 

with Insight Global, Barker was required to sign and agreed to be bound by the terms and 

conditions of a written agreement that provided, among other terms and conditions, that Barker 

could not, for a period of one year after the voluntary or involuntary termination of his 

employment, directly or indirectly, or in concert with others, solicit or encourage any employee of 

Insight Global to resign from or terminate employment with Insight Global (hereinafter the 

“Employment Agreement”).

3. Barker was terminated by Insight Global for cause on or about October 26, 2016. 

Insight Global is informed and believes and thereon alleges that following his termination, Barker 

was hired by and began working for Beacon Hill, one of Insight Global’s competitors, where he 

launched a campaign of retaliation against his former employer. Insight Global is further informed 

and believes and on that basis alleges that Beacon Hill and Barker, acting in concert with one 

another and with full awareness of the indisputable illegality of their conduct, worked 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 21
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

2

COMPLAINT

clandestinely with each other to induce at least three other Insight Global employees—John 

McArthur, Connor Cronin, and Bryan Verduzco—to abruptly terminate their employment with 

Insight Global and commence employment with Beacon Hill. Insight Global therefore contends 

that Beacon Hill has engaged in wrongful conduct and has tortiously inflicted economic damage 

upon Insight Global.

THE PARTIES

4. Insight Global is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State 

of Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business in DeKalb County, Georgia

located at 4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Suite 250, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Members of Insight 

Global are citizens of the states of Delaware and Georgia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

5. Insight Global is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Beacon Hill 

is a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business at 153 Bowdoin 

Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02108. Insight Global is informed and believes and thereon alleges 

that Beacon Hill’s members are citizens of Massachusetts for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1332(a). Insight Global has asserted a federal claim against Beacon Hill under the 

Defend Trade Secrets Act. Moreover, as described in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, there is complete 

diversity of citizenship between Insight Global and Beacon Hill, and the amount in controversy in 

this case exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.

7. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the events and 

omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this district. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8. Plaintiff Insight Global is an international staffing services company with a 

particular focus in the information technology (“IT”), accounting and finance sectors. With over 

40 offices across the United States and in Canada, Insight Global is a leading provider of 

supplemental staffing services for IT, accounting, and finance professionals. Insight Global is 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 3 of 21
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

3

COMPLAINT

consistently ranked as one of the fastest-growing staffing companies in the United States. Insight 

Global regularly provides staffing services to clients throughout the country, including in the San 

Francisco metropolitan area.

9. Insight Global’s success as a business is based in substantial part upon its strong 

customer relationships and goodwill. These relationships and goodwill have been developed 

through Insight Global’s substantial investment in identifying and cultivating personal 

relationships with the human resources and management personnel (collectively, the “hiring

managers”) of Insight Global’s customers. The hiring managers are responsible for hiring IT, 

accounting, and finance temporary and permanent staff and employees and determine which 

vendors, such as Insight Global, may provide these staffing services to the customers.

10. Insight Global’s business model is based upon providing extensive and specialized 

training and experience for, and sharing confidential business information with, its employees. 

Insight Global typically hires employees with no prior experience in or knowledge of the staffing 

industry in order to train them effectively to follow Insight Global’s successful sales, marketing, 

and recruiting methods and strategies. Insight Global devotes substantial amounts of time and 

expense to recruiting and training its employees and preparing them to advance with Insight 

Global and to succeed in building relationships with Insight Global’s clients.

11. Because of Insight Global’s collaborative environment, its employees are exposed 

to and develop an intimate understanding of the staffing services business. Insight Global’s 

employees possess important knowledge regarding: (i) the key existing customer relationships 

associated with their office; (ii) Insight Global’s sales strategy for developing and maintaining 

these business relationships; and (iii) the identities of the hiring managers and vendor managers 

who are Insight Global’s primary customer contacts. Sharing this information on a confidential 

basis among the sales manager, account managers, and recruiters who work together in each office 

is essential to Insight Global’s business model.

12. Beacon Hill is a direct competitor of Insight Global, also providing staffing 

services to clients throughout the country, including in the San Francisco metropolitan area.

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 4 of 21
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

4

COMPLAINT

13. John Barker was employed by Insight Global from March 13, 2006 through and 

including October 26, 2016. Barker was first hired as a Recruiter, and thereafter worked as an 

Account Manager, Sales Manager, and Director of Operations in Insight Global’s San Jose and 

San Francisco offices. In his final position as Director of Operations, Barker was the senior 

manager responsible for leading Insight Global’s San Francisco Office of at least 65 employees.

14. During the course of Barker’s employment with Insight Global, Barker executed 

several versions of an employment agreement. The version of the Employment Agreement 

operative at the time of Barker’s termination was executed on November 17, 2015. The 

Employment Agreement (Section 4) contains a provision entitled “AGREEMENT NOT TO 

SOLICIT EMPLOYEES,” which states that, for one year following the termination of Barker’s 

employment with Insight Global, Barker:

shall not directly or indirectly, or in concert with others, solicit or encourage any 

person who is an employee of, or contractor or consultant for, [Insight Global], to 

resign from or terminate such employment or consulting relationship with [Insight 

Global]. [Barker] further agrees that [Barker] shall not, during the [year following 

termination], directly or indirectly, or in concert with others, solicit or encourage 

any person who is, or within one year prior to the solicitation was, an employee of 

[Insight Global] providing staffing services for [Insight Global], to perform 

staffing services for any corporation, individual, enterprise, entity, or association 

that competes with [Insight Global] in [Insight Global]’s Business (a “Competing 

Staffing Business”).

15. On or about October 26, 2016, Barker’s employment was terminated by Insight 

Global for cause. Insight Global is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Barker 

thereafter began working for Beacon Hill. 

16. Insight Global is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that in or about 

December 2016 and January 2017, Beacon Hill, with full knowledge of Barker’s employee nonsolicit obligations, acted in concert with Barker and directed him to solicit and encourage many 

valuable Insight Global employees to quit their jobs at Insight Global and join Beacon Hill. At the 

direction of and with full authorization from Beacon Hill, Barker directly and indirectly solicited 

and encouraged the following Insight Global employees to terminate their Insight Global 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 5 of 21
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

5

COMPLAINT

employment and join Beacon Hill: John McArthur, Connor Cronin, Bryan Verduzco, Candice 

Sanchez, Tim Silva, Hermis Alvarenga, Austin March, and Amanda Pizzimenti. Insight Global is 

informed and believes and thereon alleges that Barker directly and indirectly solicited and 

encouraged additional Insight Global employees to join Beacon Hill as well. These actions by 

Barker violated his non-recruitment obligations pursuant to the Employment Agreement.

17. As a result of Barker’s actions, which were done at the direction of and with full 

authorization from Beacon Hill, John McArthur, Connor Cronin and Bryan Verduzco all resigned 

from Insight Global and immediately began working with Barker at Beacon Hill.

18. Barker used Insight Global’s confidential information and trade secrets to recruit 

and hire away Insight Global employees. Barker was not authorized by Insight Global to do so.

19. John McArthur was employed by Insight Global as an Account Manager based in 

Insight Global’s San Francisco office. McArthur worked for and reported directly to Barker.

20. Insight Global provided McArthur with substantial and specialized training 

regarding its business model and sales and recruiting methods and strategies. Account Managers 

are responsible for creating business partnerships between Insight Global and companies in their 

given territory. As an Account Manager in the San Francisco area, McArthur’s primary 

responsibility was to represent Insight Global’s staffing services as a resource to hiring and vendor 

managers at companies within the area and, in doing so, build and maintain valuable client 

relationships. To promote profitable client relationships and goodwill, Insight Global encouraged 

McArthur to engage in significant client interaction and entertaining. McArthur, on behalf of 

Insight Global, regularly attended meetings, lunches and other outings with Insight Global clients 

and prospective clients which Insight Global paid for. As a result, McArthur developed business 

relationships with hiring and vendor managers in and around the San Francisco area at major 

companies. In his position as Account Manager, and through his relationships with Insight 

Global’s clients, McArthur was exposed to significant confidential information including but not 

limited to actual and potential customer information and lists, customer preferences, billing rates, 

pricing practices, and contract expiration dates.

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 6 of 21
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

6

COMPLAINT

21. During the period McArthur was employed with Insight Global, he traveled to 

Atlanta, Georgia on at least two occasions to participate in special training at the Insight Global 

Headquarters, and to attend Insight Global’s sales conferences held in downtown Atlanta. These 

trips were paid for entirely by Insight Global.

22. During 2016, in his position as an Account Manager, McArthur was responsible 

for generating in excess of $1.2 million in revenue for Insight Global. 

23. McArthur abruptly resigned his employment with Insight Global on or about 

December 21, 2016.

24. Beacon Hill, acting through and in concert with Barker, solicited and encouraged

McArthur to resign from Insight Global and join Beacon Hill. 

25. Connor Cronin was employed by Insight Global as a Professional Recruiter based 

in Insight Global’s San Francisco office. Cronin worked for and reported indirectly to Barker, and

interacted with him on a frequent basis.

26. As a Professional Recruiter, Cronin was in regular communication with Insight 

Global’s customers and clients. His responsibilities included communicating with client hiring 

managers and vendor managers about their staffing needs, identifying and recommending the most 

qualified candidates, accompanying candidates to their interviews with human resources and 

management personnel at Insight Global’s customers’ offices, accompanying new placements on 

the first day of employment in their new positions, and then regularly interfacing between the 

customer and the consultants to ensure a mutually satisfactory work experience. He also often 

accompanied Insight Global’s account managers on lunches and other client outings. As a result, 

Cronin developed significant contacts with Insight Global’s key clients.

27. During the period Cronin was employed with Insight Global, he traveled to 

Atlanta, Georgia on at least two occasions to participate in special training at the Insight Global 

Headquarters, and to attend Insight Global’s sales conferences held in downtown Atlanta. These 

trips were paid for entirely by Insight Global.

28. During 2016, in his position as a Professional Recruiter, Cronin was responsible 

for generating in excess of $5.4 million in revenue for Insight Global. 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 7 of 21
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

7

COMPLAINT

29. Cronin abruptly resigned his employment with Insight Global on or about 

December 23, 2016.

30. Beacon Hill, acting through and in concert with Barker, solicited and encouraged

Cronin to resign from Insight Global and join Beacon Hill.

31. Bryan Verduzco was employed by Insight Global as a Sales Manager based in 

Insight Global’s San Francisco office, and had previously worked as an Account Manager with 

direct client relationships. Verduzco worked for and reported directly to Barker. As a Sales 

Manager, Verduzco was responsible for overseeing a team of Account Managers and Recruiters in 

Insight Global’s San Francisco office, including managing and being directly involved in the 

service of all existing client accounts and the development of new business. He was responsible 

for meeting with clients and prospective clients serviced from the San Francisco office, 

interviewing, hiring and managing new Recruiters and overseeing their development and 

promotion to Account Manager or Professional Recruiter, overseeing the solicitation of existing 

clients and prospective clients for new business, and overseeing the staffing of all requisitions 

received by the office. In this role, Verduzco acted as the full-time, on-the-ground leader of the 

San Francisco office, reporting to a regional manager based in Atlanta, Georgia. He would review 

reports prepared by each Account Manager to measure their production and sales leads, and 

participate on weekly leadership calls with other sales managers from his region and Insight 

Global senior leadership.

32. During the period Verduzco was employed with Insight Global, he traveled to 

Atlanta, Georgia on several occasions to participate in special training at the Insight Global 

Headquarters, and to attend Insight Global’s sales conferences held in downtown Atlanta. These 

trips were paid for entirely by Insight Global.

33. Verduzco abruptly resigned his employment with Insight Global on or about 

January 11, 2017.

34. Insight Global is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, following 

Barker’s termination, Beacon Hill, acting through and in concert with Barker, solicited and 

encouraged Verduzco to resign from Insight Global and join Beacon Hill.

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 8 of 21
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

8

COMPLAINT

35. During 2016, in his position as a Sales Manager, Verduzco was responsible for 

overseeing several millions of dollars in client revenue for Insight Global. 

36. Insight Global has a legitimate and protectable interest in maintaining a stable 

employee base and protecting its confidential business information and trade secrets. 

37. Insight Global has made and continues to make substantial investments of 

personnel and financial resources to recruit, train, develop, and compensate its employees. These 

investments include providing Account Managers, Professional Recruiters, and Sales Managers

with training in Atlanta, Georgia, as well as other on-the-job training. 

38. If Beacon Hill is permitted to continue to act in concert with Barker and lure away 

Insight Global employees in violation of Barker’s Employment Agreement, and in violation of 

Insight Global’s right to protect its confidential business information and trade secrets from 

misappropriation, Insight Global’s workforce will be gutted, understaffed, and unstable. 

39. In order to replenish Insight Global’s workforce, Insight Global will have to make 

enormous investments in time, money, training, and effort to recruit and develop new employees.

40. Some or all of the employees hired by Beacon Hill are in possession of 

confidential business information owned by Insight Global. 

41. All of those employees are bound by valid and enforceable agreements that, 

among other things, (i) prevent them from using, disclosing, or exploiting Insight Global’s 

confidential business information, (ii) require them to return all information and materials to 

Insight Global immediately upon termination of their employment. Beacon Hill is aware that the 

employees are bound by these contractual obligations.

42. Beacon Hill has instructed the former Insight Global employees that they do not 

need to comply with their contractual obligations.

43. During his solicitation and recruitment of Insight Global employees, Barker has 

told them that Beacon Hill has an “army of lawyers” that it will pay to defend them against any 

legal action brought by Insight Global to enforce its contracts and protect its rights. Insight Global 

is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Beacon Hill induced Barker and the other former 

employees to join Beacon Hill and breach their legal obligations to Insight Global by 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 9 of 21
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

9

COMPLAINT

indemnifying them against any future lawsuits and agreeing to pay the cost of any attorneys’ fees

they incur in litigation with Insight Global. 

44. Insight Global has not authorized its former employees to possess, use, disclose, or 

exploit its confidential business information during their Beacon Hill employment or at any other 

time.

45. Barker and other former Insight Global employees have used Insight Global’s 

confidential business information to conduct business for Beacon Hill and to solicit employees or 

clients to do business with Beacon Hill. Insight Global is informed and believes and thereon 

alleges that Beacon Hill has had knowledge of, and approved, these unlawful actions.

46. Barker has used his knowledge of non-public salary and compensation information 

to solicit, recruit, and encourage former Insight Global employees to quit their jobs and join him at 

Beacon Hill. Insight Global is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Barker has provided 

non-public salary and compensation information about other Insight Global employees to Beacon 

Hill and has acted in concert with Beacon Hill as its representatives have used that information in 

its efforts to poach employees away from Insight Global.

47. One or more of the employees hired away from Insight Global by Beacon Hill 

accessed Insight Global’s secure computer systems to steal non-public business information from 

the company’s databases in anticipation of competing against Insight Global on behalf of Beacon 

Hill.

48. Beacon Hill, through its new employees, has solicited business from at least one 

Insight Global client by using confidential Insight Global business information. In at least one 

instance, Beacon Hill has interfered with an “exclusive” agreement between Insight Global and a 

client to place a candidate in a position. 

49. Insight Global is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of the 

confidential business information that has been misappropriated by Beacon Hill, through its 

employees, meets the definition of a “trade secret” under applicable state and federal law. Insight 

Global is informed and further believes and thereon alleges that some of the confidential business 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 10 of 21
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

10

COMPLAINT

information that has been misappropriated by Beacon Hill, through its employees, does not meet 

the statutory “trade secrets” definitions.

50. During his solicitation and recruitment of Insight Global employees, Barker has

taken steps in an effort to keep his illegal activities hidden from disclosure. Barker has told 

employees he was attempting to poach from Insight Global that they should avoid using text 

messages or other written communications, and should avoid making certain phone calls or 

conducting certain computer searches within the Insight Global office or using Insight Global IT 

resources. Insight Global is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Barker has done these 

things at the instruction of and in concert with Beacon Hill in order to cover up the illegal nature 

of Beacon Hill’s activities. 

51. McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco were responsible, in the last year alone, for 

generating a combined total of more than $6 million in revenue for Insight Global. Their 

respective significant relationships with Insight Global’s key clients, the source for that large

amount of revenue, have now been lost, pilfered by Beacon Hill and Barker.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations)

52. Insight Global incorporates by reference and re-alleges, as though fully set forth 

herein, the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 51.

53. Insight Global had ongoing and enforceable contractual relationships with 

McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco, respectively, pursuant to which McArthur, Cronin, and 

Verduzco provided services to Insight Global.

54. Each of McArthur’s, Cronin’s, and Verduzco’s contractual relationships with 

Insight Global benefited Insight Global economically and likely would have continued to benefit 

Insight Global into the future.

55. With full awareness of Barker’s employee non-solicitation and non-disclosure 

obligations, and McArthur’s, Cronin’s, and Verduzco’s ongoing contractual relationships with 

Insight Global, Beacon Hill engaged in wrongful conduct by acting in concert with Barker and 

inducing him to breach his employee non-solicitation obligations by soliciting, encouraging and 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 11 of 21
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

11

COMPLAINT

inducing McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco to terminate their respective employment relationships 

with Insight Global and to accept employment with Beacon Hill in order to perform services in 

direct competition with Insight Global, and inducing him to breach his non-disclosure obligations 

by using and disclosing confidential Insight Global business information that Beacon Hill used to 

poach employees.

56. In acting in concert with Barker in inducing and encouraging McArthur, Cronin, 

and Verduzco to terminate their employment with Insight Global in violation of Barker’s nonsolicitation obligations, through the use of confidential Insight Global business information,

Beacon Hill intended to, and did, inflict damage upon Insight Global’s business operations and 

reputation and Insight Global’s business and contractual relationships with McArthur, Cronin, and 

Verduzco.

57. Beacon Hill performed the foregoing wrongful acts, conduct, and omissions 

intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively in willful and conscious disregard of 

Insight Global’s rights and with the intent and design to damage Insight Global. By reason thereof, 

Insight Global is entitled to recover punitive damages from Beacon Hill in an amount to be 

determined at the time of trial.

58. Insight Global has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the damage 

caused, and that will continue to be caused, by Beacon Hill’s intentional interference with Insight 

Global’s contractual relationships. Unless Beacon Hill is restrained by appropriate injunctive 

relief, Insight Global will continue to suffer irreparable harm, including but not limited to damage 

to its business reputation and business opportunities, while Beacon Hill is unjustly enriched from 

its tortious conduct. Insight Global is therefore entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction 

against Beacon Hill, prohibiting Beacon Hill from acting in concert with any former Insight 

Global employees bound by non-solicit obligations to solicit any Insight Global employees.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)

59. Insight Global incorporates by reference and re-alleges, as though fully set forth 

herein, the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 51.

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 12 of 21
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

12

COMPLAINT

60. Insight Global had, and has, economic relationships with numerous clients to 

provide a range of staffing services to those clients. A significant number of these clients were 

serviced by and had developed valuable relationship with Insight Global by and through Barker, 

McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco. These relationships resulted in an economic benefit to Insight 

Global and, in reasonable likelihood, would have continued to result in an economic benefit to 

Insight Global but for Beacon Hill’s conduct alleged herein, including, but not limited to, Beacon 

Hill inducing Barker, McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco to breach their contractual obligations to 

Insight Global, and Beacon Hill acting in concert with Barker to solicit and encourage McArthur, 

Cronin, and Verduzco to terminate their respective employment with Insight Global.

61. Beacon Hill was aware of Insight Global’s actual and prospective client 

relationships and Insight Global’s economically beneficial employment relationships with

McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco, intended to disrupt those relationships and divert them to the

Beacon Hill, and did in fact disrupt those relationships and divert them to Beacon Hill by acting in 

concert with Barker to solicit and encourage McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco to terminate their 

respective employment with Insight Global, and encouraging Barker, McArthur, Cronin, and 

Verduzco to misuse confidential Insight Global business information and to solicit and/or assist in 

soliciting certain clients of Insight Global to terminate, alter, and/or refrain from entering into 

continuing client relationships with Insight Global.

62. Insight Global, McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco were engaged in employment 

relationships that benefitted Insight Global economically and likely would have continued to 

benefit Insight Global in the future.

63. With full awareness of Barker’s contractual non-solicitation and non-disclosure 

obligations, and McArthur’s, Cronin’s, and Verduzco’s ongoing contractual relationships with 

Insight Global, Beacon Hill engaged in wrongful conduct by acting in concert with Barker and 

inducing him to breach his non-solicitation and non-disclosure obligations by soliciting, 

encouraging and inducing McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco to terminate their respective 

employment relationships with Insight Global and to accept employment with Beacon Hill in 

order to perform services in direct competition with Insight Global.

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 13 of 21
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

13

COMPLAINT

64. In doing the foregoing, Beacon Hill intended to and did in fact disrupt Insight 

Global’s business operations and contractual relationships with McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco

(and, Insight Global is informed and believes and thereon alleges, with Insight Global’s clients) to 

the detriment of Insight Global and for the benefit of the Beacon Hill.

65. Beacon Hill performed the foregoing wrongful acts, conduct, and omissions 

intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively in willful and conscious disregard of 

Insight Global’s rights and with the intent and design to damage Insight Global. By reason thereof, 

Insight Global is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount to be determined at the time of 

trial.

66. As a direct and proximate result of Beacon Hill’s unlawful conduct and intentional 

interference with Insight Global’s prospective economic advantage, Insight Global has been and 

will continue to be damaged, including but not limited to lost revenue and lost business 

opportunities, and Beacon Hill has been and will continue to be unjustly enriched, all in amounts 

according to proof but in excess of $6,000,000.

67. Insight Global has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the damage 

caused, and that will continue to be caused, by Beacon Hill’s intentional interference with Insight 

Global’s economic relationships. Unless Beacon Hill is restrained by appropriate injunctive relief, 

Insight Global will continue to suffer irreparable harm, including but not limited to damage to its 

business reputation and business opportunities, while Beacon Hill is unjustly enriched from its

tortious conduct. Insight Global is therefore entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction 

against Beacon Hill, prohibiting Beacon Hill from soliciting or providing services to any clients 

who were serviced by McArthur, Cronin, or Verduzco while they were employed by Insight 

Global.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Inducing Breach of Contract)

68. Insight Global incorporates by reference and re-alleges, as though fully set forth 

herein, the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 51.

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 14 of 21
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

14

COMPLAINT

69. Under the Employment Agreement, Insight Global had an ongoing and 

enforceable contractual relationship with Barker, pursuant to which Barker agreed, for a period of 

one year after the voluntary or involuntary termination of his employment, not to directly or 

indirectly, or in concert with others, solicit or encourage any employee of Insight Global to resign 

from or terminate employment with Insight Global and not to use, disclose, or exploit any 

confidential Insight Global business information.

70. The Employment Agreement, including the employee non-solicitation provision

and the non-disclosure provision, benefited Insight Global economically and likely would have 

continued to benefit Insight Global into the future.

71. Beacon Hill knew of the Employment Agreement when it had discussions with 

Barker about working for Beacon Hill, intended to induce Barker to breach the Employment 

Agreement with Insight Global, and did in fact induce Barker to breach the Employment 

Agreement by acting in concert with Beacon Hill to solicit and encourage several Insight Global 

employees to abruptly terminate their contractual relationship with Insight Global.

72. In inducing and encouraging Barker to breach the non-solicitation provision and 

the non-disclosure provision of the Employment Agreement, Beacon Hill intended to, and did, 

inflict damage upon Insight Global’s business operations and reputation and Insight Global’s 

business and contractual relationships with McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco, and others, 

including, but not limited to, clients to whom McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco were providing 

services as employees of Insight Global and which are now being served by McArthur, Cronin, 

and Verduzco as employees of Beacon Hill.

73. Beacon Hill performed the foregoing wrongful acts, conduct, and omissions 

intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively in willful and conscious disregard of 

Insight Global’s rights and with the intent and design to damage Insight Global. By reason thereof, 

Insight Global is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount to be determined at the time of 

trial.

74. As a direct and proximate result of Beacon Hill’s unlawful conduct and intentional 

interference with Insight Global’s prospective economic advantage, Insight Global has been and 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 15 of 21
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

15

COMPLAINT

will continue to be damaged, including but not limited to lost revenue and lost business 

opportunities, and Beacon Hill has been and will continue to be unjustly enriched, all in amounts 

according to proof but in excess of $6,000,000.

75. Insight Global has no adequate remedy at law to compensate it for the damage 

caused, and that will continue to be caused, by Beacon Hill’s tortious conduct. Unless Beacon Hill 

is restrained by appropriate injunctive relief, Insight Global will continue to suffer irreparable 

harm, including but not limited to damage to its business reputation and business opportunities, 

while Beacon Hill is unjustly enriched from its tortious conduct. Insight Global is therefore 

entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction against Beacon Hill, prohibiting Beacon Hill 

from soliciting or providing services to any clients who were serviced by McArthur, Cronin, or 

Verduzco while they were employed by Insight Global.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of Business and Professions Code Section 17200)

76. Insight Global incorporates by reference and re-alleges, as though fully set forth 

herein, the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 75.

77. The acts and practices of Beacon Hill alleged herein, including, but not limited to, 

Beacon Hill’s tortious interference with Insight Global’s contractual relationships and prospective 

economic advantage and its possession and misuse of confidential Insight Global business 

information, constitute unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business acts and practices under 

California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 because they are forbidden by various 

state and/or federal laws, and are unscrupulous, unfair, and injurious to Insight Global.

78. Insight Global is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Beacon Hill

was aware of the wrongful nature of the acts alleged herein when said acts were committed.

79. The unlawful and unfair business practices of Beacon Hill, as described above, 

present a continuing threat to Insight Global, which, in the absence of equitable or injunctive 

relief, will continue to suffer from the diversion of profits, clients, business opportunities, and/or 

other Insight Global employees, and continued damage to its business reputation.

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 16 of 21
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

16

COMPLAINT

80. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Insight Global has 

suffered injury in fact, including, but not limited to, loss of revenue and other general and specific 

damages, including, but not limited to, damage to business reputation, lost profits, lost revenue 

and lost business opportunities, among other damages, all in amount to be determined according to 

proof at the time of trial.

81. As a direct and proximate result of Beacon Hill’s unlawful and unfair competition, 

Beacon Hill has been, and will continue to be, unjustly enriched by, among other ways, obtaining 

profits that would have otherwise been earned by Insight Global, all in amounts according to proof 

but in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court.

82. Unless Beacon Hill is restrained by appropriate injunctive relief, Insight Global

will continue to suffer irreparable harm, including but not limited to damage to its business 

reputation and business opportunities, while Beacon Hill is unjustly enriched from its tortious 

conduct. Insight Global is therefore entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction against 

Beacon Hill, prohibiting Beacon Hill from soliciting or providing services to any clients who were 

serviced by McArthur, Cronin, or Verduzco while they were employed by Insight Global.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Trade Secrets Misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act

and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act)

83. Insight Global incorporates by reference and re-alleges, as though fully set forth 

herein, the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 51.

84. During their Insight Global employment, Barker, McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco 

had access to, and obtained, confidential Insight Global business information.

85. Insight Global’s San Francisco office is an open environment, meaning the office’s 

sales manager, account managers, and recruiters work together in a single open room referred to as 

the sales floor or the “pit.” To encourage open communication and exchange of information about 

sales leads, each account manager displays on a white board a list of leading sales prospects and 

staffing opportunities (referred to as “requisitions”). On any given day, requisitions posted usually 

include some staffing opportunities which are open to multiple staffing agencies and some staffing 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 17 of 21
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

17

COMPLAINT

opportunities to be filled exclusively by Insight Global. The requisitions are then displayed in the 

pit, and the entire sales team, including the sales manager, account managers, and recruiters, meet 

regularly to discuss the sales prospects, goals, and strategies of each team member for that day. 

These meetings are referred to as Priority Zone, or “P-Zone.” While this information is made 

available to authorized Insight Global employees, it is treated as highly confidential information 

and is not made available to persons outside the company. 

86. Insight Global maintains other confidential records and reports regarding its 

business relationships with customers and vendors. Insight Global’s employees create and update 

“client sheets” for each customer. Together, client sheets comprise an account book. Account 

books contain confidential information concerning Insight Global’s actual and prospective 

customers, including detailed information regarding the customer’s IT systems, short and long 

term staffing needs, staffing preferences, and chain of command for hiring decisions. The account 

book also contains contact information for customers’ and clients’ hiring managers and vendor 

managers (including non-public information such as personal mobile phone numbers) and other 

personal information relating to such hiring managers. The information collected in the account 

books is not publicly available and/or is only learned after significant efforts by the Insight Global 

employees to develop relationships with such personnel. The information contained in the 

account books is a central part of Insight Global’s successful sales strategy to build lasting 

personal and professional relationships with its customers’ hiring managers and vendor managers. 

Account books are maintained online through Insight Global’s proprietary IT system with tiered 

user access to ensure that the information contained in the account books is available only to 

appropriate personnel that are current employees of Insight Global with a need to access such 

information. No persons outside the company are allowed to receive copies. 

87. Insight Global’s employees maintain and update confidential spreadsheets called 

call sheets on a daily basis. These call sheets contain sales leads and contact information. Insight 

Global employees use these call sheets to generate their daily sales calls. Each workday, call 

sheets are saved to the Insight Global network, the underlying information provided to their 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 18 of 21
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

18

COMPLAINT

manager, and a paper copy filed in employee’s work space. No persons outside the company are 

allowed to receive copies. 

88. Additionally, every employee in an office prepares and submits a confidential 

weekly sales report which is electronically circulated to employees in such employee’s office. 

These reports contain valuable and confidential recruiting and sales information including details 

of key requisitions, client preferences, out of office client opportunities, pricing and billing 

schemes, and information about top performing employees at the Company. No persons outside 

the company are allowed to receive copies. 

89. Management employees at Insight Global have access to non-public financial and 

business information about Insight Global and its employees and clients. While this information is 

made available to authorized Insight Global employees, it is treated as highly confidential 

information and is not made available to persons outside the company.

90. Barker, McArthur, Cronin, and Verduzco retained and misappropriated Insight 

Global’s trade secrets, have disclosed those trade secrets to other Beacon Hill representatives, 

and/or have used those trade secrets to compete against Insight Global. The trade secrets at issue 

in this case include but are not limited to detailed customer lists in the form of non-public reports 

and/or that contain non-public information housed within Insight Global account books. 

91. Insight Global has not given Beacon Hill its express or implied consent to possess 

or use its trade secrets.

92. Insight Global has taken reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its trade 

secrets.

93. Insight Global derives independent economic value from the secret nature of its 

trade secrets and due to the fact that they are not generally known to the public or to competitors 

such as Beacon Hill.

94. Beacon Hill, though the employees it has hired from Insight Global, is now in 

possession of Insight Global’s trade secrets and is using those to conduct business and compete 

against Insight Global. Those trade secrets include, but are not limited to, client information taken 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 19 of 21
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

19

COMPLAINT

from Insight Global’s account books database. Beacon Hill is using those trade secrets to solicit 

clients and employees away from Insight Global. 

95. Beacon Hill used improper means to acquire Insight Global’s trade secrets or knew 

or had reason to know that the trade secrets were acquired through improper means, under 

circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret, or derived from or 

through a person who owed such a duty.

96. As a direct and proximate result of Beacon Hill’s trade secrets misappropriation, 

Insight Global has been and will continue to be damaged, including but not limited to lost revenue 

and lost business opportunities, and Beacon Hill has been and will continue to be unjustly 

enriched.

97. Beacon Hill has misappropriated Insight Global’s trade secrets willfully and 

maliciously. By reason thereof, Insight Global is entitled to recover exemplary damages and is 

entitled to recover the attorneys’ fees it reasonably incurred to prosecute this action.

98. Unless Beacon Hill is restrained by appropriate injunctive relief, Insight Global 

will continue to suffer irreparable harm through the actual and threatened misappropriation of its 

trade secrets. Insight Global is therefore entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction 

against Beacon Hill, prohibiting Beacon Hill from possessing, using, disclosing, or otherwise 

misappropriating its trade secrets.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Insight Global prays that a judgment be entered by the Court as follows:

1. For an award of compensatory and general damages against Beacon Hill according 

to proof;

2. For an award of special damages against Beacon Hill according to proof;

3. For an award of consequential damages against Beacon Hill, according to proof 

but in excess of $6,000,000.00.

4. For a preliminary and permanent injunction against Beacon Hill prohibiting 

Beacon Hill, and those acting in concert with it, from soliciting or providing services to any clients 

who were serviced by Barker, McArthur, Cronin, or Verduzco while they were employed by 

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 20 of 21
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

20

COMPLAINT

Insight Global, or from acting in concert with any former Insight Global employees bound by 

employee non-solicit obligations to solicit or encourage any other Insight Global employees to 

terminate their employment with Insight Global, or from acting in concert with any former Insight 

Global employees bound by non-disclosure obligations to use or disclose confidential business 

information.

5. For an award of prejudgment interest against Beacon Hill at the maximum legal 

rate;

6. For an award of punitive and exemplary damages against Beacon Hill according to 

proof;

7. For an award of costs and disbursements incurred herein;

8. For an award of damages for unjust enrichment or, alternatively, for a reasonably 

royalty for Beacon Hill’s unauthorized disclosure or use of Insight Global’s trade secrets; 

9. For an award of attorneys’ fees under applicable statutory law; and

10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, equitable, and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Insight Global hereby demands a jury trial on all claims asserted herein.

Dated: January 20, 2017 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

Anthony J. Oncidi

Jeremy M. Mittman

Pietro A. Deserio

By: /s/ Jeremy M. Mittman

Jeremy M. Mittman

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC

Case 5:17-cv-00309-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 21 of 21