People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al.

Background

People Center, Inc., doing business as Rippling, alleges that Deel, Inc., and certain Deel officers engaged in a criminal enterprise involving theft of trade secrets and other confidential information. The allegations include the transfer of Rippling documents to Deel by Keith O’Brien while O’Brien was employed by Rippling, information allegedly shared by other former Rippling employees, and efforts to obtain information through misleading email accounts.

Rippling served nine interrogatories seeking information about Deel’s contacts with current and former Rippling employees, Rippling-originated information in Deel’s possession or use, storage devices and cloud accounts, information allegedly provided by O’Brien, contacts with actual or potential customers, and people with knowledge of the allegations. The case was in its early stages, and motions to dismiss or transfer were pending before the presiding district judge.

Rulings on the discovery disputes

The court adopted September 1, 2022, as the starting date for all interrogatory responses. It concluded that Rippling’s allegations concerning information allegedly obtained from former employees and Deel’s competition with Rippling supported discovery beginning before the alleged 2024 incidents.

The court rejected Deel’s argument that California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 required Rippling to identify its trade secrets with reasonable particularity before pursuing this discovery. The court explained that this case included a claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and did not include a California Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim governed by that provision. The court nevertheless held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required the interrogatories to be reasonable and proportional.

The court found that Deel had waived an objection claiming that “Rippling Originated Information” was too vague to answer because Deel had previously interpreted the term and based specific objections on that interpretation. The court then narrowed the definition to specified nonpublic or confidential information allegedly taken or provided by former Rippling employees, information allegedly provided by O’Brien or recruited employees, and specified sales, customer, and retention information. Rippling could serve additional interrogatories about excluded categories if it explained their relevance and proportionality.

Counting the interrogatories

For purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33’s presumptive limit of twenty-five interrogatories, the court counted Interrogatory No. 1 as two interrogatories because it effectively sought separate lists of employees and communications. It counted Interrogatory No. 2 as three, but Deel did not have to answer part (iv), which sought detailed information about how Deel used each item and to whom it disclosed the information, because that part could exceed the presumptive limit. Interrogatory No. 3 did not count because Deel did not have to answer it at that time.

The court counted Interrogatory No. 4 as one, No. 5 as one, No. 6 as one, No. 7 as two, No. 8 as one, and No. 9 as one. It concluded that Rippling had served ten of the twenty-five presumptively allowed interrogatories and had fifteen remaining.

Interrogatory No. 1

The court required Deel to answer Interrogatory No. 1, subject to the September 1, 2022, start date. It rejected Deel’s request to limit the interrogatory to employee contacts tied specifically to “Rippling Originated Information.” The court reasoned that Rippling had alleged that Deel recruited employees to obtain confidential information and that discovery was not limited to evidence of conduct that was inherently wrongful. The court found discovery into the extent of the alleged recruiting practice relevant and proportional.

Interrogatory No. 3

The court held that Deel did not have to answer Interrogatory No. 3 at that time. The request sought detailed information about every effort Deel made to obtain information about other companies from their current or former employees. The court found that this subject was relevant, if at all, mainly to a specific theory supporting Rippling’s claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which might not survive the pending motions to dismiss and might not proceed in the same forum.

The court also found the interrogatory potentially overbroad and unduly burdensome. If the RICO claims survived and the case was not otherwise narrowed, the parties were directed to meet and confer about a more focused scope. The order noted that the interrogatory need not be limited to acts the parties agreed were misconduct, but that tying it to confidential, nonpublic, or proprietary information could provide an appropriate middle ground.

Disposition

The court ordered Deel to respond to Rippling’s interrogatories as limited by the analysis, no later than November 25, 2025. The order did not require a response to Interrogatory No. 3 at that time and did not require a response to part (iv) of Interrogatory No. 2.