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

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
PEOPLE CENTER, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEEL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC)
ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF REGARDING
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Re: Dkt. No. 146
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Plaintiff People Center, Inc., doing business as Rippling, asserts that Defendants Deel Inc.
and certain of its officers engaged in a criminal enterprise to steal trade secrets from Rippling and
other competitors. The most detailed allegations in Rippling’s First Amended Complaint (FAC,
ECF No. 57) concern the covert transfer of Rippling’s internal documents to Deel by Keith
O’Brien, who was employed by Rippling at the time, beginning in November 2024. Rippling also
alleges that two of its other former employees shared confidential information with Deel when
they began working for Deel in early 2024, FAC ¶¶ 49–50, and that Deel has undertaken other
efforts to gather information from Rippling like using misleading Gmail accounts to impersonate
potential customers, Id. ¶ 52.
The case is in its early stages, with multiple motions to dismiss or transfer the case pending
before the presiding district judge. This Court previously denied a request by Deel to limit
discovery to the subject matter of Deel’s Motion to Dismiss for forum non conveniens (ECF No.
88) until after that motion is resolved. The Court found Deel’s argument precluded by a
stipulation the parties had entered not to stay discovery in connection with motions to dismiss.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

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
ECF No. 101 at 1.1
Rippling served nine interrogatories on Deel, as follows:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify each current or former Rippling employee whom Deel
(including anyone acting on Deel’s behalf) has contacted since
September 1, 2022, and for each such Rippling employee, state: (i) the
date of each such communication; (ii) the communication medium(s)
(e.g., telephone, email, text message, face-to-face, etc.); (iii) how
Deel obtained the contact Information for such Rippling employee;
and (iv) the substance of each communication.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify all Rippling Originated Information that Deel has obtained,
used, and/or possessed (whether in electronic or physical form) during
the period of September 1, 2022 through the present, and for all such
Information, state: (i) how Deel obtained or accessed the Information
and for what purpose; (ii) the date Deel first obtained or accessed the
Information; (iii) the current location and disposition of the
Information; and (iv) how Deel has used the Information, including
but not limited to all Persons to whom Deel has disclosed the
Information.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify and describe in full detail every effort that Deel has made to
gain Information about other companies from current or former
employees of such other companies, including direct and indirect
efforts, and for each such effort the name of the individual, the
company for whom the individual worked, the people at Deel who
were aware of the individual’s activities, and all Information passed
to Deel by the individual.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Identify and describe all storage devices and/or Cloud Account(s)
belonging to Deel or any Deel employee that contain or have ever
contained Rippling Originated Information.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Identify all Persons who, before the filing date of Rippling’s
Complaint, had any knowledge that O’Brien provided information
related to Rippling to Deel, including for each Person (i) their name,
(ii) the date of their first knowledge of O’Brien’s work for Deel, (iii) a
complete explanation of the scope of the Person’s knowledge, and
(iv) a complete explanation of the extent to which the Person
communicated with O’Brien, guided O’Brien, provided or
coordinated the provision of compensation to O’Brien, or in any way
used or benefited from O’Brien’s work for Deel.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Identify all Documents and Information provided by O’Brien to Deel,
1 Citations herein to documents filed in the docket of the case refer to page numbers as assigned by
the Court’s ECF filing system unless otherwise indicated.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

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
including but not limited to Documents and Information about:
Rippling sales leads, prospects, and customers; Rippling competitive
intelligence cards; Rippling customer support strategies; Rippling
churn-risk avoidance strategies; Rippling pricing strategies; Rippling
partnership strategies; Rippling R&D efforts; Rippling’s go-to-
market plans, roadmap, strategy, and launch dates; Rippling
personnel responsible for products and/or geographic regions; and all
other Documents and Information relating in any way to Rippling or
to Deel’s efforts to compete with Rippling.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Identify each actual or potential client or customer whom Deel
(including anyone acting on Deel’s behalf) has contacted since
September 1, 2022, and for each such client or customer, state: (i) the
date of each initial communication; (ii) the communication
medium(s) (e.g., telephone, email, text message, face-to-face, etc.);
(iii) how Deel obtained the contact information for the potential client
or customer; and (iv) the substance of each such initial
communication.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
For each of the parties identified in response to Interrogatory No. 7
for whom Deel knew or had reason to believe, at the time it contacted
them, that they were actual customers of Rippling or had been
identified by Rippling as potential customers, state in detail how Deel
gained that information as to each such client or customer.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Identify all Persons with any knowledge of any facts alleged in
Rippling’s Complaint (or in any subsequent amended complaints
filed by Rippling), including in your response each Person’s name,
current employer and title, contact information, and a description of
that Person’s relevant knowledge.
See generally ECF No. 146-1 (Deel’s amended responses, which recite Rippling’s interrogatories).
The parties have filed a joint discovery letter raising three overarching disputes regarding
some or all of those interrogatories and two disputes regarding specific interrogatories (Nos. 1 and
3). The Court presumes the parties’ familiarity with record and with background law regarding
civil discovery in federal court, and resolves the parties’ disputes as follows.
The parties note that they resolved at least one dispute during the process of meeting and
conferring before filing their joint letter, but do not say what that was. See ECF No. 146 at 1. It is
therefore not entirely clear whether all nine of the interrogatories listed above are still pending, or
if Rippling as agreed to withdraw, defer, or limit any of them. Nothing in this Order is intended to
displace any agreement that the parties have reached regarding these interrogatories.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

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
II. ANALYSIS
A. Date Range
Rippling originally sought responsive information dating to the beginning of 2022. Deel
contends that all interrogatories should be limited to the period in which O’Brien allegedly spied
on Rippling for Deel beginning in later 2024. ECF No. 146 at 1. Deel offered as a compromise to
set January 1 of that year as the starting bound for its answers. Id. at 2. Rippling proposed a
compromise date of September 2022. Id. at 1.
Rippling alleges that Deel obtained confidential information from another entity, a non-
party startup accelerator, from former employees that Deel hired beginning in 2022. FAC ¶¶ 29,
34, 166. Rippling also alleges that Deel’s head of sales threatened to “play dirty” in competing
with Rippling for employees and information in September of 2022. Id. ¶ 43 & Ex. 3. And
Rippling further alleges that the two companies began competing more directly in the fall of 2022
when Rippling launched global workforce management and payroll products. Id. ¶ 41.
Those allegations, in conjunction with allegations that Deel later obtained Rippling’s
confidential information from at least three former Rippling employees, support discovery into
potential efforts by Deel to obtain such information before the 2024 incidents that Rippling has
been able to document without discovery. The Court adopts Rippling’s compromise proposal of
September 2022 (specifically September 1, 2022) as the starting date for all interrogatory
responses.
B. “Rippling Originated Information”
The parties dispute whether Rippling has provided a sufficient definition of “Rippling
Originated Information,” a limiting term that appears in some of Rippling’s interrogatories (Nos. 2
and 4) and that Deel seeks to impose on its responses to others. ECF No. 146 at 2–4. In a
decision cited by both parties, this Court has previously addressed the need to identify trade
secrets at issue in litigation:
In trade secret cases defining the scope of discovery is widely
recognized as being particularly difficult. See Uni-Sys., LLC v. U.S.
Tennis Ass’n, No. 17CV147KAMCLP, 2017 WL 4081904, *4
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2017); Peter S. Menell et al., Trade Secret Case
Management Judicial Guide, 2023 WL 4687411, Ch. 1.2.1 (2023).
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

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
The quandary involved in identifying the trade secrets with the
appropriate level of specificity, while also protecting trade secrets
throughout the litigation, “often requires the court to assist the parties
in customizing the discovery process to . . . facilitate[e] the exchange
of sensitive information, often to competing business enterprise
defendants.” Menell et al., at Ch. 1.2.1. The Court in Social Apps,
LLC v. Zynga, Inc. explained the sensitivities inherent in trade secret
litigation.
“The nature of a trade secrets claim is such that pleading is
necessarily general. To require more detail would be to force
a plaintiff to disclose, in a publicly filed pleading, the very
secrets it seeks to protect. However, the countervailing
concern is that discovery must be limited to those matters that
the plaintiff truly contends are secret. Otherwise the discovery
mechanism, and the litigation itself, could become a tool to
force a defendant to reveal its own trade secrets in defense
against unfounded or specious claims.”
No. 4:11-CV-04910 YGR, 2012 WL 2203063, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June
14, 2012).
Auris Health, Inc. v. Noah Med. Corp., No. 22-cv-08073-AMO (LJC), 2023 WL 5959427, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2023).
Deel asserts that Rippling is required by law to identify its trade secrets with “reasonable
particularity” before “commencing discovery,” relying on dicta from Auris discussing section
2019.210 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.2 ECF No. 146 at 3 (citing Auris, 2023 WL
5959427, at *5). In Auris, this Court was faced with a contention interrogatory by the defendants
seeking a more specific definition than would be required by section 2019.210—a different
posture from this case, where only Plaintiff Rippling’s interrogatories are before the Court. The
state statute was not directly at issue, and the Court held that the contention interrogatory was
premature. The Court cited a footnote from the Ninth Circuit, which states that “[f]ederal courts
have applied the state provision in federal cases.” InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc.,
978 F.3d 653, 658 n.1 (9th Cir. 2020). But both InteliClear and the district court case it cites for
that proposition dealt with trade secret claims under both state and federal law, and the district
2 “In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets
Act (Title 5 (commencing with Section 3426) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code), before
commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall
identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate
under Section 3426.5 of the Civil Code.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 5 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

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
court explained that it considered the statute appropriate under the Eerie doctrine as not in conflict
with any federal rule. Soc. Apps, 2012 WL 2203063, at *1–2. In context, InteliClear’s reference
to “federal cases” means cases in federal court that include claims under the state trade secrets law
to which section 2019.210 applies, not any case under the federal Defense of Trade Secrets Act
(DTSA).
This case does not involve a state claim under California’s implementation of the Uniform
Trade Secrets Act, but instead a DTSA claim, as well as other state law claims that are not
governed by section 2019.210. The Court therefore has no occasion to apply that provision under
the Eerie doctrine. That said, Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still require
Rippling to provide reasonable and proportional interrogatories, including with respect to any
defined terms included therein.
Rippling contends that Deel waived any objection to the term “Rippling Originated
Information” by not including such an objection in its original response, instead conceding that it
understood the term as referring to the allegations of Rippling’s First Amended Complaint. ECF
No. 146 at 2. Deel contends that it sufficiently objected to the definition. Id. at 3. Both parties’
positions have some truth: Deel’s original response presented an objection to the definition, but
that objection specifically included an interpretation of the term that Deel would use:
Deel objects to the definition of “Rippling Originated Information”
because it (i) requires Deel to reach a legal conclusion in order to
determine what falls within the definition; (ii) is vague and ambiguous
regarding what falls within the definition; (iii) causes the
Interrogatories to seek information not relevant to claims or defenses
at issue in this action; and (iv) seeks information from outside of
Deel’s possession, custody, or control. Deel interprets “Rippling
Originated Information” to mean the “Corporate Strategy Trade
Secrets” and “Sales and Marketing Trade Secrets” alleged in
Rippling’s FAC, which Deel does not concede are actually legally
protectible trade secrets in any event.
ECF No. 146-2 at 7, ¶ 6.
Addressing Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4, which most directly seek responses pertaining to
“Ripping Originated Information,” Deel raised objections to the timing of the interrogatories with
respect to Deel’s pending motions, the burden of investigation and response, overbreadth,
relevance, privilege, and other concerns, but did not assert that the interrogatories were too vague
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 6 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

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 allow for a response. ECF No. 146-2 at 12–14, 17–19. To the extent Deel now argues that
Rippling’s interrogatories lack a sufficient definition of this term to provide any response, the
Court agrees with Rippling that such an objection has been waived. Deel’s objection to the
definition conceded that Deel was able to discern an interpretation of the term on which it based
its objections to specific interrogatories, and applying that interpretation, those objections to
interrogatories did not claim that the interrogatories were too vague for Deel to respond.
But live questions remain as to what that definition is, and whether it is overly broad or
burdensome. The record before the Court includes only Deel’s responses to the interrogatories,
not Rippling’s interrogatories as originally served, so it is not clear whether Rippling included a
definition of “Rippling Originated Information” in its set of interrogatories. During the meet-and-
confer process, however, Rippling offered the following lengthy definition:
“Rippling Originated Information” means the following information
originating from Rippling obtained or used by Deel through improper
means: (a) information wrongly obtained by Deel through its access
as a Rippling customer while developing competing products (FAC
¶¶ 40-44), (b) the “pages of insights” on Rippling that Chris Lee
claimed were gathered from Deel sales representatives posing as job
applicants and other information obtained through Deel’s “sustained
and targeted” recruitment of Rippling personnel that served as “a
mechanism for misappropriating trade secrets and confidential
business information” (FAC ¶¶ 43-47, 166), (c) information taken by
former Rippling employees recruited by Deel, including documents
downloaded by Conspirator-1 before his termination by Rippling and
PEO-related confidential documents retained by Conspirator-2 (FAC
¶¶ 27-28, 49-52, 162), (d) information from Rippling gathered by
Deel employees falsely posing as legitimate customer prospects (FAC
¶¶ 52-53), (e) Rippling’s product roadmaps, core initiatives, launch
strategies, country-by-country pricing models, sales forecasts,
customer lists, recruitment targets, go-to-market tactics, and
information about Rippling’s customers for particular products in
particular countries (FAC ¶¶ 49, 69, 89, 91, 94-102, 105, 177),
(f) Rippling’s sales pipeline information, competitive intelligence
cards, customer-specific information stolen by Keith O’Brien from
Rippling’s Slack channels and computer systems, and customer
retention strategies (FAC ¶¶ 78-88, 103-104, 106-107),
(g) information about Rippling’s employees used by Deel to attempt
to hire those employees away from Rippling (FAC ¶¶ 73, 108-112),
and (h) information used by Deel to advance a false press attack
against Rippling (FAC ¶¶ 113-117).
ECF No. 146 at 7.
Some of the items in that list are unduly broad and burdensome, in that they are not
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 7 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

8
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
reasonably tailored to information that Rippling might plausibly argue to be trade secrets. Items
(a), (b), and (d) appear to include information that Rippling freely disclosed to actual customers,
prospective customers, and prospective employees with no indication of any meaningful
expectation of confidentiality, which therefore seem unlikely to qualify as trade secrets. Items (g)
and (h) similarly lack any indicia of confidentiality. Even applying the introductory clause of
“information originating from Rippling obtained or used by Deel through improper means,” an
employee’s biography on a public Rippling website might qualify for item (g) if Rippling
contends that Deel “used” that information “improper[ly]” to attempt to hire the employee.
Similarly, factual public information about Rippling’s plans or products might fall within item (h)
if Rippling contends Deel used it “to advance a false press attack.” For those categories,
assembling all responsive information might prove impossible. The apparent requirement that
Deel concede “improper means” in obtaining or disclosing information is also problematic, where
Deel apparently denies wrongdoing as to some (perhaps all) of the conduct in dispute.
For the purpose of the present interrogatories, the Court therefore limits the definition of
“Rippling Originated Information” as follows.3 This definition is based on Rippling’s
compromise proposal above, but omits portions of it and adjusts the subpart letters without explicit
indication. The Court’s additions are designated by italics.
“Rippling Originated Information” means the following information
originating from Rippling: (a) non-public information taken by
former Rippling employees recruited by Deel and provided to Deel,
including documents downloaded by Conspirator-1 before his
termination by Rippling and PEO-related confidential documents
retained by Conspirator-2 (FAC ¶¶ 27-28, 49-52, 162), (b) Rippling’s
product roadmaps, core initiatives, launch strategies, country-by-
country pricing models, sales forecasts, customer lists, recruitment
targets, go-to-market tactics, and information about Rippling’s
customers for particular products in particular countries, to the extent
provided to Deel by Keith O’Brien or any current or former Rippling
employees recruited by Deel (FAC ¶¶ 49, 69, 89, 91, 94-102, 105,
177), and (c) Rippling’s sales pipeline information, competitive
intelligence cards, customer-specific information stolen by Keith
O’Brien from Rippling’s Slack channels and computer systems, and
(d) Rippling’s customer retention strategies provided by O’Brien or
by current or former Rippling employees recruited by Deel (FAC ¶¶
78-88, 103-104, 106-107).
3 Deel’s request for further briefing of this definitional dispute is denied. See ECF No. 146 at 3.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 8 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

9
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
See ECF No. 146 at 7. The Court recognizes that this definition may include information that does
not qualify as trade secrets, but finds it reasonable and proportional to Rippling’s legitimate
interest in assessing what (if any) confidential information Deel obtained and developing its
claims to the extent such evidence might support them.
To the extent Rippling wishes to pursue other categories of information excluded by that
definition, it may serve additional interrogatories. Rippling should be prepared to explain why
such further interrogatories are relevant to its claims and proportional to the needs of the case.
C. Compound Interrogatories
“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party
no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional
interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33(a)(1).
Deel asserts that all of Rippling’s interrogatories except Nos. 4 and 8 are compound, and
therefore should count as more than nine, potentially exceeding the default limit of twenty-five.
ECF No. 146 at 4. Deel’s arguments rest on two issues: that several of Rippling’s interrogatories
include subparts, and that several ask Rippling to provide information about “each” of multiple
items in a category. Rippling contends that each interrogatory is appropriately limited to a “single
common theme.” Id. (quoting In re Questcor Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. SACV 12-1623-DMG
(JPRx), 2015 WL 12672130, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015)).
As Deel acknowledges, courts have generally held that subparts of interrogatories only
count separately when they “introduce[] a line of inquiry that is separate and distinct from the
inquiry made by the portion of the interrogatory that precedes it.” Id. (quoting In re Soc. Media
Adolescent Addiction/Personal Inj. Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 22-md-03047-YGR (PHK), 2024 WL
5190206, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024)). Courts have held, for example, that “an interrogatory
that asks about facts, people who know the facts, and documents that reflect the facts is one
interrogatory . . . if the facts, people and documents all relate to the same primary question.”
Finjan, Inc. v. Qualys Inc., No. 18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH), 2020 WL 4923964, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
Aug. 21, 2020) (summarizing and following Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., 319 F.R.D. 293,
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 9 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

10
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
297 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Ryu, M.J.)).
Deel also notes that this Court held in Auris that interrogatories “seeking information about
‘each’ of multiple things comprise discrete subparts for each of those things.” Id. (quoting Auris,
2023 WL 5959427, at *6). But that principle also depends on context. Interrogatories seeking
lists of each responsive item are common and generally acceptable. It is only when an
interrogatory seeks excessive detail about each item in such a list that each might count separately.
Moreover, as a general matter, Rule 33’s presumptive cap of twenty-five interrogatories is
subject to modification consistent with Rule 26’s general principles of relevance, burden, and
proportionality. A single unduly burdensome interrogatory may be improper even if it is the only
one served in a case, and far more than twenty-five interrogatories can be appropriate in some
cases if their burden is limited and the needs of the case so warrant. As such, extensive litigation
over the semantics of what counts as one or multiple interrogatories can serve to distract from the
more important question of whether the request is relevant and proportional. Providing a
“scorecard” of how many interrogatories Rippling has served will be helpful to guide the parties in
any further discovery. In doing so, however, the Court will consider the relevance and burden of
each request, not merely the structure in which it is presented.
With those principles in mind, the Court addresses the interrogatories at issue as follows.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify each current or former Rippling employee whom Deel
(including anyone acting on Deel’s behalf) has contacted since
September 1, 2022, and for each such Rippling employee, state: (i) the
date of each such communication; (ii) the communication medium(s)
(e.g., telephone, email, text message, face-to-face, etc.); (iii) how
Deel obtained the contact Information for such Rippling employee;
and (iv) the substance of each communication.
Interrogatory No. 1 essentially seeks a list of all instances where Deel communicated with
current or former Rippling employees, including the date, medium, and substance of such
communications. Such a list is properly considered one interrogatory, construing the “substance”
portion of the request as seeking a general topic rather than a detailed summary. The interrogatory
also asks “how Deel obtained the contact Information for such Rippling employee.” In the
Court’s view, that issue is sufficiently distinct from the list of communications to count separately,
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 10 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

11
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
though it calls for a sufficiently cohesive list of information to only count as one additional
question. The Court views this interrogatory as effectively seeking two lists: one listing each
Rippling employee, including the relevant information of how Deel obtained contact information;
and one listing each communication, including details pertaining to such communications.4
Interrogatory No. 1 therefore counts as two of Rippling’s interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify all Rippling Originated Information that Deel has obtained,
used, and/or possessed (whether in electronic or physical form) during
the period of September 1, 2022 through the present, and for all such
Information, state: (i) how Deel obtained or accessed the Information
and for what purpose; (ii) the date Deel first obtained or accessed the
Information; (iii) the current location and disposition of the
Information; and (iv) how Deel has used the Information, including
but not limited to all Persons to whom Deel has disclosed the
Information.
Parts (i) and (ii) of Interrogatory No. 2 (as limited above by the definition of “Rippling
Original Information) are sufficiently related to fall within a single interrogatory. The same goes
for part (iii) to the extent Deel is able to answer it for a given item of information, though
information will not always have a discrete “location” or “disposition.” Part (iv), however, calls
for a more detailed explanation, such that it would count as a separate interrogatory for each item
to which it applies. See, e.g., Auris, 2023 WL 5959427, at *6. Because the number of items is not
yet clear and might exceed the twenty-five interrogatory presumptive limitation, Deel need not
answer part (iv) of this interrogatory. Rippling may serve additional interrogatories regarding
Deel’s use of particular categories of information if it so chooses.
Running total: 3 interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify and describe in full detail every effort that Deel has made to
gain Information about other companies from current or former
employees of such other companies, including direct and indirect
efforts, and for each such effort the name of the individual, the
company for whom the individual worked, the people at Deel who
were aware of the individual’s activities, and all Information passed
to Deel by the individual.
4 The Court expects the parties, if they have not already, to negotiate an appropriate endpoint for
listing communications with former Rippling employees that Deel ultimately hired.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 11 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

12
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
For the reasons discussed separately below, the Court holds that Deel need not answer this
interrogatory at this time. It therefore does not count against Rippling’s running total, which
remains at 3.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Identify and describe all storage devices and/or Cloud Account(s)
belonging to Deel or any Deel employee that contain or have ever
contained Rippling Originated Information.
This interrogatory is not included in the heading for this section of the joint letter as a
purportedly compound interrogatory, and Deel does not address it specifically in its arguments.
ECF No. 146 at 4. The Court therefore presumes it has not been challenged and counts it as a
single interrogatory. Running total: 4 interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Identify all Persons who, before the filing date of Rippling’s
Complaint, had any knowledge that O’Brien provided information
related to Rippling to Deel, including for each Person (i) their name,
(ii) the date of their first knowledge of O’Brien’s work for Deel, (iii) a
complete explanation of the scope of the Person’s knowledge, and
(iv) a complete explanation of the extent to which the Person
communicated with O’Brien, guided O’Brien, provided or
coordinated the provision of compensation to O’Brien, or in any way
used or benefited from O’Brien’s work for Deel.
Parts (i) and (ii) of this interrogatory count as a single question. Parts (iii) and (iv),
construed broadly, could count as a separate interrogatory for each person at issue. The Court
therefor declines to construe them broadly. Deel must specify whether each person listed
communicated with O’Brien, provided compensation to him, or coordinated the provision of such
compensation. But for the same reasons discussed with respect to Interrogatory No. 2, Deel need
not describe the person’s knowledge or the nature of such interactions in detail. Such issues may
be addressed through future interrogatories or depositions if Rippling so chooses.
Running total: 5 interrogatories
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Identify all Documents and Information provided by O’Brien to Deel,
including but not limited to Documents and Information about:
Rippling sales leads, prospects, and customers; Rippling competitive
intelligence cards; Rippling customer support strategies; Rippling
churn-risk avoidance strategies; Rippling pricing strategies; Rippling
partnership strategies; Rippling R&D efforts; Rippling’s go-to-
market plans, roadmap, strategy, and launch dates; Rippling
personnel responsible for products and/or geographic regions; and all
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 12 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

13
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
other Documents and Information relating in any way to Rippling or
to Deel’s efforts to compete with Rippling.
Presuming a reasonable and limited interpretation of the term “identify,” this interrogatory
seeks a sufficiently discrete and coherent list to only count as one question. Running total: 6
interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Identify each actual or potential client or customer whom Deel
(including anyone acting on Deel’s behalf) has contacted since
September 1, 2022, and for each such client or customer, state: (i) the
date of each initial communication; (ii) the communication
medium(s) (e.g., telephone, email, text message, face-to-face, etc.);
(iii) how Deel obtained the contact information for the potential client
or customer; and (iv) the substance of each such initial
communication.
For substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to Interrogatory No. 1, this
counts as two interrogatories: one seeking a list of actual or potential clients or customers,
including when and how they were initially contacted; and the other seeking a list of initial
communications, including a general description of their substance. Running total: 8
interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
For each of the parties identified in response to Interrogatory No. 7
for whom Deel knew or had reason to believe, at the time it contacted
them, that they were actual customers of Rippling or had been
identified by Rippling as potential customers, state in detail how Deel
gained that information as to each such client or customer.
This interrogatory is not included in the heading for this section of the joint letter as a
purportedly compound interrogatory, and Deel does not address it specifically in its arguments.
ECF No. 146 at 4. The Court therefore presumes it has not been challenged and counts it as a
single interrogatory. Running total: 9 interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Identify all Persons with any knowledge of any facts alleged in
Rippling’s Complaint (or in any subsequent amended complaints
filed by Rippling), including in your response each Person’s name,
current employer and title, contact information, and a description of
that Person’s relevant knowledge.
This interrogatory seeks a sufficiently discrete and coherent list to count as a single
interrogatory, so long as the “description of each Person’s relevant knowledge” is constrained to a
general summary rather than a comprehensive recitation. If Rippling seeks more detailed
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 13 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

14
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
explanations of certain witnesses’ knowledge, it may serve additional interrogatories tailored to
those witnesses or explore the topic through depositions.
Accordingly, and limiting the scope of certain interrogatories as discussed above, the Court
concludes for the purpose of Rule 33’s presumptive limit that Rippling has served ten of its
allotted twenty-five interrogatories. Rippling therefore has fifteen interrogatories remaining.5
D. Challenge to Interrogatory No. 1
Interrogatory No. 1 asks Deel to:
Identify each current or former Rippling employee whom Deel
(including anyone acting on Deel’s behalf) has contacted since
September 1, 2022, and for each such Rippling employee, state: (i) the
date of each such communication; (ii) the communication medium(s)
(e.g., telephone, email, text message, face-to-face, etc.); (iii) how
Deel obtained the contact Information for such Rippling employee;
and (iv) the substance of each communication.
ECF No. 146-1 at 11.
Deel contends that this interrogatory should be limited to contact with current and former
Rippling employees that is “tethered to alleged use of ‘Rippling Originated Information,’
assuming Rippling could identify with particularity what trade secrets allegedly comprised that
Information.” ECF No. 146 at 5. According to Deel, the interrogatory should not encompass all
efforts it may have taken to recruit current or former Rippling employees, because “[r]ecruiting is
not unlawful conduct.” Id. Rippling argues in response that it has sufficiently “allege[d] a nexus
between recruiting and trade secret theft because the Enterprise targeted people from Rippling to
obtain Rippling’s trade secrets.” Id.
The Court agrees with Rippling that Deel’s efforts to recruit Rippling employees are fair
game for discovery. Such recruitment is not inherently wrongful, but discovery under Rule 26 is
not limited to inherently incriminating evidence. Rippling has alleged that Deel engaged in a
practice of recruiting other entities’ (and specifically Rippling’s) employees for the purpose of
5 To the extent that reasonable minds might differ as to whether this Order accurately counts the
number of interrogatories Rippling has served, the Court would in the alternative adjust the
number of interrogatories allowed pursuant to Rule 33(a)(1) and Rule 26(b)(2)(a) based on the
burden of the interrogatories served and the needs of the case, such that Rippling has fifteen
interrogatories remaining.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 14 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

15
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
obtaining confidential information. It is reasonable and proportional to the needs of the case for
Rippling to take discovery to investigate the extent to which that practice extended beyond the
specific incidents of which Rippling is already aware. Deel must therefore respond to
Interrogatory No. 1, subject to the September 1, 2022 start date imposed above, but without a
restriction to “Rippling Originated Information.”
E. Challenge to Interrogatory No. 3
Interrogatory 3 asks Deel to:
Identify and describe in full detail every effort that Deel has made to
gain Information about other companies from current or former
employees of such other companies, including direct and indirect
efforts, and for each such effort the name of the individual, the
company for whom the individual worked, the people at Deel who
were aware of the individual’s activities, and all Information passed
to Deel by the individual.
ECF No. 146-1 at 16.
This Court has previously enforced the parties’ agreement not to stay discovery pending
Judge Breyer’s resolution of Defendants’ motions to dismiss. ECF No. 101 at 1. Judge Breyer
denied Deel’s request for relief from that order, confirming “that the parties’ stipulation precludes
an argument that discovery requests not germane to the motion to dismiss are per se not
proportional to the needs of the case.” ECF No. 110.
This interrogatory, however, relates to a field of discovery that is relevant (if at all) only to
a discrete theory of liability (RICO liability predicated in part on conduct unrelated to Rippling)
that might or might not survive Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and which would not necessarily
proceed in another forum (e.g., Ireland) if the case did not proceed here. Such discovery might be
relevant if Rippling’s RICO claims go forward, but Interrogatory No. 3 strays well beyond the
issues of Deel’s relationship with Rippling that make up the heart of the case and are likely to be
most relevant to any non-RICO claims. Tabling this interrogatory for the moment will not prevent
Rippling from commencing discovery more closely related to those core issues. As a matter of
prudence and discretion, the Court finds that a response to this interrogatory at this time would be
unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Rippling’s request to compel a
further response is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 15 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

16
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
Even if Rippling’s RICO claims proceed, this interrogatory is potentially overbroad. For
example, routine interview questions about an applicant’s current and past work experience
arguably seek “Information about other companies” from their “current or former employees.” If
Judge Breyer declines to dismiss the RICO claims, and the case has not otherwise been narrowed
to exclude alleged misconduct with respect to non-parties, the parties shall meet and confer in an
effort to agree on a scope for Interrogatory No. 3 that is more narrowly tailored to capture
potential misconduct.6
III. CONCLUSION
Deel is ORDERED to respond to Rippling’s interrogatories, as limited by the Court’s
analysis above, no later than November 25, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 7, 2025
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
6 The parties might reasonably disagree over whether particular corporate intelligence efforts are
wrongful. The interrogatory therefore need not be limited to acts of misconduct, but tying the
interrogatory in some way to confidential, non-public, or proprietary information might serve as
an appropriate middle ground. The parties are likely better positioned than the Court to determine
in the first instance a useful, workable, and appropriate scope, and the Court declines to resolve
the issue at this time.
Case 3:25-cv-02576-CRB Document 148 Filed 11/07/25 Page 16 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>