ORDER RE RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF INSIGHT GLOBAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 230, 239.
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, Magistrate Judge.
As directed by the Court, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill have made a supplemental submission in support of their request for an order requiring Insight Global to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) designee (Mr. Lowance or another representative) for further deposition on noticed Topics 5, 11, 12, 13 and 15. That supplemental submission reflects that the parties have slightly narrowed their dispute, and have conferred further about the bases for their respective positions.
Having considered the parties' original submission (Dkt. No. 230) and their supplemental submission (Dkt. No. 239), as well as the arguments presented at the hearing on April 16, 2019, the Court grants in part and denies in part Mr. Barker's and Beacon Hill's request for further deposition testimony, as set forth in detail below.
I. SUMMARY OF THE DISPUTE
The question presented by this dispute is whether the deposition questions Mr. Lowance did not answer were within the scope of the deposition topics for which he was designated, and if so, whether Insight Global's privilege/work product objections to those questions were proper.1 Insight Global designated Mr. Lowance for the following topics:
5. The Second Amended and Restated Insight Global LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan.
11. The basis for Insight's decision not to pay Mr. Barker his accumulated units of value under the Second Amended and Restated Insight Global LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan.
12. The identity of all persons who participated in the decision not to pay Mr. Barker his accumulated units of value under the Second Amended and Restated Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan.
13. Every document, including without limitation every policy, on which Insight relied in its decision not to pay Mr. Barker his accumulated units of value under the Second Amended and Restated Insight Global LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan.
15. Insight's enforcement of non-solicitation of customers provisions, non-solicitation of employees provisions and non-compete provisions against its California employees, including without limitation any notifications or reminders by Insight to its California employees of their alleged non-solicitation or non-compete obligations or any claims that an employee breached his or her alleged non-solicitation or non-compete obligations.
Dkt. No. 230 at ECF 11-12.
Of the 93 deposition questions in dispute, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill have withdrawn three questions (#9, #79, #83), and appear to concede that an additional eight questions (#15, #76, #77, #78, #80, #81, #82, #92) are outside the scope of the noticed topics.2 See Dkt. No. 239 at ECF 2, 9, 27, 28, 30. Insight Global has offered to provide responses to eleven questions, including one that is concededly outside the scope (#5, #7, #8, #11, #12, #13, #14, #44, #45, #81 and #87), albeit in the form of written answers, not deposition testimony. See Dkt. No. 239 at ECF 2, 33. The 72 questions that remain in dispute are reproduced in the chart at the end of this order. For each question, the Court first considers whether the question is fairly within the scope of the noticed deposition topic, and for those that are, the Court then considers whether Insight Global's privilege/work product objection is well taken.3
II. DISCUSSION
A. Questions Outside the Scope of the Noticed Deposition Topics
Of the 72 disputed questions, Insight Global agrees that thirteen questions are indeed within the scope of one or more noticed deposition topics (#20, #21, #23, #24, #31, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #67, #85, #86), and it raises only privilege/work product objections to those questions. For all but five of the remaining disputed questions, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill rely on Topic 15 for their argument that the question is within the scope of a noticed topic. Accordingly, the Court begins with a consideration of the scope of Topic 15.
1. Topic 15
At its broadest, Topic 15 is directed to "Insight's enforcement of non-solicitation of customers provisions, non-solicitation of employees provisions and non-compete provisions against its California employees." Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill construe this topic broadly; Insight Global construes it more narrowly. The parties appear not to have conferred about their differing views of the scope of the topic in advance of the deposition.
A reasonable interpretation of the scope of this topic is informed by both the further elaboration of the topic in the "including without limitation" clause, as well as the other topics in the deposition notice for which Insight Global produced other designees. The Court agrees that Topic 15 is not limited to "letters written to former employees about their contractual obligations to IG" (Dkt. No. 230 at ECF 5), as Insight Global contends, but encompasses more generally efforts by Insight Global to enforce non-solicitation and non-compete obligations against its California employees. However, it does not include, for example, Insight's practice of including such obligations in its agreements with California employees, which is the subject of a different topic.
Applying this interpretation, the Court finds that the following disputed questions are within the scope of Topic 15: #3, #4, #6, #22, #25, #27, #32, #33, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #47, #48, #50, #60, #75. As to those topics, most of the disputed questions are phrased in a manner that suggests they are seeking the personal views of the deponent; however, the topic is limited to positions taken or information known to Insight Global. Subject to the Court's decision on the privilege/work product objections, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill must reformulate these questions so that they are addressed to Insight Global and not Mr. Lowance personally, or whomever Insight Global chooses to designate. As discussed below, such reformulations also may be necessary to avoid privilege/work product objections.
The following disputed questions are outside the scope of Topic 15, and Insight Global need not produce a designee to testify about them: #1, #2, #10, #16, #17, #18, #19, #26, #28, #29, #30, #34, #35, #42, #43, #46, #49, #54, #55, #56, #57, #58, #59, #66, #68, #69, #70, #71, #72, #73, #74, #88, #89, #91, #93.
2. Topics 5, 11, 12, 13
Topic 5 concerns the Second Amended and Restated Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan ("IUP"), and Topics 11, 12 and 13 concern Insight Global's decision to not pay Mr. Barker his accumulated units of value under the IUP. The Court finds that disputed question #84 is within the scope of Topic 5, and disputed question #90 is within the scope of Topics 11, 12 and 13. As to those topics, subject to the Court's decision on the privilege/work product objections, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill must reformulate these questions so that they are addressed to information known to Insight Global, and not the individual deponent.
The following disputed questions are outside the scope of Topics 5, 11, 12 and 13, and Insight Global need not produce a designee to testify about them: #51, #52, #53.
B. Questions Barred by the Attorney-Client Privilege or Work Product Doctrine
As indicated in the summary chart below, there are 34 questions that the Court has determined (or Insight Global has agreed) fall within the scope of a noticed topic. The Court now turns to Insight Global's privilege and work product objections to those questions.
It appears from Insight Global's portion of the joint submission that most of its privilege and work product objections are closely tied to Mr. Lowance's role as general counsel to Insight Global, and the fact that most of the questions at issue were phrased in a manner suggesting that Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill were seeking discovery of Mr. Lowance personally. While it is not improper to designate counsel as a company representative, that designee's role as an attorney cannot be used to insulate from discovery facts known to the company. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981) ("The privilege only protects disclosure of communications; it does not protect disclosure of the underlying facts by those who communicated with the attorney[.]") At the same time, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may not compel personal deposition testimony of Mr. Lowance in the guise of seeking discovery of Insight Global under Rule 30(b)(6).
The Court concludes that the following deposition questions, if reformulated to seek information in the possession, custody or control of Insight Global, are principally directed to obtaining factual information of Insight Global and not communications subject to the attorney-client privilege or information subject to the attorney work product doctrine: #20, #21, #22, #23, #32, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #47, #48, #50, #60, #61, #62, #64, #67, #75, #84, #86, #90. By way of example, question #20 might be reformulated as follows: "Did any Insight Global representative ever discuss with any Insight Global employees that Insight Global was not going to enforce any longer the non-solicitation of customers and clients provision?"
It may well be that complete answers to some of these reformulated questions would require the deponent to reveal privileged information of the company. Nothing in this order precludes such an objection on this ground during the further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. For example, question #36 might be reformulated as follows: "Why does Insight Global not point out [in the document under discussion], as it does in the IUP, that certain provisions do not apply to California employees?" An answer to that question might be purely factual—e.g., a change or difference in policy—or it might indeed require the deponent to reveal advice of counsel, or both. Nothing in this order requires Insight Global to reveal advice of counsel; however, it must respond with factual information known to the company to the extent the question calls for such information, regardless of the source of those facts.
A number of the remaining deposition questions do not appear to call for factual information, but instead seek Insight Global's contentions or positions on matters having to do with its enforcement of non-solicitation and non-competition provisions. Insight Global does not object to these questions on the ground that deposition testimony is not an appropriate means of discovering its contentions. However, it does object that several questions improperly seek disclosure of Insight Global's legal conclusions, legal strategy, and/or the advice of counsel. The Court concludes that the following deposition questions, if appropriately reformulated, are principally directed to obtaining Insight Global's contentions, as opposed to legal conclusions, legal strategy or advice of counsel: #3, #4, #6, #24, #25, #27, #31, #33. For example, question #3 might be reformulated as follows: "How does Insight Global contend the noncompete covenant should be interpreted?" And, question #24 might be reformulated as follows: "Does Insight Global contend that Ms. Gravino's calling on at least one account with whom she had contact while working at Insight Global is a violation of the at will employment agreement?" The Court expects the answers to these questions would not implicate any privilege or work product concerns; however, further questions probing why Insight Global so contends might well implicate such concerns. Nothing in this order requires Insight Global to reveal advice of counsel or attorney work product in response to such further questions.
With respect to question #63, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may not inquire about, or premise their question on an assertion of, Insight Global's or its designee's view of a decision of the California Supreme Court, and it may not seek an explanation for why Insight Global does not send letters of non-enforcement to its former employees, as that question appears to seek information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Likewise, with respect to question #65, Mr. Baker and Beacon Hill may not inquire about Insight Global's legal analysis regarding what California law does and does not prohibit. Finally, with respect to question #85, Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may not inquire as to whether committees within Insight Global have a conflict of interest, as that question seems designed to elicit a purely legal conclusion that likely also implicates attorney-client privilege. Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may not inquire further about questions #63, #65 and #85.
III. CONCLUSION
Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may take further deposition testimony of Insight Global regarding the following questions, subject to the Court's direction that questions must be directed to Insight Global and not to an individual deponent: #3, #4, #6, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #27, #31, #32, #33, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #47, #48, #50, #60, #61, #62, #64, #67, #75, #84, #86, #90. Insight Global may produce Mr. Lowance for further deposition or may produce another designee or designees to answer these questions. This further deposition questioning will be limited to a total of 2.5 hours. Mr. Barker and Beacon Hill may ask reasonable follow up questions to follow up on answers to the permitted questions, but they may not inquire as to any matters the Court has concluded are outside the scope of a noticed topic or subject to valid privilege/work product objections. The parties shall cooperate to promptly schedule the further deposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
No. Question Within Noticed Privilege or Work
Topic? Product?
1 You understand that covenants not to No n/a
compete are unenforceable under
California law; correct? 15:17-21.
2 When you executed the settlement No n/a
agreement on behalf of Insight Global,
did you understand this provision that I
just read, paragraph 13, the no-hire
restriction period? 16:1-7.
3 The noncompete covenant to which 15 No
employees are bound with Insight
Global, what is your understanding of
that phase [phrase]? 16:23-17:2.
4 Did you believe that any of MacArthur, 15 No
Barker, Brodusco [Verduzco] or Cronin
were subject to this no-hire restriction
period, paragraph 13, of the settlement
agreement? 17:7-14.
5 Are any of the four subject to a n/a Insight Global agrees to
noncompete covenant with Insight answer
Global? 17:25-18:23.
6 And you would agree that this 15 No
settlement agreement is a [an] effort by
Insight Global to enforce its restrictive
covenants against its former employees;
correct? 19:4-18.
7 To your knowledge, are any Insight n/a Insight Global agrees to
Global California employees current or answer
former subject to a noncompete? 19:23-20:2.
8 To your knowledge, has any current or n/a Insight Global agrees to
former Insight Global employee, who answer
worked in California, ever signed a
covenant not to compete within a certain
geographic area? 20:7-12.
9 Glen Johnson came from Tech Systems;
correct? 25:15-22.
10 Did Insight Global fire [Chris Hubbard] No n/a
for sexual harassment? 35:20-36:3.
11 Can you generally describe the efforts n/a Insight Global agrees to
that Insight has undertaken to comply answer
with the law in the various states where
Insight conducts business regarding
post-employment, restrictive covenants,
and by that I mean covenants not to
compete, nonsolicitation of customers,
clients and employees and — provisions?
41:17-42:9.
12 For example, does Insight have a n/a Insight Global agrees to
compliance program in place to ensure answer
that it does not violate the law in the
various jurisdictions where Insight
conducts business? 43:3-8.
13 What is Insight Global's compliance n/a Insight Global agrees to
program with respect to enforceability answer
of restrictive covenants? 43:12-16.
14 Does Insight do anything to comply n/a Insight Global agrees to
with the laws in the various jurisdictions answer
where Insight conducts business with
respect to post-employment, restrictive
covenants? 43:18-23.
15 Do you know the employee turnover
rate at Insight's San Francisco office
during the same period of time, 2013 to
the present? 45:17-46:1.
16 Are you familiar with the California No n/a
Supreme Court's last post-employment
restrictive covenants case, Edwards v.
Arthur Anderson? 46:3-8.
17 When did you become familiar with the No n/a
California Supreme Court's, Edwards v.
Arthur Anderson decision? 46:12-15.
18 Do you understand that nonsolicitation No n/a
of customers' provisions are
unenforceable and unfair business
practice in California? 46:17-23.
19 Did Insight Global revise its at will No n/a
employment agreements in response to
the Barker lawsuit? 46:25-47:3.
20 Did you ever discuss with any 15 (not disputed) No
employees at Insight Global that Insight
Global was not going to enforce any
longer the nonsolicitation of customers'
and clients' provisions? 47:7-48:13.
21 Were you privy to discussions regarding 15 (not disputed) No
a stipulation to that effect? In other
words, a binding stipulation that would
be signed by Judge Fruman [Freeman]?
48:15-19.
22 Have you seen the proposed stipulation? 15 No
49:13-17.
23 When would a letter go to a former 15 (not disputed) No
employee that joins a competitor?
54:15-20.
24 It looks like you also wrote in this letter 15 (not disputed) No
that Ms. Gravino had called on at least
one account with whom she had contact
while working at Insight Global. Is that
a violation of her At Will Employment
Agreement with Insight Global? 55:16-57:4.
25 Is it a breach of any agreement with 15 No
Insight Global for a former employee to
do business with a customer or client
who they had contact with at Insight
Global? 57:6-12.
26 What is your understanding of what that No n/a
[the inevitable disclosure theory]
means? 57:14-21.
27 Is it Insight's philosophy that since we 15 No
trained you as an employee, you can't
leave and go work for a competitor;
everything you know, you learned from
us? 58:4-14.
28 Do you agree with Mr. Bean's statement No n/a
with regard to employee knowledge,
employee training at Insight Global, that
if employees leave, whatever knowledge
they are going to know about staffing is
going to be learned from Insight Global
and constitutes Insight Global's trade
secrets? 59:16-24.
29 In the course of your job, did you No n/a
research and find the Supreme Court of
California's 2008 decision in Edwards
vs. Arthur Anderson regarding
nonsolicitation of customers'
provisions? 71:22-72:4.
30 Have you ever read the Edwards' case? No n/a
72:8-10.
31 In the next letter here, you are telling a 15 (not disputed) No
former employee in 2014 that they
cannot solicit or attempt to solicit any
customers or clients with whom they
had material contact while at Insight
Global — I think there is a typo, any
staffing service business? Isn't that an
attempt to threaten an employee with an
unenforceable customer nonsolicitation
provision? 73:5-14.
32 And what do you mean by "if 15 No
applicable," in this context? 79:7-13.
33 Isn't the purpose of this [the Separation 15 No
Agreement] to restrain former
employees of Insight Global? 83:23-84:5.
34 You have known that since 2013, when No n/a
you became general counsel of Insight
Global, that California law forbids
post-employment noncompetes; correct?
85:15-24.
35 Does Insight Global contend that all five No n/a
or [of] these provisions are enforceable
under California law? 86:3-7.
36 Why not point out, as you do in the IUP 15 No
plan that certain provisions don't apply
to California employees? 87:2-9.
37 Why not just say this agreement not to 15 No
compete doesn't apply to California
employees? 87:11-17.
38 Why do you include a business location 15 No
at all in a separation agreement with a
California employee? 95:13-23.
39 What was your intent in drafting that 15 No
sentence [Section 5-B of Separation
Agreement]? 98:24-99:4.
40 Was your intent to dissuade former 15 No
Insight employees in California from
going to work for the competition?
99:8-16.
41 Isn't it true, Mr. Lowance, that the 15 No
purpose, intent and effect of these
post-employment restrictive covenants in the
standard Insight separation agreement,
are to dissuade and inhibit former
employees in California from accepting
jobs with Insight's competitors in the
staffing industry? 103:3-20.
42 Do you make a distinction in your mind No n/a
between solicitation and inducement?
108:20-109:3.
43 You would agree, Mr. Lowance, that if No n/a
an Insight Global employee in San
Francisco reached out to John Barker
and asked about Beacon Hill, that that
by itself would not be a violation of a
nonsolicitation provision? 109:7-17.
44 Isn't it true that Insight Global has never n/a Insight Global agrees to
advised its California employees that answer
any of these post-employment restrictive
covenants do not apply to them?
109:21-110:4.
45 Are you aware of Insight Global ever n/a Insight Global agrees to
telling any California employee that the answer
nonsolicitation of customers and clients
provision is not enforceable under
California law? 110:6-13.
46 When you authored this termination No n/a
letter to my client, John Barker, you
knew he was not subject to a
noncompete under California law;
correct? 113:13-18.
47 You say the "Documents contain 15 No
restrictions designed to protect Insight
Global's confidential business
information, and goodwill from actions
by former employees including
commitments not to one compete
against Insight Global in its lines of
business within certain geographic
areas." Why did you say that if he was
not subject to a noncompete? 114:4-17.
48 Why did you write that he was subject 15 No
to commitments not to compete against
Insight Global in its lines of business
within certain geographic areas?
114:22-115:3.
49 Were you trying to confuse John Barker No n/a
into thinking he couldn't compete with
Insight Global by writing this language?
115:6-9.
50 What did you mean when you said, he 15 No
had a commitment not to compete
against Insight Global in its lines of
business within certain geographic
areas? 115:11-116:12.
51 Why did the company terminate him for No n/a
cause? 118:10-23.
52 Why would you use the word "cause" if No n/a
he is at will? What other reason would
you use "cause" if he was an at will
employee? 119:18-22.
53 Did you understand, when you wrote No n/a
this letter, that cause had a certain
meaning? 120:12-17.
54 Isn't it true you wrote your termination No n/a
letter to my client, John Barker, in a
deliberately misleading manner to
restrain competition by him? 121:25-122:11.
55 Isn't true that you knew full well when No n/a
you wrote your letter firing my client,
John Barker, he was not subject to any
legally enforceable covenant not to
compete? 122:15-20.
56 Isn't it true that you knew full well No n/a
when you wrote your letter firing John
Barker that he was not subject to any
legally enforceable covenant not to
solicit Insight's current or prospective
clients and customers? 122:24-123:6.
57 Isn't it also true, Mr. Lowance, that No n/a
when you wrote your letter firing my
client, you knew full well that Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act
prohibited any contract provision
prohibiting Insight's current or former
employees for [from] making
"disparaging statements about Insight or
its employees"? 123:9-16.
58 In fact that legal prohibition is No n/a
confirmed in Insight's own National
employee handbook, correct, protected
concerted activities? You can't
disparage an employer — hear about all
the Facebook cases last year, two years
ago? 123:19-124:2.
59 Isn't it true that you deliberately No n/a
included the words "if applicable" in
Insight's form separation agreements to
confuse Insight's California employees
and to restrain them from competing
with Insight in the staffing industry?
124:6-12.
60 Isn't it also true that Insight's desires to 15 No
restrain and intimidate former
employees from competing with Insight,
knowing that Insight's current and
former employees are not bound by any
noncompete obligation or any
nonsolicitation of customers' provision?
124:14-23.
61 Isn't it true that Insight includes these 15 (not disputed) No
post-employment restrictive covenants
in your reminder letters to former
employees and in Insight standard form
separation agreements, to restrain the
competition by former employees?
124:25-125:7.
62 And another is to intimidate current and 15 (not disputed) No
former employees from competing.
Isn't that true? 125:9-23.
63 So knowing what you now know 15 (not disputed) Yes
through the Barker lawsuit that
California doesn't recognize covenants
not to compete, California Supreme
Court back in 2008 ruled that
nonsolicitation of customers' provisions
are unenforceable, they are a disguise
noncompete — knowing that now, why
don't you send letters to your former
employees to let them know that we
won't enforce these against you?
125:25-126:14.
64 Is there any reason why when you 15 (not disputed) No
revised the At Will Employment
Agreements in February of 2017 for
California employees or some California
employees, that you didn't notify former
employees that they are no longer bound
by that nonsolicitation of customers'
provision? 126:18-127:2.
65 There is no law prohibiting a former 15 (not disputed) Yes
employee from having any contact with
a former employer's customer under
California law; correct? 136:20-137:21.
66 To ask one more question on this point, No n/a
if a former Insight Global account
manager working in California resigns
or is terminated and then goes to work
for another staffing firm, a competitor,
there is nothing in either the At Will
Employment Agreement or the law that
would prevent the employee from
receiving calls from former customers
with whom they had contact with at
Insight, is there? 137:23-138:8.
67 It goes on to say, as that would 15 (not disputed) No
necessarily require the use of that same
confidential business information. Did
you mean by this that a former
employee would not be able to have any
contact with a former customer who
they had contact with while at Insight
Global? 143:20-144:8.
68 The question is whether Insight Global No n/a
considers the mere identities of plants
[clients] and plant [client] hiring
managers to be a secret? 146:5-19.
69 Did Insight Global target my client, No n/a
Beacon Hill, because of the Barker
lawsuit? Specifically, the Texas lawsuit,
the Illinois lawsuit, the New York
lawsuit? 153:24-154:8.
70 In other words, John Barker wasn't No n/a
willing to play ball and Beacon Hill
wasn't willing to cave to Insight Global.
So you decided — Insight decided to sue
Beacon Hill as a practice retaliation?
154:10-155:21.
71 Isn't it true that because John Barker No n/a
and Beacon Hill were not willing to
cave to Insight Global's tactics that
Insight Global, as a business practice,
decided to compete through litigation?
155:23-156:9.
72 Wasn't the reason because California No n/a
does not recognize or enforce
noncompetes? 157:14-25.
73 You understand though, as of the date No n/a
you signed this agreement that
California did not allow noncompetes
post-employment noncompetes?
158:17-25.
74 When did you learn that California does No n/a
not allow post-employment
noncompetes? 159:4-160:3.
75 Do you know why the parties agreed to 15 No
a carve out for California law in the
settlement agreement marked as 113?
160:8-15.
76 You were asked [sic] questions of
current employees of Insight Global;
correct? 162:17-163:3.
77 Did you tell any of these employees
employ [sic] who you are going to give
raises to, that you were seeking legal
advice? 163:5-10.
78 Why these particular employees and not
others in the San Francisco office?
165:15-19.
79 Do you know whether Austin March has
resigned his employment with Insight
Global? 168:4-11.
80 Are the recruiters considered outside the
[sic] salespersons? 173:14-25.
81 The reason I ask is, there is not a signed n/a Insight Global agrees to
arbitration agreement in John Barker's answer
personnel file. Do you know one way or
the other why he didn't sign one or
wasn't asked to sign one if this was
implemented in July of 2014? 176:11-22.
82 Were some California employees asked
to sign the arbitration agreement and
some not asked? 176:24-177:9.
83 Have you reviewed the party's [sic]
discovery responses served in this case?
178:11-20.
84 Why was the was the [sic] 2007 plan 5 No
amended and restated, to your
knowledge? 185:21-186:8.
85 Is there a conflict of interest to have the 11, 12 (not Yes
compensation committee having a stake disputed)
at Insight Global, and then deciding a
benefit claim under the plan? 196:6-15.
86 Why would it treat the Complaint as a 5, 11, 12, 13 (not No
claim for benefits under the plan, as disputed)
opposed to paying those benefits out in
the ordinary course? 202:5-10.
87 Were there any formal procedures n/a Insight Global agrees to
implemented to ensure that company answer
finances were not a factor in deciding
John Barker's claim for IUP benefits;
and by company I mean Insight Global,
LLC? 208:5-16.
88 Would that make a difference as to No n/a
whether she was solicited by John
Barker, if she admitted that she told
Barker in the presence of numerous
witnesses as Brian Bradusco's [Bryan
Verduzco's] engagement party, "take
me wherever you go"? 217:7-14.
89 During your interviews with Insight No n/a
Global employees in San Francisco, did
any Insight employees indicate that had
sought out John Barker for employment
opportunities or advice? 220:3-9.
90 Why would you include a cause finding 11, 12, 13 No
in the termination letter, if that wasn't
tied to the plan? 222:24-223:5.
91 Do you think it is fair to require an No n/a
employee in California to fly out to
Georgia to litigate a claim under the
separation agreement? 225:14-20.
92 Were there any employees in the San
Francisco office of Insight Global that
declined to meet with you and Mr.
Marquardt when you came out to obtain
the declarations or affidavits? 233:11-21.
93 Is there a difference in your mind No n/a
between induce or intend to induce to
and solicit? 236:23-237:2.
