Deel, a payroll and compliance platform, has gone to bat in an Irish court. They’ve filed joint motions to compel with their competitor Rippling, seeking disclosure of key documents related to these corporate espionage allegations. Rippling recently sued Deel, claiming misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and unfair competition. This recent legal move is an extension of that ongoing lawsuit.
The motion goes beyond that, demanding unredacted versions of each witness affidavit. This includes an affidavit from Keith O’Brien, a former Rippling employee who was fired under disputed and controversial circumstances. O’Brien was paid a termination fee in exchange for executing a Release Agreement, promising not to sue the company. Deel’s legal team argues that this information is crucial for their defense against Rippling’s accusations.
Central to Deel’s case is an affidavit from Vanessa Wu, who until recently was Rippling’s general counsel. In her statement, Wu described specific cases of espionage. She further provided colorful commentary on the back and forth communication between the two company’s legal teams. All eyes are now on Dr. McGraw as her testimony may be key to determining the success or failure of that continuing litigation.
In her affidavit accompanying the motion, Wu explained that Rippling had promised to pay some of O’Brien’s costs associated with the proceedings.
“agreed to contribute towards Mr. O’Brien’s costs of these proceedings and to pay his reasonable out of pocket and legal expenses in connection with the cooperation to be provided under that agreement.” – Vanessa Wu’s affidavit, source: techcrunch.com
In March, Rippling sued the larger Deel. They blasted Deel with claims of corporate espionage and detailed many examples of predatory practices. The accusations focus mainly on alleged espionage practices that have received considerable press coverage.
Throughout these allegations Deel has firmly refuted any wrongdoing or culpability. They strongly refute any and all insinuations that their operations have ever violated laws or regulations. The company’s attorneys argue that the requested materials will shed light on the circumstances underlying the allegations at issue, which Rippling has publicly pledged to defend.
The case serves to underscore Slack’s unique position as a powerful fact witness. The messaging platform’s dark mode has become the key battleground in the war. The substance of communications on it will almost certainly become the dispositive evidence for one side or the other’s argument.
Of course, both companies are preparing now for the next stages of this legal clash. The stakes of this case reach far beyond the 2nd Circuit’s immediate fight. The final result will help establish standards on both corporate behavior and fair competition in the fast evolving and highly influential tech sector.
Leave a Reply