People Centre, Inc. [D/B/A Rippling] and Anor v O'Brien and Anor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Mark Sanfey
• Judgment Date: 25 September 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 650
• Docket Number: High Court Record Number: 2025/1289P

Between

People Center Inc., D/B/A Rippling and Rippling Ireland

Plaintiffs

and

Keith O'Brien and Deel Inc.

Defendants

[2026] IEHC 650

High Court Record Number: 2025/1289P

(2025 No. 26 COM)

THE HIGH COURT

COMMERCIAL — INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TECHNOLOGY

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Mark Sanfey delivered on the 25 ^th day of September, 2026

Introduction

1 . This judgment concerns the second defendant's application for discovery from the plaintiffs by way of notice of motion issued on 8 April 2026.

2 . There was a lengthy case management hearing involving the plaintiffs and the second defendant on 1 May 2026 which addressed a number of matters, including discovery. At that point, both the plaintiffs and the second defendant had issued lengthy motions for discovery. The parties were reminded by this court that, as is usual in the Commercial Court, they were expected to reach agreement and make reasonable accommodations on the disputed categories as far as possible so that only the most intractable disputes would remain for debate before the court. The two motions were listed for hearing on 3 – 4 June 2026.

3 . In fairness to the parties, there was substantial engagement between them with a view to narrowing the matters under dispute, so much so that it proved possible to dispose of the plaintiffs' very substantial motion for discovery by agreement between the parties, so that only the second defendant's motion required to be heard by the court. This latter motion originally sought 17 categories of documents, many of which sought multiple sub—categories. The parties reached agreement in relation to 12 of the 17 categories, with only categories 1, 3, 4, 10 and 17 left to be resolved. For ease of reference, I have attached these categories as “Appendix 1” to this judgment.

4 . Both parties proffered detailed written submissions in advance of the hearing. In its written submissions, the second defendant (“Deel”) pointed out that the plaintiffs (collectively “Rippling”) had referred to “five overarching preliminary matters” in the replying affidavit of Julie Murphy O'Connor of 27 April 2026 on behalf of Rippling. Four of these matters were resolved by agreement of the parties, with only “Preliminary matter 2” – an important matter of principle relevant to most of the outstanding categories — remaining outstanding.

5 . The net result, then, of the negotiations between the parties is that one issue of principle and five categories of discovery were the subject of dispute and submissions before me at the hearing.

The statement of claim

6 . The present litigation has required the delivery on 20 March 2026 of three substantial written judgments on procedural matters by this court. Those judgments set out details of the background to the litigation and its progress to date. As the purpose of this judgment is to communicate the court's reasoned decision on the disputed categories of discovery, I propose to omit a detailed exposition of such matters in this judgment, and to set out only sufficient material for the reader to understand the court's decision and the reasons for it.

7 . The allegations made by Rippling are set out in the current iteration of its statement of claim. This pleading bears the heading “re-amended statement of claim”, although the text underneath the heading states “Re-re-amended and delivered this 7th day of May 2026 pursuant to the Order of Mr Justice Sanfey dated the 1st day of May 2026…”. The text of the statement of claim shows the various amendments made which arise either from orders made by this court or by agreement of the parties. Most notably, three individuals associated with Deel succeeded in having their joinder as defendants to the proceedings set aside: see “Judgment number 1” of this Court on 20 March 2026 at [2026] IEHC 178.

8 . When the proceedings were issued on 12 March 2025, the first defendant (“Mr. O'Brien”) was the sole defendant. Paragraph 10 of the statement of claim stated as follows:

“As against Mr O'Brien the Plaintiffs alleged that he had been engaged in a covert course of conduct whereby he had spied for Deel and had provided Deel with the Plaintiff's trade secrets (within the meaning of the European Union (Protection of Trade Secrets) Regulations 2018 SI No.188/2018 (the “ Trade Secret Regulations”) and proprietary and confidential information.” (emphasis in original)

9 . On 12 March 2025, this Court granted the plaintiffs urgent ex parte relief aimed at obtaining and preserving evidence of Mr O'Brien's alleged wrongdoing. Mr O'Brien did not comply with the order, and it is alleged by Rippling that, in breach of the tipping off provisions of the order, Mr O'Brien was in contact with the individuals associated with Deel who were subsequently joined to (and later removed from) the proceedings. On 17 March 2025, Rippling issued proceedings against Deel in the US District Court for the Northern District of California (“the US proceedings”).

10 . Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the statement of claim – replacing “the Deel defendants” with “Deel” as a result of “Judgment Number 1” of 20 March 2026 – are as follows:

“17. On or after 14 March 2025, Deel agreed to use lawful and unlawful means to frustrate the Order and to create a false narrative to explain the bringing of these Proceedings, the obtaining of the Order and Mr O'Brien's non-compliance with the Order. Deel's conspiracy is hereafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’.

18. The dominant purpose of the Scheme was to damage the Plaintiffs and their reputation by creating a false narrative whereby Mr O'Brien and Deel were portrayed as the victims of unmeritorious and abusive conduct on the part of the Plaintiffs and by causing Mr O'Brien to destroy evidence that would undermine that false narrative. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Deel agreed that it would create a false narrative to the effect that:

(a) The Plaintiffs brought these proceedings and obtained the Order to punish Mr O'Brien for making protected disclosures in connection with sanctioned payments to Russia;

(b) The purpose of these proceedings was to manufacture evidence and to coerce Mr O'Brien into making false allegations against Deel; and

(c) After 27 March 2025, when Mr O'Brien agreed to cooperate, Deel expanded the false narrative by alleging that the Plaintiffs had succeeded in their nefarious objects and had through coercion and duress caused Mr O'Brien to swear an affidavit in which he made false allegations against Deel.

Deel made these claims notwithstanding that as of 27 March 2025, Mr O'Brien was represented by solicitors and counsel and the solicitors representing Mr O'Brien had been recommended to him by Deel's former solicitors, A&L Goodbody.”

11 . At paragraphs 19 to 45 of the statement of claim, Rippling sets out particulars of Deel's conduct which it says forms part of the alleged conspiracy or “Scheme”. At paragraphs 46 to 52, details are given of alleged co-operation between Rippling and Mr O'Brien, in particular the conclusion between them of a “Co-Operation agreement” and a “Termination Agreement”, and the furnishing by Mr O'Brien of an affidavit purporting to set out details of his dealings with Deel “both in connection with the issues the subject matter of the U.S. Proceedings and the Scheme…”.

12 . The statement of claim goes on to set out alleged details of “Deel's conduct in pursuance of the Scheme (including particulars of defamatory statements made in connection with the Scheme)”, and sets out in detail a range of reliefs sought against Deel. Rippling filed a notice of discontinuance against Mr O'Brien on 1 August 2025, and no relief is sought against him in the statement of claim.

The defence

13 . Deel's defence was initially delivered on 23 June 2025. It was amended on 22 December 2025 pursuant to this court's order, and amended and delivered again on 15 May 2026 pursuant to the order of court of 1 May 2026, and in response to Rippling's “ Re-re-amended” statement of claim.

14 . Rippling has repeatedly pointed out, both in the hearing of the present matter and in previous disputes, that Deel's defence is notable for the absence of proactive pleas, and that it consists — apart from various admissions of uncontroversial matters — largely of traverses of matters in the statement of claim. Rippling regards this as being of particular significance, for reasons which I explain below. Deel maintains that this approach is entirely appropriate, and that each assertion in the statement of claim which is “denied” in the defence becomes an “issue” in the proceedings entitling Deel to relevant documentation in relation to that issue by way of discovery. Rippling fundamentally disagrees with this position.

“Preliminary matter 2”: the “issues”

The plaintiff's affidavit

15 . At paragraphs 10 – 18 of her affidavit of 27 April 2026, Julie Murphy O'Connor, a solicitor representing Rippling, set out Rippling's position in relation to what was “the core issue for determination in the proceedings”, which she defined as follows:

“(a) were Deel and/or its agents made aware of the Disclosure Order by Keith O'Brien;

(b) did Deel and/or its agents advise Mr O'Brien to destroy his mobile phone and to otherwise act in breach of that Order;

(c) did Deel and/or its agents tell Mr O'Brien to contact A&L Goodbody LLP and/or the Central Bank and to say things to the Irish court [which] would portray a certain narrative which was defamatory of the plaintiffs;

(d) did Deel and/or its agents portray a certain narrative to A&L Goodbody LLP and/or news agencies which was defamatory of the plaintiffs”.

16 . Rippling's position, as outlined in Ms. Murphy O'Connor's affidavit, may be summarised as follows:

• • Discovery in the case must be directed to the disposal of the issues identified;

• • Deel had “elected not to make any positive pleas or raise any counterclaim in...