Deel wants Rippling to hand over any agreements involving paying the alleged spy

Deel has lobbed a new volley in the ongoing legal battle with rival HR tech startup Rippling. Deel filed a motion, containing a series of letters, asking the Irish court to make Rippling hand over information.

In one letter, Deel wants unredacted versions of witness affidavits, including the famed one by former Rippling employee, Keith O’Brien. In a story full of plot twists that reads like a movie, O’Brien admitted in an Irish court to being a spy for Deel, according to the affidavit released by Rippling.

Rippling filed a lawsuit against Deel in March that alleges misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition, and more, largely based on the spying allegations.

Deel has since countersued, attempting to get Rippling’s suit dismissed on a series of issues like jurisdiction, but also making its own allegations about Rippling. Deel alleges, for instance, that Rippling was also attempting to spy on Deel.

In the letters publicly released Monday, Deel is pointing to an affidavit from Rippling employee, Vanessa Wu, formerly Rippling’s general counsel. Much of the affidavit recounted what Wu recalled of alleged spy-related happenings and her take on various letters sent between the two sides’ lawyers.

But Deel points out Wu also testified that Rippling fired O’Brien and paid him a termination fee in exchange for him signing an agreement not to sue. Wu also testified, the affidavit said, that Rippling entered into a second agreement with O’Brien where Rippling “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.”

Deel wants a court to make Rippling turn over full unredacted versions of both of those agreements. It wants to tell anyone who will listen how unusual it is that an employee fired for cause winds up back on a company’s payroll as a paid witness.

Needless to say, both sides vehemently proclaim their own innocence while pointing fingers at the other.

We’ll have to wait and see what the court rules, but if it does make more of O’Brien’s testimony and those termination agreements publicly available, we’ll be reading.