Judgment: 2026-09-25 · Court archive

High Court limits Deel discovery bid in Rippling litigation over alleged scheme to frustrate court order

High Court, Commercial - Intellectual Property and Technology · [2026] IEHC 650

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Keith O’Brien
  • Deel Inc. (Defendant)
What

High Court limits Deel discovery bid in Rippling litigation over alleged scheme to frustrate court order

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Mark Sanfey held that a defendant’s denial does not automatically make every allegation mentioned in a statement of claim an issue requiring discovery. Because Rippling was not relying on the alleged spying to prove its Irish case, the court refused broad discovery directed to those matters.

The High Court has narrowed a discovery application by Deel Inc. in its Irish litigation with HR software company Rippling, refusing several categories of documents relating to alleged spying, sanctions compliance and former employee Keith O’Brien’s mental health.

The ruling concerns document disclosure only. It does not decide whether Rippling’s allegations against Deel are true.

Rippling alleges that, after learning of a High Court order obtained against Mr O’Brien in March 2025, Deel became involved in a scheme to frustrate that order and create a false narrative portraying Rippling’s conduct as abusive. Deel denies those allegations.

A central discovery dispute concerned events before March 14, 2025. Rippling had originally alleged that Mr O’Brien covertly spied for Deel and supplied trade secrets and confidential information. However, it told Deel in June 2026 and confirmed in open court that it would not lead evidence of the alleged espionage or rely on pre-March 14 events to establish its Irish claim.

Mr Justice Mark Sanfey held that a defendant’s denial does not automatically make every allegation mentioned in a statement of claim an issue requiring discovery. Because Rippling was not relying on the alleged spying to prove its Irish case, the court refused broad discovery directed to those matters.

The judge also rejected wide-ranging requests concerning Rippling’s handling of sanctioned payments, finding most of them speculative because Deel had not pleaded that Rippling actually made such payments. Limited documents concerning whether Mr O’Brien himself raised sanctions concerns were ordered.

The court refused Deel’s request for extensive records concerning Mr O’Brien’s mental health, describing the material as sensitive and noting that he was not the target of the discovery motion.

Discovery was ordered in agreed or narrowed form for parts of four categories, including certain pre-March 2025 records, Central Bank communications and evidence of claimed financial loss. All other disputed requests were refused.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review