Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Deel asked an Irish court to require Rippling to disclose unredacted affidavits and agreements involving former Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, whom Rippling accused of spying for Deel. A May 19, 2025, TechCrunch report said the request was pending. The sources available here do not establish whether the Irish court ultimately ordered disclosure.
What Deel asked the Irish court to disclose
Deel’s reported request concerned unredacted affidavits and agreements involving O’Brien, including documents connected to former Rippling general counsel Vanessa Wu’s testimony about an alleged termination payment and legal-expense coverage. TechCrunch reported the request on May 19, 2025, and described it as pending at that time.
The request was about access to documents. It was not itself a court finding that Rippling paid O’Brien to spy, that the agreements were unlawful, or that anyone had coerced a witness.
What the agreements allegedly contained
A later U.S. court order dated September 25, 2026, summarized Deel’s allegations about two arrangements it called the “carrot” and “stick” agreements. The descriptions below are allegations recounted by the court, not findings that the arrangements had the alleged purpose or effect.
#1 Best Overall
| Agreement, as Deel described it | Terms alleged in the court’s summary |
|---|---|
| “Stick” | Deel alleged that Rippling offered legal representation, indemnification and reimbursement of past legal expenses in exchange for O’Brien agreeing not to contact or assist Deel in the litigation and not to “disparage or damage the reputation or standing” of Rippling. Deel also alleged that a €150,000 judgment could be entered if O’Brien breached the agreement. |
| “Carrot” | Deel alleged that O’Brien received an undisclosed ex-gratia termination payment to settle possible employment-rights claims. |
In its March 23, 2026, joint case-management statement, Deel also alleged that Rippling reimbursed O’Brien €80,000 for earlier legal expenses. That figure is Deel’s stated position in the filing, not an independently established payment amount in the later order’s summary.
How Rippling and Deel characterize the arrangements
The parties gave sharply different accounts in their March 2026 joint case-management statement. Rippling characterized the agreements as arrangements for litigation-related cooperation and termination, and said compensation was not conditioned on the substance of O’Brien’s testimony. Deel characterized the agreements as coercive and argued that they affected his testimony. These are opposing party positions; the statement does not turn either account into a judicial finding.
What the later U.S. proceedings do—and do not—establish
A February 23, 2026, U.S. order described the Irish proceedings concerning O’Brien’s evidence and an Anton Piller order. It recounted that Rippling obtained emergency relief in Ireland and that O’Brien later cooperated and provided devices for imaging. The September 25, 2026, U.S. order states that O’Brien and counsel met with the Irish Supervising Solicitor for 12 hours on March 26, 2025, including discussions with Rippling’s legal team. Those procedural details do not resolve whether Deel’s separate request for unredacted agreements was granted.
The September 25, 2026, order in the U.S. case denied Deel’s motion to strike, granted Rippling’s motion to compel arbitration, and granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss. It addressed motions in the California case; it does not establish the truth of the espionage allegations or decide the outcome of the Irish disclosure request.
Rank #3
Has Rippling been ordered to turn over the agreements?
The sources available here do not establish the Irish court’s ultimate decision on Deel’s request. TechCrunch reported in May 2025 that the request was pending, and the later U.S. order does not provide the Irish ruling. It would therefore be inaccurate to say, on this record, that the Irish court either ordered disclosure or refused it.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Understand how contract provisions work
- Adapt reliable drafting precedents
- Avoid drafting errors, omissions, and ambiguities
- Make contracts more user-friendly
- Build flexibility into contracts without compromising precision
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
