The ongoing legal dispute between Deel and Rippling, two rival HR tech startups, has taken a new turn. Deel has submitted a motion to the Irish court, comprising a series of letters, requesting that Rippling provide certain information.

One of the letters specifically asks for unredacted versions of witness affidavits, including the notable one from former Rippling employee Keith O’Brien. As reported earlier, O’Brien’s affidavit, released by Rippling, revealed that he had admitted to spying for Deel in an Irish court, making for a story that resembles a movie plot.

The lawsuit, filed by Rippling against Deel in March, alleges misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition, and other claims, largely based on the spying allegations. The allegations have led to a heated exchange between the two companies, with each denying any wrongdoing.

In response, Deel has filed a countersuit against Rippling, seeking to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds such as jurisdiction. Additionally, Deel has made its own allegations against Rippling, including claims that Rippling attempted to spy on Deel. The countersuit has further escalated the rivalry between the two companies.

The letters made public on Monday highlight an affidavit from Rippling’s former general counsel, Vanessa Wu, who recounted her recollection of alleged spy-related incidents and her interpretation of letters exchanged between the lawyers of the two sides.

Deel, however, points to Wu’s testimony, which revealed that Rippling had terminated O’Brien’s employment and paid him a termination fee in exchange for his agreement not to sue. Furthermore, Wu’s testimony stated that Rippling entered into a second agreement with O’Brien, agreeing to cover his costs and expenses related to the cooperation he provided.

Deel is now seeking a court order to compel Rippling to hand over the full, unredacted versions of both agreements. The company aims to highlight the unusual circumstances surrounding an employee who was fired for cause but subsequently received financial support from the company as a paid witness.

As expected, both sides strongly maintain their innocence while accusing the other of wrongdoing. The case is ongoing, and the court’s ruling will be crucial in determining the outcome.

If the court decides to make more of O’Brien’s testimony and the termination agreements publicly available, it will undoubtedly provide further insight into the dispute. For now, we will have to wait and see how the case unfolds.