Gadbois v. Arrow International Inc.

Background

Plaintiff Jean-Paul Gadbois worked as a Field Service Engineer for defendant Arrow International Inc. beginning April 3, 2023, at age 57. His employment ended on June 5, 2023, after he emailed a coworker about employment concerns. Arrow treated the email as a resignation; Gadbois denies that he resigned and contends he was terminated. Gadbois brought claims for age discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). He seeks more than $50,000 for emotional distress, along with back pay, front pay, and employment benefits.

The case entered the discovery phase. Arrow served written discovery requests on August 14, 2025, and Gadbois responded on September 15, 2025. After meeting and conferring, the parties resolved some disputes but not all. Arrow filed a Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 38) seeking production of employment records, tax information, medical records, and signed release authorizations, and also seeking fuller answers to four requests for admission (RFAs). A hearing was held on October 15, 2025.

Legal Framework

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of any non-privileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Under Rule 37(a)(1), a party may move to compel responses it considers inadequate. The moving party bears an initial burden of showing relevance; once shown, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show the discovery is not relevant or is unduly burdensome.

Employment Records

Arrow sought records of Gadbois's job applications after leaving Arrow (Interrogatory No. 17), records of complaints from any prior or subsequent employers about his work performance (Request No. 8), and broader employment records (Request No. 11).

The court found Gadbois's post-Arrow job search records relevant and proportional, particularly to the issue of mitigation of damages (i.e., steps taken to find comparable work after termination). Because Gadbois could not recover his Indeed application records older than six months, the court ordered him to provide a signed authorization within 14 days so Arrow could obtain the records directly. The court also ordered Gadbois to produce within 14 days paystubs, W-2 forms, wage statements, and his entire personnel file from his current employer.

The court denied Arrow's request for pre-Arrow employment records, finding Arrow had not established their relevance. Because Arrow's own position is that Gadbois resigned rather than was fired, his prior job performance is not at issue, distinguishing this case from Martin v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., where performance was directly relevant to the discrimination claims.

Tax Records

Arrow's Request No. 14 sought tax returns for the last three years or signed authorizations to obtain them. Gadbois agreed to provide W-2s and 1099s but objected to producing full tax returns. The court ordered full state and federal returns—including all schedules and attachments—for the last three years, or signed authorizations, within 14 days. The court found complete returns relevant to mitigation of damages, citing Peterson v. Seagate U.S. LLC and Henne v. Great River Reg'l Libr., and found that Gadbois had not shown all relevant income information was available from other sources, citing E.E.O.C. v. Ceridian Corp.

Medical Records

Arrow sought detailed information on all medical and psychological treatment Gadbois has received (Interrogatory No. 15), all medical records from January 1, 2020 to present (Request No. 5), and signed authorizations for records from health care providers (Request No. 19). Gadbois objected on grounds of medical privilege and overbreadth, arguing he had not placed any medical condition at issue. He also represented that he has no prior diagnosed mental condition and has not sought counseling or medical treatment for emotional distress, though he said he spoke to his wife about his worry and distress.

The court sided with Arrow. Applying Rule 26(b)(1) rather than the stricter "in controversy" standard for medical examinations under Rule 35, and citing Kutz v. NGI Cap. and Doverspike v. Chang O'Hara's Bistro, the court held that by claiming more than $50,000 in emotional distress damages—a non-nominal amount, stated separately from other requested damages—Gadbois had placed his emotional condition at issue. Arrow therefore has the right to investigate whether Gadbois's alleged emotional distress was caused by factors independent of Arrow's conduct, and whether any prior medical history is relevant. The court ordered Gadbois within 14 days to provide signed medical authorizations for all medical providers from January 1, 2020 to the present.

Requests for Admission

Arrow sought to compel further answers to four RFAs (requests asking a party to admit or deny specific statements of fact or legal conclusions, governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36).

- RFA 1 and RFA 2 asked Gadbois to admit statements he made in a prior legal memorandum opposing Arrow's motion to dismiss—specifically, that he had signed an agreement requiring employment claims to be filed within six months of any adverse action, and that he did not file within that period. - RFA 5 asked him to admit that Arrow is entitled to a judgment of dismissal. - RFA 6 asked him to admit that Arrow is entitled to attorney's fees and costs.

The court found Gadbois's objections to all four RFAs justified. The court characterized RFAs 1 and 2 as an attempt to relitigate the previously decided motion to dismiss, and RFAs 5 and 6 as an improper attempt to circumvent the district court's order denying Arrow's motion to dismiss. The court declined to order Gadbois to supplement his answers to any of the four RFAs.

Independent Sources of Income

Arrow's Request No. 4 sought documents showing all independent sources of income from January 1, 2020 to present, arguing that other income sources are relevant to whether Gadbois adequately mitigated his damages—particularly because he accepted a lower-paying job after leaving Arrow, and Arrow argued it should not be liable for that pay differential if Gadbois had other income that reduced his incentive to find comparable work. The court agreed, finding this evidence relevant and proportional, and ordered Gadbois to produce responsive documents within 14 days.

Disposition

Arrow's Motion to Compel was granted in part and denied in part. The specific items ordered to be produced within 14 days are: (1) a signed authorization for Indeed job search records; (2) paystubs, W-2 forms, wage statements, and personnel file from current employer; (3) complete state and federal tax returns with schedules and attachments for the last three years, or signed authorizations; (4) signed medical authorizations for all medical providers from January 1, 2020 to present; and (5) documents showing any independent sources of income from January 1, 2020 to present. The motion was denied as to pre-Arrow employment records and as to the four requests for admission.