Walton v. Medtronic USA, Inc.

Background

Brian Walton sued his former employer, Medtronic USA, Inc., after Medtronic fired him in July 2021. Walton alleged that the termination resulted from age, sex, and race discrimination connected to Medtronic’s company-wide diversity initiative, referred to in the opinion as the “40-20-20 plan.” He alleged that Medtronic replaced him with a younger Black woman with less experience and used reductions in force to pursue its diversity goals.

Medtronic said Walton was selected for termination during a company-wide reorganization because two Senior District Managers occupied the same geographic area. According to Medtronic, Walton and the other manager were compared, and Walton was selected because he had the weaker record. Medtronic maintained that Walton’s termination decision was made by his immediate supervisor, the supervisor’s supervisor, and three supporting human-resources professionals—not by company leadership responsible for the diversity initiative.

Walton moved to compel discovery in four areas: information about the reduction in force, information about Medtronic’s diversity initiatives, organization charts, and electronically stored information. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs.

Rulings on Discovery

The court denied Walton’s request for additional information in response to Interrogatory No. 10. That request sought the identities of everyone in the relevant Medtronic organizations who had any role in deciding to reorganize or restructure them in 2020 and 2021. The court found that information was not relevant or proportional because Walton had not shown that management above his direct and next-level supervisors participated in his termination or that he had a particular need for company-wide discovery.

The court ordered Medtronic to supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12. Those requests sought information about people in Medtronic’s Neuromodulation Division who were considered for termination or were terminated in the reduction in force, including employment dates, birthdates, race, ethnicity, and sex. The court found that this information could provide comparator evidence—evidence about similarly situated employees who may have been treated differently in an employment-discrimination case—and that the list Medtronic had previously provided did not contain enough information to serve that purpose.

The court also found Medtronic’s response to Interrogatory No. 13 inadequate and ordered supplementation. That interrogatory sought information about people who assumed duties from employees identified in response to Interrogatory No. 12, including certain personal and employment information and reasons for termination. The court found the information relevant and proportional for the same reasons supporting Interrogatories Nos. 11 and 12.

The court denied Document Request No. 11, which sought all communications and documents concerning Medtronic’s 2020 company-wide decision to reorganize and restructure. The court agreed with Medtronic that Walton had not shown a specific need for company-wide information and concluded that the requested information was neither relevant nor proportional to the case.

The court denied Walton’s requests for broad information about Medtronic’s diversity initiatives. Interrogatory No. 14 sought the identities of anyone ever involved in establishing the 40-20-20 plan, and Interrogatory No. 15 sought descriptions of Medtronic’s workforce-diversity goals since January 1, 2016. The court found these requests disproportionate because the relevant issue was the motivation of the people involved in Walton’s termination, whose identities Medtronic had provided.

The court ordered Medtronic to supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 7 by producing organization charts for the Pain Therapies and Interventional Sales organization and the Neuromodulation Division for the requested period. The court found the charts useful for understanding the restructuring of the units where Walton worked and found their production proportional to the needs of the case.

The court also required Medtronic to provide the search terms it used to locate electronically stored information and to meet and confer with Walton before rerunning searches, if necessary. The court rejected Medtronic’s argument that this amounted to improper “discovery on discovery” or invaded work product, explaining that the governing electronic-discovery protocol required the parties to work together on search methods, terms, and procedures.

Fees and Disposition

Walton asked Medtronic to pay the attorney’s fees and expenses he incurred in bringing the motion. Because the motion was partly granted and partly denied, the court considered whether to apportion expenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C). The court found that fees were not appropriate because Medtronic’s responses and objections were substantially justified, both parties had participated in the meet-and-confer process in good faith, and some disputes had already been resolved. No expenses were awarded.

The court ordered that Walton’s Motion to Compel was “GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART,” as set out in the order.