## Facts

- Mary Tardif sued the City of New York and several NYPD officers for injuries (including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)) she said were caused by police conduct during the 2012 Occupy Wall Street protests.
- Tardif claimed the 2012 events worsened PTSD from earlier trauma and caused her current psychological condition.
- For damages, Tardif retained Dr. Robert Goldman, a licensed psychologist with an advanced psychology degree.
- Tardif offered no showing that Goldman had specific training or experience focused on PTSD.
- Goldman reviewed some medical records, interviewed Tardif, and administered the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (MCMI–III), a test aimed at assessing personality functioning.
- Goldman concluded Tardif had PTSD from prior trauma and opined that defendants’ 2012 conduct exacerbated that PTSD and caused her current condition.
- Goldman did not perform a differential diagnosis to rule out alternative causes of Tardif’s reported symptoms, and portions of his report largely recounted Tardif’s own narrative history.
- Defendants retained Dr. Steven Fayer, a psychiatrist, who reviewed records, examined Tardif, and also administered the MCMI–III.
- Fayer concluded that Tardif exhibited no PTSD symptoms; he also did not perform a differential diagnosis.
- Each side moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and *Daubert* to exclude the other side’s proposed mental-health testimony.
- In the same pretrial posture, the court addressed which state-law tort theories against the City remained viable on a vicarious-liability (respondeat superior) theory after earlier summary-judgment rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether Goldman was qualified under Rule 702 to give PTSD-related opinions (including opinions that defendants’ conduct exacerbated PTSD and caused Tardif’s current condition).
2. Whether Goldman’s methods and application were reliable—given the lack of differential diagnosis and the extent to which his report repeated Tardif’s self-report—so that his PTSD and causation opinions should be excluded in whole or in part.
3. Whether Fayer’s psychiatric opinions that Tardif did not exhibit PTSD satisfied Rule 702 and *Daubert*, and what limits (if any) should apply to his testimony.
4. Which state-law claims could still be tried against the City under respondeat superior in light of the court’s prior rulings narrowing the case.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to preclude Goldman.
- The court limited Goldman’s proposed testimony, restricting PTSD-specific opinions and opinions tying defendants’ conduct to the cause or worsening of PTSD where the foundation for qualification and reliable medical reasoning was not shown, and excluding portions that merely repeated Tardif’s narrative.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Tardif’s motion to preclude Fayer.
- The court allowed Fayer to offer psychiatric opinions based on his examination and review, while restricting testimony that went beyond a supported clinical assessment (including testimony that would function as a credibility determination rather than medical opinion).
- The court addressed the scope of the City’s potential vicarious liability at trial, limiting the respondeat superior theory to the state-law claims that survived summary judgment against the individual officers and excluding state-law theories that did not remain in the case.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits opinion testimony only if the witness is qualified, the testimony will help the jury, the opinion rests on sufficient facts or data, and it results from reliable principles and methods reliably applied.
- Under *Daubert*, the court acts as gatekeeper for reliability and fit; the focus is on methods and how they are applied, not on which side’s conclusion is more persuasive.
- Qualification is subject-matter specific: a general professional license and degree do not automatically establish qualification to opine on a particular diagnosis or on medical causation.
- In mental-health causation testimony, the absence of a reasoned effort to rule in and rule out alternative causes (often addressed through differential diagnosis or a comparable clinical method) can justify limiting or excluding causation and aggravation opinions.
- An expert report that largely repeats a party’s self-reported history, without added clinical analysis, may be limited to prevent the expert from serving as a conduit for hearsay or argument.
- Courts may partially admit and partially exclude expert opinions, tailoring testimony to what is supported by the witness’s qualifications and methods.
- Motions in limine may be used to confine trial proof to claims that remain after summary judgment and to define the scope of a municipality’s vicarious liability under state respondeat superior principles.

## Conclusion

In this pretrial order, the court applied Rule 702 and *Daubert* to the parties’ competing mental-health evidence arising from alleged Occupy Wall Street protest policing, allowing some psychiatric and psychological testimony while trimming PTSD-specific and causation opinions lacking adequate qualification and reliable clinical reasoning, and it also limited the City’s respondeat superior exposure to the state-law claims that remained for trial after the court’s earlier rulings.


Tardif v. City of New York, 344 F. Supp. 3d 579 (2018)