Conti v. Doe

Background

Dr. Paul M. Conti sued John Doe for defamation based on profane and insulting emails and text messages that Doe sent after Dr. Conti ended his psychiatric treatment. Doe counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Dr. Conti violated doctor-patient confidentiality by disclosing Doe’s medical information in the amended complaint.

The court considered two motions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs when expert testimony may be admitted. Dr. Conti sought to exclude the opinions of Doe’s psychiatric ethics expert, Dr. Paul Appelbaum, and independent medical examiner, Dr. Ziv Cohen. Doe sought to exclude portions of Dr. Conti’s psychiatric ethics rebuttal expert, Dr. Donald Meyer.

Dr. Appelbaum

The court held that Dr. Appelbaum could testify about how a reasonable psychiatrist might interpret and respond to Doe’s messages, including whether filing a lawsuit was consistent with professional ethical standards. That testimony was relevant to Doe’s counterclaim and to Dr. Conti’s argument that his disclosures were justified because he believed Doe presented a serious danger. The court also found reliable Dr. Appelbaum’s opinion that Dr. Conti violated ethical principles by disclosing confidential information after filing the lawsuit, because the opinion was based on psychiatric ethics principles and the expert’s experience.

The court excluded several parts of Dr. Appelbaum’s proposed testimony. He could not testify that Dr. Conti disclosed more information than was legally necessary to plead a defamation claim because he lacked legal training and expertise about the required contents of a complaint. He also could not testify about the effect of filing the complaint under seal or using Doe’s name in anonymized form because he lacked sufficient knowledge about those court procedures and about what information the court would need. Opinions about Dr. Conti’s transfer of Doe’s care, other patients’ criticisms, and disclosures of other patients’ names were also excluded as irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial. The court otherwise found the remaining challenged opinions sufficiently reliable for admission.

Dr. Cohen

The court allowed Dr. Cohen to testify that Doe’s messages did not cause Dr. Conti to develop post-traumatic stress disorder or acute stress disorder, and about the reasons for that opinion. The testimony was relevant to Dr. Conti’s claim for emotional damages.

The court excluded Dr. Cohen’s opinions that Dr. Conti had narcissistic personality traits and may have reacted with rage, and that Dr. Conti incorrectly diagnosed Doe as a psychopath or sociopath. Those opinions did not address whether Doe’s messages caused Dr. Conti’s emotional injuries. The court also found the diagnosis opinion unfairly prejudicial because it would mainly undermine Dr. Conti’s competence as a psychiatrist, which was not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue.

Dr. Meyer

The court excluded Dr. Meyer’s opinion about what information the court would want or consider in evaluating the legal sufficiency or credibility of Dr. Conti’s defamation claim. Dr. Meyer was not qualified to give that legal opinion, and the assumption about what the court would want to know was speculative.

The court did not completely exclude Dr. Meyer’s opinions distinguishing between legal and illegal patient conduct. It found that he was not qualified to testify about what conduct is illegal under criminal law, but concluded that possible confusion could be addressed through cross-examination and a limiting instruction. If he used the word “illegal,” the jury would be instructed that he was using it as a layperson rather than offering a legal opinion.

The court excluded Dr. Meyer’s proposed testimony about what Dr. Conti’s attorneys believed or recommended because Dr. Meyer had no factual basis for describing those communications. The court stated, however, that Dr. Meyer could testify more generally that Dr. Conti consulted his psychiatrist and an attorney before filing suit and could offer an opinion about whether that consultation satisfied an ethical obligation to obtain outside advice, without stating what the attorney or psychiatrist specifically said.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part both motions to preclude expert testimony. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at docket entries 186 and 191. The opinion did not decide the underlying defamation or confidentiality claims. It also set deadlines for the parties’ forthcoming summary-judgment motions and responses. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order on October 21, 2020.