Tardif v. City of New York

Background

Mary M. Tardif sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and individual officers and officials after confrontations with police officers during Occupy Wall Street demonstrations at Union Square Park in 2012. Among other claims, she asserted a claim seeking to hold the City responsible for an alleged assault and battery by NYPD Sergeant Giovanni Mattera.

After a six-day trial in November 2018, a jury found for the City on that claim. On March 18, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that certain jury instructions were erroneous, vacated the judgment on the claim involving Sergeant Mattera, and ordered a new trial on that specific claim.

After the appellate decision, Tardif told the court that she had begun experiencing vomiting, headaches, and freeze-frame vision in late 2020. She stated that these symptoms might be related to a concussion sustained during the 2012 confrontations. She moved to modify the scheduling order, reopen discovery, and serve expert reports concerning her post-trial medical treatment. The City opposed the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that reopening discovery after a case has been sent back for further proceedings is within the district court’s discretion. The party seeking to change the scheduling order must show good cause. Courts in the Second Circuit consider six factors: whether trial is imminent, whether the request is opposed, whether the opposing party would be prejudiced, whether the moving party acted diligently, whether the need for discovery was foreseeable, and whether the discovery is likely to produce relevant evidence.

The court found that the factors generally favored reopening discovery. No trial date had been set, so trial was not imminent. Although the City opposed the motion, any prejudice from additional discovery would be limited. Tardif offered to pay court-reporter costs for further depositions, and the parties could be given enough time to complete the discovery.

The court also rejected the City’s arguments that Tardif had failed to act diligently or that the need for this discovery was foreseeable. The symptoms at issue appeared in November 2020, after the earlier discovery period and the 2018 trial. The court found that Tardif had not previously had an opportunity to obtain discovery about these specific medical issues, and it found no supporting evidence for the City’s assertion that her counsel had earlier explored and rejected similar discovery.

Finally, the court found that the requested discovery could produce relevant evidence. Tardif submitted a declaration from neurologist Dr. Igor Stiler, who stated that the symptoms and medical condition described in records from November 22, 2020, through April 5, 2021, were consistent with a head injury and worsening epilepsy and neurological complaints and were likely causally related to the March 21, 2012 incident. The court noted that Dr. Stiler’s opinion described causation as likely and indicated that further inquiry was needed. It also stated that medical discovery about a possible connection between Tardif’s current condition and the 2012 confrontations would be relevant if she were awarded damages.

Ruling

Judge Kimba M. Wood granted Tardif’s motion to reopen discovery. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about a proposed scheduling order and submit a joint letter with that proposed order by July 23, 2021. If the parties disagreed about the scope or timing of discovery, they could state their separate positions and, if necessary, submit separate proposed scheduling orders. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Electronic Court Filing No. 373.

This was a discovery and scheduling ruling; the court did not decide the underlying liability or medical-causation issues.