Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Wood ordered Mary Tardif to answer three discovery requests about her finances and credit records.
Mary Tardif must provide the responses identified in the order to the City of New York by February 18, 2022.
What happened
In Mary Tardif v. City of New York, the City asked the court to require Tardif to provide additional information in the ongoing case. The requests concerned her financial activity and a claimed traumatic brain injury that she said began causing symptoms in November 2020.
Tardif objected to requests seeking information about her bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial accounts, arguing that the requests were outside the scope of reopened discovery and were otherwise improper. The City argued that the information could help evaluate her claimed injuries, activities, and damages. The filing also discusses a request for records about drug use and treatment, but the order’s final language does not clearly resolve that request.
The court ordered Tardif to answer requests numbered 17, 34, and 35 by February 18, 2022. Judge Kimba M. Wood signed the order on January 31, 2022.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- Jan. 31, 2022
Nature of the proceeding
The City of New York asked the court to compel Mary Tardif to provide additional discovery—information and documents exchanged before trial—in the case. The discovery concerned a new damages claim involving symptoms that Tardif said began in November 2020 and that she attributed to an event in March 2013. The opinion states that discovery had been reopened to address this traumatic-brain-injury claim.
The disputed discovery
The City sought information about Tardif’s bank accounts, credit accounts, loans, credit-card receipts, and records from financial institutions. The City argued that records from November 2018 through the present could help assess Tardif’s claims that her condition changed her work, physical activities, and daily life.
The filing also discusses Document Request 43, which sought records concerning Tardif’s drug use, including evaluation or treatment. The City argued that those records could relate to possible alternative causes of her claimed brain condition. Tardif objected to that request on several grounds, including scope, burden, privilege, and health-information protections.
Ruling
The final endorsed language orders Tardif to answer “Interrogatory 17, Interrogatory 34 and Interrogatory 35” by February 18, 2022. The underlying discovery responses identify Requests 34 and 35 as requests for credit-card receipts and financial-account records. Although the filing discusses the drug-use request, the reproduced final order does not clearly state a separate ruling on Request 43. Judge Kimba M. Wood signed the order.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.