Tardif v. City of New York

Background

The parties filed motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence or testimony may be presented to the jury. The City filed twelve motions, and Tardif filed two motions.

Defendant’s motions

1. Expert testimony: The City sought to exclude testimony from all four of Tardif’s experts under Evidence Rule 702 and the standards described in Daubert. The court directed Tardif to submit detailed affidavits describing each expert’s methodology, allowed the City to respond, and withheld a decision on the motion.

2. Traumatic-brain-injury damages: The City sought to prevent Tardif from presenting damages claims based on an alleged traumatic brain injury. Because the motion depended on the court’s ruling about the experts’ testimony, the court withheld a decision.

3. Evidence from the first trial: The court denied the City’s motion. It stated that Tardif’s earlier statements might be admissible to challenge her credibility, subject to the rules governing prior inconsistent statements, but reserved the final admissibility decision until the City offered the evidence at trial. The first trial’s verdict was irrelevant and inadmissible because its possible prejudice, confusion, and misleading effect substantially outweighed its value. The court also directed the parties generally to refer to testimony from the earlier proceeding without saying that it was an earlier trial of this case.

4. References to the City and its lawyers: The court granted the City’s motion. Except when stating the case name and on the caption cover sheet, the parties and court must refer to the City’s lawyers as “defense counsel” and may not use “Corporation Counsel.” The court also denied, as noted in a footnote, the portion of the motion concerning New York City Police Department training or policies because the opinion did not indicate that Tardif intended to offer that evidence. The court stated that this did not affect its later ruling on the Patrol Guide motion.

5. Police Department Patrol Guide: The City sought to exclude the New York City Police Department Patrol Guide. The court withheld a decision and directed Tardif to provide more information at the pretrial conference about the language from Procedure 203-11 that she might offer and its relevance. The City could renew a related request concerning procedures not found in the Patrol Guide at trial.

6. Stephanie Shockley’s testimony: The court denied the City’s motion, without prejudice to renewal at trial. Tardif was required to make an offer of proof describing Shockley’s proposed testimony. The City could later seek exclusion if the testimony proved cumulative or otherwise inadmissible.

7. Evidence concerning abandoned John Doe claims: The court withheld a decision. Evidence relating to the conduct of then-Sergeant Mattera could be relevant, but the opinion said it was unclear what evidence concerning other officers Tardif intended to offer. The court planned to address the issue at the pretrial conference and, if necessary, at trial.

8. Tardif’s subsequent arrests: The court denied the City’s motion. It said questions about Tardif’s later attendance and participation in demonstrations could be allowed because they might bear on the existence and severity of her claimed emotional injuries. But evidence that she was arrested at another demonstration was not probative of the issues at trial and risked confusion and unfair prejudice.

9. Other police conduct related to Occupy Wall Street: The court denied the motion as moot because Tardif agreed that the evidence was not relevant and said she did not intend to introduce it.

10. Unrelated alleged police misconduct: The court denied the motion as moot because Tardif said she did not intend to present testimony or argument about other instances of police misconduct.

11. Questioning about treatment of “human beings”: The court denied the motion. The motion concerned deposition questioning of a former defendant, and the opinion found no indication that Tardif intended to ask an officer about the proper treatment of “human beings.”

12. Supplemental motions: The court withheld a decision on the City’s request to reserve the right to file additional motions and directed the City to identify at the pretrial conference any further motions for which it sought permission to reserve that right.

Plaintiff’s motions

1. Proposed Exhibit B: The court granted Tardif’s motion to exclude the City’s proposed Exhibit B, a portion of a video lecture by Tardif’s counsel, Stefan H. Krieger. The court found that the exhibit did not show that Krieger coached Tardif, making the coaching theory speculative. It also found the exhibit irrelevant and likely to confuse or mislead the jury.

2. Visibility of Tardif’s service dog: The court withheld a decision. It intended to obtain more information about the request at the pretrial conference.

Disposition

The court denied the City’s motions 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11; granted the City’s motion 4; granted Tardif’s motion 1; and withheld decisions on the City’s motions 1, 2, 5, 7, and 12 and Tardif’s motion 2. Judge Kimba M. Wood’s order concerned the admissibility and presentation of evidence at trial, not the ultimate merits of the underlying claims.