Opinion ID: 6971869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: In sum:

Text: (1) We affirm the dismissal of Glickman’s FTCA claims against the United States as untimely under the applicable two-year statute of limitations; (2) We affirm the dismissal of Glickman’s Bivens claims against Gottlieb and Helms as untimely under the applicable three-year statute of limitations insofar as these claims allege that Gottlieb and Helms administered a program of LSD testing on unwitting subjects that included Glickman among its victims; (3) We vacate the dismissal for untimeliness of Glickman’s Bivens claim against Gott-lieb insofar as Glickman alleges that Gottlieb himself was the person who administered the LSD-laced drink; (4) Assuming that a jury, were to find that Gottlieb had an obligation to preserve the MKULTRA documents that he ordered to be destroyed, the jury would be permitted (but not required) to draw an adverse inference against Gottlieb to the effect that the destroyed documents would have contained evidence supportive of Glickman’s claim. The possibility that a jury would choose to draw such an inference, combined with plaintiffs other circumstantial evidence of liability, is sufficient to allow plaintiff to survive defendants’ motion for summary judgment; (5) The district court has personal jurisdiction over Gottlieb under N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1); (6) We have considered all of the parties’ other arguments, and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part as noted above, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, which proceedings are to be limited to the Bivens claim that Gottlieb himself administered the LSD-laced drink to plaintiff in Paris in October 1952. Each party shall bear its own costs.