Danesh Noshirvan, an online entertainer and journalist, filed a civil action against Jennifer Couture alleging conspiracy and agency liability, as well as claims for defamation, tortious interference, misappropriation of likeness, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Noshirvan alleged that Couture, Dr. Ralph Garramone, M.D. and OMG Realty, LLC , along with the other named Co-Defendants, conspired with a non-party, Joseph Camp (“Camp”) to tortiously interfere with Plaintiff’s business relationship with his former attorney, defame Plaintiff and intentionally inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff.
Garramone Plastic Surgery, Jennifer Couture, Ralph Garramone, and OMG Realty, LLC challenged the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP.
Gordon diagnosed Noshirvan with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder “due to the cyberbullying and damage to his reputation by Joey Camp.” He further opined that Noshirvan would “need many years of intensive psychotherapy to help deal with his CPTSD.”
Psychology Expert Witness
Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP has practiced forensic psychology for nearly five decades (since 1976) in both civil and criminal arenas. He is board-certified in Clinical Psychology and in Psychoanalysis, and earned his
doctorate from Temple University.
He has authored over 100 publications in areas directly relevant to this case. For example, he co-published research on using the MMPI-2 to detect individuals “faking PTSD” after traumatic events.
Gordon has taught forensic psychology at the Ph.D. level and given international workshops on psychological assessment and trauma.
Discussion by the Court
A. Reliability of Methodology
(1) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Defendants argued that Gordon’s use of the Clinician Administered PTSD Assessment Questionnaire for DSM-5 (“CAPS-5”) is unreliable.
Specifically, Defendants pointed out that the DSM-5 requires “exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence” and the “presence of one or more of certain symptoms associated with the traumatic events, beginning after the traumatic events occurred.”
Yet Gordon, according to Defendants, bases his diagnosis on the assertion of “cyberbullying and destruction of reputation.” Since Gordon, according to Defendants, failed to strictly adhere to the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5, the Defendants contended that Gordon’s testimony must be unreliable.
First, Defendants argued that Gordon lacked any evidence of exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence, because he conducted no independent investigation on Noshirvan’s allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and interview. Any quarrel with not independently verifying any of the allegations that Noshirvan presented to Gordon can be appropriately dealt with on cross-examination.
Defendants next argued that Gordon failed to follow DSM-5 diagnostic criteria because he did not observe at least one month’s worth of PTSD symptoms before diagnosing a patient with PTSD and relied almost exclusively on Plaintiff’s self-reporting. While Defendants contended that the rationale for using these specific tests was not definitively explained, such concern can be considered through cross-examination and is not a reason to exclude Gordon’s testimony.
Further, Defendants also pointed the Court to the Georgetown Guidelines for Forensic Assessment of PTSD. However, it too is not enough to show the methodology is unreliable since those guidelines were published before the DSM-5 and did not outline any specific examinations that must be given. Accordingly, the Defendants have not shown that Gordon’s methodology was unreliable as it relates to his diagnosis of PTSD.
(2) Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Defendants also argued that Gordon’s failure to adhere to the diagnostic criteria of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“CPTSD”) in the ICD-11 as well as his diagnosis being made solely for the purpose of litigation rendered his methodology unreliable.
Gordon relied on more than mere allegations presented by Plaintiff. Gordon utilized an array of psychological assessments to determine the presence and severity of the symptoms before making any diagnosis. To the extent Defendants disagreed with the diagnosis, they were free to challenge Gordon on cross-examination.
Defendants next argued that Gordon failed to explain the results of the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) or how he reached the diagnosis of CPTSD.
However, Defendants failed to show how that the ITQ itself is unreliable, and though how Gordon exactly utilized the ITQ is unknown, it is clear that he still relied upon the underlying PTSD diagnosis in reaching his conclusion.
Finally, Defendants argued that Gordon’s CPTSD diagnosis was made solely for purposes of this litigation. Defendants contended that while it is not dispositive, it further weighs against the reliability of Gordon’s testimony since Noshirvan only met with Gordon for about an hour via Zoom and was not re-examined in the future. While it is true Gordon only met with Noshirvan for about an hour, this argument went to the credibility of Gordon, not the reliability of his methodology.
B. Helpfulness
It is undisputed that Gordon utilized the CAPS-5, ITQ, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory-II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test. Although Defendants took issue with the conclusions reached by Gordon as well as the methods utilized, the conclusions went to a crucial issue in this case—whether Noshirvan suffered emotional distress.
Further, Defendants acknowledged that the diagnostic criteria of PTSD and CPTSD is beyond the understanding of the average lay person. Defendants were able to cross-examine Gordon regarding why he utilized the specific tests in lieu of other examinations they contended are better suited for such diagnosis. These quarrels, however, are not sufficient to exclude the evidence.
Ultimately, the Court found that Gordon satisfied all three prongs of Daubert, and the Court found that no undue prejudice from the anticipated testimony.
Held
- The Court denied as moot Defendant Garramone Plastic Surgery’s motion to exclude the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP.
- Jennifer Couture, Ralph Garramone, and OMG Realty, LLC’s motion to exclude the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP was denied.
- Garramone Plastic Surgery’s motion to exclude the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP was denied.
- Patrick Trainor, Central Park of Southwest Florida, LLC, and Anti-Doxing League, Inc.’s motion to exclude the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP was denied.
Key Takeaway
Gordon satisfied all three prongs of Daubert because he utilized an array of psychological assessments to determine the presence and severity of the symptoms before making any diagnosis.
Further, Defendants acknowledged that the diagnostic criteria of PTSD and CPTSD is beyond the understanding of the average lay person.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Noshirvan V. Couture |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv1218 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Florida Middle |
| Order Date: | March 13, 2026 |
Leave a Reply