{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "435",
    "date": "11/11/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The Court exercises a “gatekeeper function” in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert’s method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert, including whether the expert’s method has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method’s operation, and whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593–94). But Rule 702 ultimately sets a “liberal” and “permissive” standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395–96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with “the exactness of hard science methodologies.” E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *13–14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)). II. Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Defense argues that the additional materials filed by the Government in support of Dr. Rocchio’s expertise should be excluded as failing to comply with the Court’s order that the Government make all expert witness disclosures by April 23, 2021. Dkt. No. 250. But that Order, made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G), required only that the Government provide an adequate summary of the intended topics and opinions of Dr. Rocchio’s testimony, which the Government did here in a timely manner. See",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court exercises a “gatekeeper function” in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert’s method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert, including whether the expert’s method has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method’s operation, and whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593–94).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But Rule 702 ultimately sets a “liberal” and “permissive” standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395–96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with “the exactness of hard science methodologies.” E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *13–14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Defense argues that the additional materials filed by the Government in support of Dr. Rocchio’s expertise should be excluded as failing to comply with the Court’s order that the Government make all expert witness disclosures by April 23, 2021. Dkt. No. 250. But that Order, made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G), required only that the Government provide an adequate summary of the intended topics and opinions of Dr. Rocchio’s testimony, which the Government did here in a timely manner. See",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Defense",
      "Court",
      "E.E.O.C.",
      "Bloomberg L.P.",
      "City of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 23, 2021",
      "Aug. 31, 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 435",
      "Dkt. No. 250",
      "07-CV-8383 (LAP)",
      "2010 WL 3466370"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the admissibility of expert testimony and the requirements for disclosure under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G). The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}