{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "406",
    "date": "11/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 406 Filed 11/02/21 Page 4 of 6\nPage 4\nThe government makes many unfounded accusations including that the timely disclosure of potential experts is “gamesmanship.” The simple truth here is that avoiding a direct conferral about a straightforward task such as selecting one of three dates while drafting a three-page rant a few hours before the filing deadline is not mere gamesmanship, it is unprofessional gamesmanship. A few observations are in order:\nFirst, the reason we are required to hold a Daubert hearing in this case is that the government endorsed an expert to talk about subjects that are not widely accepted by qualified experts in the field. She has no methodology or studies that support her theories, and most of her opinions will be confusing, not help the jury, and do not fit the facts of this case.\nSecond, at the government’s request and over the objection of the defense, the Court accelerated the Rule 412 notice requirement. The defense did not attempt to game this deadline by, for example, complaining about various deficiencies in the delayed roll out of 3500 material, but instead complied with the Order.\nThird, the government, while casting unfounded criticism at defense counsel about the need for the 3500 materials to adequately determine the scope and type of expert testimony, fails to advise the Court that Exhibits C and F to the expert disclosures (the list of materials reviewed by Drs. Dietz and Hall, respectively), include hundreds of pages of 3500 material.\nFourth, no Daubert hearing would be appropriate for Dr. Dietz, Dr. Loftus or Dr. Hall. Each is well qualified, have been accepted by hundreds of courts as experts, and their opinions are based on science, not “trauma clinical” pseudoscience.\nDOJ-OGR-00006046",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 406 Filed 11/02/21 Page 4 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government makes many unfounded accusations including that the timely disclosure of potential experts is “gamesmanship.” The simple truth here is that avoiding a direct conferral about a straightforward task such as selecting one of three dates while drafting a three-page rant a few hours before the filing deadline is not mere gamesmanship, it is unprofessional gamesmanship. A few observations are in order:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the reason we are required to hold a Daubert hearing in this case is that the government endorsed an expert to talk about subjects that are not widely accepted by qualified experts in the field. She has no methodology or studies that support her theories, and most of her opinions will be confusing, not help the jury, and do not fit the facts of this case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, at the government’s request and over the objection of the defense, the Court accelerated the Rule 412 notice requirement. The defense did not attempt to game this deadline by, for example, complaining about various deficiencies in the delayed roll out of 3500 material, but instead complied with the Order.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, the government, while casting unfounded criticism at defense counsel about the need for the 3500 materials to adequately determine the scope and type of expert testimony, fails to advise the Court that Exhibits C and F to the expert disclosures (the list of materials reviewed by Drs. Dietz and Hall, respectively), include hundreds of pages of 3500 material.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Fourth, no Daubert hearing would be appropriate for Dr. Dietz, Dr. Loftus or Dr. Hall. Each is well qualified, have been accepted by hundreds of courts as experts, and their opinions are based on science, not “trauma clinical” pseudoscience.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006046",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Dietz",
      "Dr. Loftus",
      "Dr. Hall"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "406",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006046"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}