{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "509-1",
    "date": "11/24/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 509-1 Filed 11/24/21 Page 10 of 10\n\n1997). The case the defendant cites is not to the contrary. (See Opp. 16). There a civil defendant asked to exclude expert testimony on the grounds that the witnesses had given deposition testimony at odds with their proffered trial testimony. R.B. Ventures, Ltd. v. Shane, 91 Civ. 5678 (CSH), 2000 WL 520615, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2000). The court's disagreement thus was not a ruling on prior inconsistent statements at all, but rather a statement of the obvious point that witnesses can still give direct testimony even if they might then be impeached with prior inconsistent statements during cross-examination. See id.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nFor the reasons set forth above and in the Government's initial memorandum, the Government respectfully requests that the Court preclude Dr. Hall's testimony.\n\nDated: November 22, 2021\nNew York, New York\n\nRespectfully submitted,\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney for the\nSouthern District of New York\n\nBy: /s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00008121",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 509-1 Filed 11/24/21 Page 10 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1997). The case the defendant cites is not to the contrary. (See Opp. 16). There a civil defendant asked to exclude expert testimony on the grounds that the witnesses had given deposition testimony at odds with their proffered trial testimony. R.B. Ventures, Ltd. v. Shane, 91 Civ. 5678 (CSH), 2000 WL 520615, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2000). The court's disagreement thus was not a ruling on prior inconsistent statements at all, but rather a statement of the obvious point that witnesses can still give direct testimony even if they might then be impeached with prior inconsistent statements during cross-examination. See id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONCLUSION",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the reasons set forth above and in the Government's initial memorandum, the Government respectfully requests that the Court preclude Dr. Hall's testimony.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: November 22, 2021\nNew York, New York",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Respectfully submitted,\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney for the\nSouthern District of New York",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "By: /s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9\nDOJ-OGR-00008121",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Hall",
      "DAMIAN WILLIAMS",
      "Maurene Comey",
      "Alison Moe",
      "Lara Pomerantz",
      "Andrew Rohrbach"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 22, 2021",
      "May 1, 2000",
      "1997",
      "11/24/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 509-1",
      "91 Civ. 5678 (CSH)",
      "2000 WL 520615",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008121"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, specifically a conclusion section of a legal brief. It is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content is a legal argument regarding the exclusion of expert testimony."
}