mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006342.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "435",
    "date": "11/11/21",
    "document_type": "OPINION & ORDER",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 1 of 11\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 11/11/21\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America, -v- 20-CR-330 (AJN)\nGhislaine Maxwell, OPINION & ORDER Defendant.\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nBefore the Court is the Defense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conducted a Daubert hearing on November 10, 2021, at which both parties examined Dr. Rocchio. Dkt. No. 431. The Court stated its oral opinion at that hearing that it would deny and grant in part Defendant's motion, to be followed by this opinion.\nI. Legal standard\nFederal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. That rule states:\nA witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:\n(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;\n1",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 1 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 11/11/21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America, -v- 20-CR-330 (AJN)\nGhislaine Maxwell, OPINION & ORDER Defendant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nBefore the Court is the Defense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conducted a Daubert hearing on November 10, 2021, at which both parties examined Dr. Rocchio. Dkt. No. 431. The Court stated its oral opinion at that hearing that it would deny and grant in part Defendant's motion, to be followed by this opinion.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Legal standard\nFederal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. That rule states:\nA witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:\n(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006342",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Lisa Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "United States of America"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/11/21",
      "November 10, 2021",
      "1993"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 435",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 386",
      "Dkt. No. 397",
      "Dkt. No. 398",
      "Dkt. No. 431"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court opinion and order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It appears to be a formal legal document with proper formatting and citations."
}