mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008174.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "516",
    "date": "11/21/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 2 of 17\n(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;\n(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and\n(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.\nThe 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 v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–94 (1993)).\nBut 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)).\nII. The testimony of Dr. Park Dietz\nIn its notice, the Defense proffers approximately ten opinions to which Dr. Dietz would testify at trial. Gov’t Br., Ex. A (“Notice”) at 2–11. As an initial matter, the Government does not dispute that Dr. Dietz has the formal qualifications to offer these opinions. As his CV demonstrates, Dr. Dietz is well-qualified to speak on a range of psychological concepts, including extensive experience evaluating allegations of sexual abuse. Def. Br., Ex. 1 at 62–165.\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00008174",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 2 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;\n(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and\n(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 v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–94 (1993)).",
      "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. The testimony of Dr. Park Dietz",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In its notice, the Defense proffers approximately ten opinions to which Dr. Dietz would testify at trial. Gov’t Br., Ex. A (“Notice”) at 2–11. As an initial matter, the Government does not dispute that Dr. Dietz has the formal qualifications to offer these opinions. As his CV demonstrates, Dr. Dietz is well-qualified to speak on a range of psychological concepts, including extensive experience evaluating allegations of sexual abuse. Def. Br., Ex. 1 at 62–165.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008174",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Park Dietz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "Defense",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/21/21",
      "Aug. 31, 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 516",
      "No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the admissibility of expert testimony. The text is well-formatted and mostly clear, with some citations and references to legal precedents."
}