mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011649.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "28",
    "document_number": "739",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 28 of 43 28 LBNAMAXTps appropriate Daubert motion, identify responsive experts if necessary. And so the government asks that the Court preclude the defense experts at this time unless they give at least more specific notice about what they might testify to. THE COURT: Well, they are precluded without more specific notice. That's true. MR. ROHRBACH: OK. Then that's fine for the government, your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. I mean, plainly, Rule 16 hasn't been met at this stage, and the representation is, they're not anticipating anything coming up. If something comes up, they would have to first provide sufficient notice in order for us to be able to resolve this. So it can't being is that could have been anticipated at this point. OK? MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. Totally understood, your Honor. THE COURT: OK. Thank you. All right. Next thing on my checklist, the limiting instructions related to witness 3 that I proposed. Who's taking this one? MR. ROHRBACH: I am, your Honor. THE COURT: So Mr. Rohrbach, you propose -- so I suggested, \"However, you may not convict the defendant on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein.\" You agree that's a correct statement of the law, yes? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011649",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 28 of 43 28",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LBNAMAXTps appropriate Daubert motion, identify responsive experts if necessary. And so the government asks that the Court preclude the defense experts at this time unless they give at least more specific notice about what they might testify to. THE COURT: Well, they are precluded without more specific notice. That's true. MR. ROHRBACH: OK. Then that's fine for the government, your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. I mean, plainly, Rule 16 hasn't been met at this stage, and the representation is, they're not anticipating anything coming up. If something comes up, they would have to first provide sufficient notice in order for us to be able to resolve this. So it can't being is that could have been anticipated at this point. OK? MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. Totally understood, your Honor. THE COURT: OK. Thank you. All right. Next thing on my checklist, the limiting instructions related to witness 3 that I proposed. Who's taking this one? MR. ROHRBACH: I am, your Honor. THE COURT: So Mr. Rohrbach, you propose -- so I suggested, \"However, you may not convict the defendant on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein.\" You agree that's a correct statement of the law, yes?",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011649",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Rohrbach",
      "Mr. Pagliuca",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "739",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011649"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}