mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00017922.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "49",
    "document_number": "747",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 49 of 228\nLC2VMAX2\nRocchio - Direct\n1\n(At sidebar)\n2\nMR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this\n3\nas being outside what's been endorsed for this witness's\n4\nopinions in terms of the disclosure that was given to us. This\n5\nis now a narrative into basically treatment of people as\n6\nopposed to identifying what is or is not grooming. And that's\n7\nnever been disclosed and we didn't do any Daubert on this. I\n8\nthink it's outside of the opinion.\n9\nMS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this is part of her basis\n10\nof her grooming opinion and delayed disclosure. This is\n11\nsomething that was extensively covered at the Daubert hearing\n12\nand in the briefing.\n13\nMR. PAGLIUCA: Her clinical treatment of people and\n14\nidentifying what is or is not grooming was discussed. But now\n15\nshe's getting into anecdotal discussions of treatment of her\n16\nown patients, I believe, which is inappropriate, A, and B, not\n17\ndisclosed. And I don't think that this can be the subject of\n18\nexpert opinion. This is simple anecdotal testimony about her\n19\nexperience as a clinician.\n20\nMS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, she's explaining to the\n21\njury the basis of her opinions. This is something that we've\n22\nlitigated already.\n23\nTHE COURT: It's a little different than what was\n24\npresented in the Daubert. Just in this moment, that is to say,\n25\nit's appropriate to describe generally the nature of her\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00017922",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 49 of 228",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LC2VMAX2\nRocchio - Direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(At sidebar)\nMR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this\nas being outside what's been endorsed for this witness's\nopinions in terms of the disclosure that was given to us. This\nis now a narrative into basically treatment of people as\nopposed to identifying what is or is not grooming. And that's\nnever been disclosed and we didn't do any Daubert on this. I\nthink it's outside of the opinion.\nMS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this is part of her basis\nof her grooming opinion and delayed disclosure. This is\nsomething that was extensively covered at the Daubert hearing\nand in the briefing.\nMR. PAGLIUCA: Her clinical treatment of people and\nidentifying what is or is not grooming was discussed. But now\nshe's getting into anecdotal discussions of treatment of her\nown patients, I believe, which is inappropriate, A, and B, not\ndisclosed. And I don't think that this can be the subject of\nexpert opinion. This is simple anecdotal testimony about her\nexperience as a clinician.\nMS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, she's explaining to the\njury the basis of her opinions. This is something that we've\nlitigated already.\nTHE COURT: It's a little different than what was\npresented in the Daubert. Just in this moment, that is to say,\nit's appropriate to describe generally the nature of her",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017922",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "MS. POMERANTZ"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "747",
      "DOJ-OGR-00017922"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion between lawyers and the court about the admissibility of certain testimony. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible."
}