mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006427.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "439",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 10 of 69\n\nto issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.\" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. L.E. Myers Co. Group et al., 937 F. Supp. 276, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (same). Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., 1998 WL 665138, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 937 F. Supp. at 287.\n\nThe way the government has raised its purported \"in limine\" motions is disfavored. Like the government's motions here, where a party \"endeavor[s] to strike in shotgun fashion at whole topics and sources of prospective evidence, out of context and before any specific objection against its proper backdrop is raised...,\" the strategy is \"impermissible\" and the motions should be denied. TVT Recs. v. Island Def Jam Music Grp., 250 F. Supp. 2d 341, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).\n\nWhere the in limine motion seeks to preclude evidence or argument regarding various defenses it \"is plainly improper.\" United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser, No. 14-CV-5903 (JGK), 2019 WL 5285043, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019); see also United States v. Overton, No. 15-CR-9S, 2017 WL 6347084, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017); United States v. Morel, 751 F. Supp. 2d 423, 427–28 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).\n\nB. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here\n\nOut of context, the government attempts to preclude whole categories of potential defenses, argument, and cross examination before one witness has testified. See Sections III, IV, IX (\"The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument\"), V (The Court Should Preclude Challenges), VII (\"the Court Should Require the Defense\"), VIII (\"The Court should not Permit\"), X (\"The Court Should Preclude the Defense\"), and XI (\"The Defendant Should be Precluded\").\n\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00006427",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 10 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.\" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. L.E. Myers Co. Group et al., 937 F. Supp. 276, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (same). Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., 1998 WL 665138, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 937 F. Supp. at 287.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The way the government has raised its purported \"in limine\" motions is disfavored. Like the government's motions here, where a party \"endeavor[s] to strike in shotgun fashion at whole topics and sources of prospective evidence, out of context and before any specific objection against its proper backdrop is raised...,\" the strategy is \"impermissible\" and the motions should be denied. TVT Recs. v. Island Def Jam Music Grp., 250 F. Supp. 2d 341, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Where the in limine motion seeks to preclude evidence or argument regarding various defenses it \"is plainly improper.\" United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser, No. 14-CV-5903 (JGK), 2019 WL 5285043, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019); see also United States v. Overton, No. 15-CR-9S, 2017 WL 6347084, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017); United States v. Morel, 751 F. Supp. 2d 423, 427–28 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Out of context, the government attempts to preclude whole categories of potential defenses, argument, and cross examination before one witness has testified. See Sections III, IV, IX (\"The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument\"), V (The Court Should Preclude Challenges), VII (\"the Court Should Require the Defense\"), VIII (\"The Court should not Permit\"), X (\"The Court Should Preclude the Defense\"), and XI (\"The Defendant Should be Precluded\").",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006427",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.",
      "L.E. Myers Co. Group",
      "Baxter Diagnostics, Inc.",
      "Novatek Med., Inc.",
      "TVT Recs.",
      "Island Def Jam Music Grp.",
      "United Realty Advisors, LP",
      "Verschleiser",
      "United States",
      "Overton",
      "Morel"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "W.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "Sept. 25, 1998",
      "Oct. 3, 2019",
      "Dec. 13, 2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "439",
      "937 F. Supp. 276",
      "1998 WL 665138",
      "250 F. Supp. 2d 341",
      "2019 WL 5285043",
      "2017 WL 6347084",
      "751 F. Supp. 2d 423",
      "14-CV-5903",
      "15-CR-9S",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006427"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 10 of 69."
}