mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007921.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "53",
    "document_number": "499-2",
    "date": "11/23/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 53 of 15952\nLBAGmax2 Rocchio - Direct\n1 provided data supporting that this is a process that is well known and well established in the literature, and then it pointed to directions that were needed for future work. It pointed to some of the concerns about definitions and things that -- suggestions, basically, for issues that needed to be addressed in future research.\n7 Q. Do you agree with all of the conclusions of this article?\n8 A. I do not.\n9 Q. I want to direct your attention to Page 959. And I want to zoom in on the paragraph above current definitions. It's about four lines down. It starts with \"Furthermore.\"\n12 A. Okay.\n13 MS. POMERANTZ: We can highlight those next two sentences.\n15 Q. Dr. Rocchio, could you review the highlighted text.\n16 A. Okay.\n17 MS. POMERANTZ: And for purposes of the record, your Honor, I'm happy to read that.\n19 THE COURT: The sentence beginning with \"Furthermore\" and ending with \"negatives.\"\n21 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.\n22 BY MS. POMERANTZ:\n23 Q. Dr. Rocchio, what is your reaction to this?\n24 A. I think it's incomplete and I disagree with the conclusion.\n25 Q. Can you explain?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007921",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 53 of 15952",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LBAGmax2 Rocchio - Direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 provided data supporting that this is a process that is well known and well established in the literature, and then it pointed to directions that were needed for future work. It pointed to some of the concerns about definitions and things that -- suggestions, basically, for issues that needed to be addressed in future research.\n7 Q. Do you agree with all of the conclusions of this article?\n8 A. I do not.\n9 Q. I want to direct your attention to Page 959. And I want to zoom in on the paragraph above current definitions. It's about four lines down. It starts with \"Furthermore.\"\n12 A. Okay.\n13 MS. POMERANTZ: We can highlight those next two sentences.\n15 Q. Dr. Rocchio, could you review the highlighted text.\n16 A. Okay.\n17 MS. POMERANTZ: And for purposes of the record, your Honor, I'm happy to read that.\n19 THE COURT: The sentence beginning with \"Furthermore\" and ending with \"negatives.\"\n21 MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.\n22 BY MS. POMERANTZ:\n23 Q. Dr. Rocchio, what is your reaction to this?\n24 A. I think it's incomplete and I disagree with the conclusion.\n25 Q. Can you explain?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007921",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Rocchio",
      "Pomerantz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/23/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "499-2",
      "959",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007921"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear structure and formatting. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}