mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008044.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "507",
    "date": "11/24/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 507 Filed 11/24/21 Page 3 of 28\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nThe defendant has notified the Government that she plans to call six additional experts.\nOne of them, Dr. Ryan Hall, and drafted a lengthy report, containing largely a recitation of hearsay, attributing some but not all of Another, Bennett Gershman, is a purported expert on prosecutorial misconduct. Neither of these issues is relevant at trial, and both experts should be precluded.\nThe defendant has failed to provide adequate notice as to the four remaining experts. Instead of describing those experts' opinions and the bases for them, as required by Rule 16, the notice identifies topics on which the experts might testify. The Government is therefore not able to interpose a Daubert challenge at this time.1 The Court should require the defense to provide supplemental expert notice forthwith or preclude these witnesses from testifying.\n\nI. APPLICABLE LAW\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C) provides that where, as here, the Government has provided expert notice and requested reciprocal notice from the defense, the defendant \"must . . . give to the government a written summary of any [expert] testimony that the defendant intends to use . . . as evidence at trial.\" Such summary must \"describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications.\" Fed. R.\n\n1 As described below, however, insofar as two of these witnesses will testify as fact witnesses related to computer forensics and financial records, the Government does not object to their testimony on Daubert grounds.\n\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00008044",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 507 Filed 11/24/21 Page 3 of 28",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant has notified the Government that she plans to call six additional experts. One of them, Dr. Ryan Hall, and drafted a lengthy report, containing largely a recitation of hearsay, attributing some but not all of Another, Bennett Gershman, is a purported expert on prosecutorial misconduct. Neither of these issues is relevant at trial, and both experts should be precluded.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant has failed to provide adequate notice as to the four remaining experts. Instead of describing those experts' opinions and the bases for them, as required by Rule 16, the notice identifies topics on which the experts might testify. The Government is therefore not able to interpose a Daubert challenge at this time.1 The Court should require the defense to provide supplemental expert notice forthwith or preclude these witnesses from testifying.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. APPLICABLE LAW",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C) provides that where, as here, the Government has provided expert notice and requested reciprocal notice from the defense, the defendant \"must . . . give to the government a written summary of any [expert] testimony that the defendant intends to use . . . as evidence at trial.\" Such summary must \"describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications.\" Fed. R.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 As described below, however, insofar as two of these witnesses will testify as fact witnesses related to computer forensics and financial records, the Government does not object to their testimony on Daubert grounds.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008044",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Ryan Hall",
      "Bennett Gershman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/24/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 507",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008044"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections. There are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}