mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008058.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "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 17 of 28 identifying the general topics about which the expert will testify is insufficient; rather, the summary must reveal the expert's actual opinions.\"); United States v. Duvall, 272 F.3d 825, 828 (7th Cir. 2001) (\"The Rule requires a summary of the expected testimony, not a list of topics.\"). \"Proper expert disclosures are not a mere technicality with which compliance may be made or not—they are required by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure\" and the requirements \"do not only apply to one side and not the other.\" United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2015 WL 413318, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2015), aff'd, 858 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2017). Such a belated disclosure may require a Daubert hearing to test the reliability of Dr. Hall's heretofore unrevealed analysis on this question. But as the record now stands, because Dr. Hall's expert opinions are irrelevant without the addition of some undisclosed significance, his testimony should be excluded. See Ulbricht, 2015 WL 413318, at *5 (collecting cases concerning the exclusion of expert testimony for insufficient notice).8 D. Dr. Hall's Fact Testimony Is Inadmissible The defendant's disclosure states that, in addition to providing his expert opinions and their basis, Dr. Hall would testify about 8 To the extent the defendant is aware of additional conclusions Dr. Hall would offer, those should be disclosed immediately—both because without such disclosures his opinions have no apparent relevance, and because even the current disclosures are vague yet disclosed relatively close to trial. See, e.g., Valle, 2013 WL 440687, at *6 (ordering rapid supplemental disclosure). 15 DOJ-OGR-00008058",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 507 Filed 11/24/21 Page 17 of 28",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "identifying the general topics about which the expert will testify is insufficient; rather, the summary must reveal the expert's actual opinions.\"); United States v. Duvall, 272 F.3d 825, 828 (7th Cir. 2001) (\"The Rule requires a summary of the expected testimony, not a list of topics.\"). \"Proper expert disclosures are not a mere technicality with which compliance may be made or not—they are required by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure\" and the requirements \"do not only apply to one side and not the other.\" United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2015 WL 413318, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2015), aff'd, 858 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2017).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Such a belated disclosure may require a Daubert hearing to test the reliability of Dr. Hall's heretofore unrevealed analysis on this question. But as the record now stands, because Dr. Hall's expert opinions are irrelevant without the addition of some undisclosed significance, his testimony should be excluded. See Ulbricht, 2015 WL 413318, at *5 (collecting cases concerning the exclusion of expert testimony for insufficient notice).8",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "D. Dr. Hall's Fact Testimony Is Inadmissible",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's disclosure states that, in addition to providing his expert opinions and their basis, Dr. Hall would testify about",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8 To the extent the defendant is aware of additional conclusions Dr. Hall would offer, those should be disclosed immediately—both because without such disclosures his opinions have no apparent relevance, and because even the current disclosures are vague yet disclosed relatively close to trial. See, e.g., Valle, 2013 WL 440687, at *6 (ordering rapid supplemental disclosure). 15",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008058",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Hall"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/24/21",
      "Feb. 1, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 507",
      "2015 WL 413318",
      "858 F.3d 71",
      "2013 WL 440687",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008058"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the admissibility of expert testimony. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections. There are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}