mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008064.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "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 23 of 28\n\n\"integrity\" goes to an argument about thoroughness, or an argument about motive and the corruption of evidence, the Court has already ruled that the defense may not offer affirmative evidence of that point to the jury.\n\nEven if this testimony was not plainly barred by the Court's prior ruling, it should still be precluded for inadequate notice. The expert notice for this witness provides only general topics of discussion and not Gershman's opinions, and it does not identify the bases for his testimony—which are independent reasons to preclude Gershman or to require supplemental notice. It is likely that such information would demonstrate the unreliability or further irrelevance of Gershman's testimony. In a recent case, however, Gershman attempted to offer precisely the sort of testimony that this Court has already excluded. See U.S. Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Collector's Coffee Inc., -- F. Supp. 3d --, 19 Civ. 4355 (VM) (GWG), 2021 WL 3418829, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2021) (excluding Gershman's testimony in a civil case that, inter alia, \"the SEC improperly obtained an ex parte order from the Court,\" and \"the SEC's lawyers have 'engaged in a pattern of irregular, overzealous, unethical, and unlawful conduct' throughout this litigation\").\n\nThe Court should not permit expert testimony on those subjects.\n\nIV. BEFORE THE DEFENDANT'S REMAINING WITNESSES OFFER EXPERT TESTIMONY, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE\n\nThe defense provided brief notice of four additional experts: Robert Kelso, who would testify about computer forensics; John Lopez, who would testify about financial records; and two forensic document specialists. The defendant's expert notice is not clear regarding these witness's expected testimony and the bases for that testimony. Insofar as Kelso and Lopez will testify as fact witnesses, the Government does not object to that testimony. If they are expected to testify as",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 507 Filed 11/24/21 Page 23 of 28",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"integrity\" goes to an argument about thoroughness, or an argument about motive and the corruption of evidence, the Court has already ruled that the defense may not offer affirmative evidence of that point to the jury.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if this testimony was not plainly barred by the Court's prior ruling, it should still be precluded for inadequate notice. The expert notice for this witness provides only general topics of discussion and not Gershman's opinions, and it does not identify the bases for his testimony—which are independent reasons to preclude Gershman or to require supplemental notice. It is likely that such information would demonstrate the unreliability or further irrelevance of Gershman's testimony. In a recent case, however, Gershman attempted to offer precisely the sort of testimony that this Court has already excluded. See U.S. Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Collector's Coffee Inc., -- F. Supp. 3d --, 19 Civ. 4355 (VM) (GWG), 2021 WL 3418829, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2021) (excluding Gershman's testimony in a civil case that, inter alia, \"the SEC improperly obtained an ex parte order from the Court,\" and \"the SEC's lawyers have 'engaged in a pattern of irregular, overzealous, unethical, and unlawful conduct' throughout this litigation\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court should not permit expert testimony on those subjects.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. BEFORE THE DEFENDANT'S REMAINING WITNESSES OFFER EXPERT TESTIMONY, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense provided brief notice of four additional experts: Robert Kelso, who would testify about computer forensics; John Lopez, who would testify about financial records; and two forensic document specialists. The defendant's expert notice is not clear regarding these witness's expected testimony and the bases for that testimony. Insofar as Kelso and Lopez will testify as fact witnesses, the Government does not object to that testimony. If they are expected to testify as",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008064",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Gershman",
      "Robert Kelso",
      "John Lopez"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Securities and Exchange Comm'n",
      "Collector's Coffee Inc.",
      "SEC",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/24/21",
      "Aug. 5, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 507",
      "19 Civ. 4355 (VM) (GWG)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}