mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008068.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "27",
    "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 27 of 28\npurportedly awaited or topics of testimony, besides documents that “may require analysis,” leading to whatever testimony is “needed.” (Ex. A at 13-14). This is plainly inadequate under the rules, and the Government cannot litigate the qualifications, reliability, or relevance of unknown testimony about unidentified documents at this time.\nOf course, the Court has the option of permitting the defense to clarify this notice mid-trial whenever the defense receives and reviews the documents they have in mind. Doing so, however, would almost certainly lead to mid-trial Daubert briefing, possibly a mid-trial Daubert hearing, and late-breaking rebuttal expert notice by the Government.\nThe better course is to require the defense to identify, immediately, the documents they expect to be the subject of forensic analysis and the precise forensic methodology that these experts will use to analyze those documents. That may—depending on the details—permit some Daubert litigation to occur now, because the Government may be able to agree with, or challenge, the notion that these experts are qualified to use the methodology, that the methodology is reliable, or that the document is relevant. See, e.g., Jennifer L. Mnookin, “Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Reliability,” 87 Va. L. Rev. 1723, 1726-27 (2001) (describing “major pretrial battles being waged over the admissibility of . . . expert evidence in handwriting identification”).13\nHere too, the Court should order the defendant to provide additional expert notice of the methodology these experts intend to use, and the precise documents they expect to examine. Such\n13 It would of course defeat the purpose of an order along these lines if the defendant gives expert notice of numerous document examination methodologies, requiring extensive Daubert litigation that may stretch into trial and would far exceed the scope any actual testimony that may be presented at trial.\n25\nDOJ-OGR-00008068",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 507 Filed 11/24/21 Page 27 of 28",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "purportedly awaited or topics of testimony, besides documents that “may require analysis,” leading to whatever testimony is “needed.” (Ex. A at 13-14). This is plainly inadequate under the rules, and the Government cannot litigate the qualifications, reliability, or relevance of unknown testimony about unidentified documents at this time.\nOf course, the Court has the option of permitting the defense to clarify this notice mid-trial whenever the defense receives and reviews the documents they have in mind. Doing so, however, would almost certainly lead to mid-trial Daubert briefing, possibly a mid-trial Daubert hearing, and late-breaking rebuttal expert notice by the Government.\nThe better course is to require the defense to identify, immediately, the documents they expect to be the subject of forensic analysis and the precise forensic methodology that these experts will use to analyze those documents. That may—depending on the details—permit some Daubert litigation to occur now, because the Government may be able to agree with, or challenge, the notion that these experts are qualified to use the methodology, that the methodology is reliable, or that the document is relevant. See, e.g., Jennifer L. Mnookin, “Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Reliability,” 87 Va. L. Rev. 1723, 1726-27 (2001) (describing “major pretrial battles being waged over the admissibility of . . . expert evidence in handwriting identification”).13\nHere too, the Court should order the defendant to provide additional expert notice of the methodology these experts intend to use, and the precise documents they expect to examine. Such",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13 It would of course defeat the purpose of an order along these lines if the defendant gives expert notice of numerous document examination methodologies, requiring extensive Daubert litigation that may stretch into trial and would far exceed the scope any actual testimony that may be presented at trial.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008068",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jennifer L. Mnookin"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/24/21",
      "2001"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "507",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008068"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}