mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008330.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "536",
    "date": "12/10/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 536 Filed 12/10/21 Page 20 of 43 20 LBNAMAXTps your Honor, although it's not clear from the expert notice whether they anticipate going beyond pure fact testimony. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, at this point we anticipate him being a fact witness. THE COURT: Summary and fact witness. MS. MENNINGER: Yes. MR. EVERDELL: I think. THE COURT: Doesn't sound like expert to me, so I don't think there's anything to do on that now. Kelso also seems largely anticipated to summarize data documents and photographs on electronic devices either as a fact witness or summary testimony under 1006. And except Kelso's testimony that may cross over into expert testimony is, I'm going to quote from the notice, \"generally about computer forensic principles associated with the creation of document storage and retrieval of digital documents and photographs, including the limits to the information that can be gleaned from the metadata.\" I don't think there's been a sufficient disclosure at this point pursuant to Rule 16. The disclosure doesn't say what Kelso's opinions actually are, as to any of these topics, or provide any basis for those opinions. So certainly further disclosure would be necessary before I would allow expert testimony. Is that anticipated? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, this is my witness. He SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00008330",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 536 Filed 12/10/21 Page 20 of 43 20 LBNAMAXTps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "your Honor, although it's not clear from the expert notice whether they anticipate going beyond pure fact testimony. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, at this point we anticipate him being a fact witness. THE COURT: Summary and fact witness. MS. MENNINGER: Yes. MR. EVERDELL: I think. THE COURT: Doesn't sound like expert to me, so I don't think there's anything to do on that now. Kelso also seems largely anticipated to summarize data documents and photographs on electronic devices either as a fact witness or summary testimony under 1006. And except Kelso's testimony that may cross over into expert testimony is, I'm going to quote from the notice, \"generally about computer forensic principles associated with the creation of document storage and retrieval of digital documents and photographs, including the limits to the information that can be gleaned from the metadata.\" I don't think there's been a sufficient disclosure at this point pursuant to Rule 16. The disclosure doesn't say what Kelso's opinions actually are, as to any of these topics, or provide any basis for those opinions. So certainly further disclosure would be necessary before I would allow expert testimony. Is that anticipated? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, this is my witness. He",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008330",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "Kelso"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "12/10/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "536",
      "1006",
      "16",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008330"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}