mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011140.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "692",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;\n\n(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;\n\n(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and\n\n(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.\n\nThe Court exercises a \"gatekeeper function\" in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert, including whether the expert's method has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method's operation, and whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–94 (1993)).\n\nBut Rule 702 ultimately sets a \"liberal\" and \"permissive\" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395–96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with \"the exactness of hard science methodologies.\" E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *13–14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)).\n\nAdditionally, the procedure for disclosing expert witnesses is governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. That rule states that when the Government makes a request, the Defense \"must . . . give to the government a written summary of any testimony that the defendant intends to use under Rules 702. . . . This summary must describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications.\" Fed. R.\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011140",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;\n\n(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;\n\n(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and\n\n(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court exercises a \"gatekeeper function\" in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert, including whether the expert's method has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method's operation, and whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–94 (1993)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But Rule 702 ultimately sets a \"liberal\" and \"permissive\" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395–96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with \"the exactness of hard science methodologies.\" E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *13–14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Additionally, the procedure for disclosing expert witnesses is governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. That rule states that when the Government makes a request, the Defense \"must . . . give to the government a written summary of any testimony that the defendant intends to use under Rules 702. . . . This summary must describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications.\" Fed. R.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011140",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "Government",
      "Defense"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/22/21",
      "Aug. 31, 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "692",
      "846 F.3d 547",
      "385 F. Supp. 3d 259",
      "509 U.S. 579",
      "414 F.3d 381",
      "2010 WL 3466370",
      "470 F.3d 1115",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011140"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to expert testimony, with references to various legal cases and rules of evidence. The text is well-formatted and legible, with no apparent redactions or damage."
}