mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007999.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "131",
    "document_number": "499-2",
    "date": "11/23/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 131 of 159130\nLBAGmax4 Rocchio - Cross\n1 conclusion of the study, no.\n2 Q. Well, are you just saying you ignore the conclusion of the author who did this study because you don't agree with it?\n3 A. I'm not saying this is the conclusion. The purpose of the study -- a conclusion generally refers to the concluding comments summarizing the main findings of the study. So this is actually not part of her -- their conclusion. It's part of their rationale for why this particular piece of research is important and needed in the field.\n10 Q. So let's go through the methodology of this particular study as well.\n12 THE COURT: We'll take about a 20-minute, 30-minute break for lunch. It's 12:55, I think we probably need 30 minutes, just logistically, so we'll resume at 1:25.\n15 I do want to encourage you, Mr. Pagliuca, to focus your cross less on what you might do in front of a jury -- because you are ably demonstrating to me so far that the points you made in your papers are cross-examination points -- so to the extent there are any of the opinions you want to focus on the underlying Daubert questions -- and you did a little bit at the end here -- the time would be much more effectively used.\n22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor.\n23 THE COURT: Thank you. We'll resume in 30 minutes.\n24 (Luncheon recess)\n25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007999",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 131 of 159130",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LBAGmax4 Rocchio - Cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 conclusion of the study, no.\n2 Q. Well, are you just saying you ignore the conclusion of the author who did this study because you don't agree with it?\n3 A. I'm not saying this is the conclusion. The purpose of the study -- a conclusion generally refers to the concluding comments summarizing the main findings of the study. So this is actually not part of her -- their conclusion. It's part of their rationale for why this particular piece of research is important and needed in the field.\n10 Q. So let's go through the methodology of this particular study as well.\n12 THE COURT: We'll take about a 20-minute, 30-minute break for lunch. It's 12:55, I think we probably need 30 minutes, just logistically, so we'll resume at 1:25.\n15 I do want to encourage you, Mr. Pagliuca, to focus your cross less on what you might do in front of a jury -- because you are ably demonstrating to me so far that the points you made in your papers are cross-examination points -- so to the extent there are any of the opinions you want to focus on the underlying Daubert questions -- and you did a little bit at the end here -- the time would be much more effectively used.\n22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor.\n23 THE COURT: Thank you. We'll resume in 30 minutes.\n24 (Luncheon recess)",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007999",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Pagliuca"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/23/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "499-2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007999"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear structure and formatting. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}