mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004256.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "291",
    "date": "05/21/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 6 of 13\nPage 6\nGovernment's Proposed Exhibit List and Marked Exhibits\nThe Government is prepared to provide the defense with its proposed exhibit list and marked exhibits by October 25, 2021, or 5 weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will allow the defense adequate time to review and raise objections to any Government exhibits.\nDefense Disclosures\nThe Government proposes that the defense be required to provide expert witness disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C) by October 4, 2021, or 8 weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will give the defendant ample time to determine what, if any, expert testimony she may seek to offer. The defense—who has had the Government's expert notice since April 23, 2021—seeks to provide expert notice 4 weeks in advance of trial, or by November 1, 2021, but such a belated disclosure would not allow adequate time in advance of trial to brief any motions regarding the admissibility of such testimony, much less by the Court's deadline. See, e.g., United States v. Rajaratnam, No. S2 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL 723530, at *3, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011) (reasoning that “the purpose of reciprocal expert disclosures is to minimize surprise that often results from unexpected expert testimony, reduce the need for continuances, and to provide the opponent with a fair opportunity to test the merit of the expert's testimony through focused cross-examination.”; “Specifically, under Rule 16, a defendant's obligation to make expert disclosures does not turn on whether the government will call a certain witness or prove certain overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy—disclosures mentioned nowhere in the Rule—but on whether the government has made its own expert disclosures.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also United States v. Jasper, No. 00 Cr. 825 (PKL), 2003 WL 223212, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2003) (disagreeing with the defense's claim that the Government's request for reciprocal discovery and summaries of expert testimony was\nDOJ-OGR-00004256",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 6 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Government's Proposed Exhibit List and Marked Exhibits\nThe Government is prepared to provide the defense with its proposed exhibit list and marked exhibits by October 25, 2021, or 5 weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will allow the defense adequate time to review and raise objections to any Government exhibits.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Defense Disclosures\nThe Government proposes that the defense be required to provide expert witness disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C) by October 4, 2021, or 8 weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will give the defendant ample time to determine what, if any, expert testimony she may seek to offer. The defense—who has had the Government's expert notice since April 23, 2021—seeks to provide expert notice 4 weeks in advance of trial, or by November 1, 2021, but such a belated disclosure would not allow adequate time in advance of trial to brief any motions regarding the admissibility of such testimony, much less by the Court's deadline. See, e.g., United States v. Rajaratnam, No. S2 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL 723530, at *3, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011) (reasoning that “the purpose of reciprocal expert disclosures is to minimize surprise that often results from unexpected expert testimony, reduce the need for continuances, and to provide the opponent with a fair opportunity to test the merit of the expert's testimony through focused cross-examination.”; “Specifically, under Rule 16, a defendant's obligation to make expert disclosures does not turn on whether the government will call a certain witness or prove certain overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy—disclosures mentioned nowhere in the Rule—but on whether the government has made its own expert disclosures.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also United States v. Jasper, No. 00 Cr. 825 (PKL), 2003 WL 223212, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2003) (disagreeing with the defense's claim that the Government's request for reciprocal discovery and summaries of expert testimony was",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004256",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "October 25, 2021",
      "October 4, 2021",
      "April 23, 2021",
      "November 1, 2021",
      "February 25, 2011",
      "January 21, 2003",
      "05/21/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 291",
      "No. S2 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH)",
      "No. 00 Cr. 825 (PKL)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004256"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}