DOJ-OGR-00016500.jpg
600 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
600 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between counsel (Mr. Rohrbach) and the court. The parties discuss the potential testimony of Mr. Grumbridge regarding the ownership of a property called Stanhope Mews and agree to confer on a stipulation. The court then moves to address a government motion to exclude parts of the anticipated expert testimony of Dr. Loftus concerning suggestive investigative and therapeutic techniques.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Grumbridge | lawyer and solicitor |
Mentioned as having information about the Stanhope Mews ownership because he was the lawyer and solicitor involved in...
|
| ROHRBACH | Counsel |
Speaker in the transcript, identified as MR. ROHRBACH, who is conferring with defense counsel and the court.
|
| Dr. Loftus | Expert |
An expert whose anticipated testimony on suggestive activities and therapist techniques is being discussed for exclus...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency.
|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned as the recipient of records, the party seeking to exclude testimony, and the employer of investigators.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2021-11-21
The Court mentions a prior order from this date where a ruling was made.
Court
THE COURT
2022-08-10
A court hearing where parties discuss the inclusion of Mr. Grumbridge's testimony and the exclusion of Dr. Loftus's testimony.
Court
MR. ROHRBACH
THE COURT
defense counsel
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
A property whose ownership is a subject of discussion and potential testimony from Mr. Grumbridge.
|
Relationships (2)
He was the 'lawyer and solicitor involved' in the Stanhope Mews ownership transaction.
MR. ROHRBACH
→
professional
→
defense counsel
They are opposing counsel in a legal case, conferring on evidentiary matters ('We're happy to confer with defense counsel').
Key Quotes (2)
"We're happy to confer with defense counsel and try to work something out. I would just note that defense counsel has not produced any records to the government showing this prior ownership of Stanhope Mews."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Responding to the discussion about Mr. Grumbridge's testimony regarding Stanhope Mews.)
DOJ-OGR-00016500.jpg
Quote #1
"Moving on to the Dr. Loftus testimony. So I got the letter dated December 15th in which the government seeks to exclude two aspects of Dr. Loftus's anticipated expert testimony on suggestive activities: Her testimony on the use of leading questions by government investigators, and her anticipated testimony on the therapist technique of response pressure to provide more detail about a patient's experience."Source
— THE COURT
(Pivoting the discussion to a motion to exclude expert testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00016500.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,564 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 17 of 246 2312
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 we would also like to include, which is information that
2 Mr. Grumbridge would have about the Stanhope Mews ownership
3 prior to this, because he was the lawyer and solicitor involved
4 in that transaction as well, from my understanding. So I think
5 it's -- to make the same point. But if we're going to lose his
6 testimony, because I think it's relevant testimony, I would
7 like to get in all parts of his testimony that I think are
8 relevant to this issue of ownership.
9 MR. ROHRBACH: We're happy to confer with defense
10 counsel and try to work something out. I would just note that
11 defense counsel has not produced any records to the government
12 showing this prior ownership of Stanhope Mews.
13 THE COURT: All right.
14 MR. ROHRBACH: We'll confer with the defense and try
15 to work out a stipulation.
16 THE COURT: Great. Thank you.
17 Okay. All right. Moving on to the Dr. Loftus
18 testimony. So I got the letter dated December 15th in which
19 the government seeks to exclude two aspects of Dr. Loftus's
20 anticipated expert testimony on suggestive activities: Her
21 testimony on the use of leading questions by government
22 investigators, and her anticipated testimony on the therapist
23 technique of response pressure to provide more detail about a
24 patient's experience.
25 In an order dated November 21st, 2021, I ruled that
2 Mr. Grumbridge would have about the Stanhope Mews ownership
3 prior to this, because he was the lawyer and solicitor involved
4 in that transaction as well, from my understanding. So I think
5 it's -- to make the same point. But if we're going to lose his
6 testimony, because I think it's relevant testimony, I would
7 like to get in all parts of his testimony that I think are
8 relevant to this issue of ownership.
9 MR. ROHRBACH: We're happy to confer with defense
10 counsel and try to work something out. I would just note that
11 defense counsel has not produced any records to the government
12 showing this prior ownership of Stanhope Mews.
13 THE COURT: All right.
14 MR. ROHRBACH: We'll confer with the defense and try
15 to work out a stipulation.
16 THE COURT: Great. Thank you.
17 Okay. All right. Moving on to the Dr. Loftus
18 testimony. So I got the letter dated December 15th in which
19 the government seeks to exclude two aspects of Dr. Loftus's
20 anticipated expert testimony on suggestive activities: Her
21 testimony on the use of leading questions by government
22 investigators, and her anticipated testimony on the therapist
23 technique of response pressure to provide more detail about a
24 patient's experience.
25 In an order dated November 21st, 2021, I ruled that
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016500
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document