DOJ-OGR-00011644.jpg
618 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
618 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated August 10, 2022) involving a legal debate over witness testimony. Ms. Menninger argues that the government did not provide sufficient notice regarding the scope of Mr. Flatley's testimony concerning the extraction of user data and metadata, claiming the '3500 material' was insufficient. Mr. Rohrbach responds that while they view Flatley primarily as a fact witness, they provided expert notice due to the blurred lines between fact and expert testimony in this technical context.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney |
Arguing regarding the scope of witness testimony and lack of notice in 3500 material.
|
| Mr. Flatley | Witness |
Subject of the debate; government witness described as primarily a fact witness but with potential expert testimony r...
|
| Mr. Kelso | Witness |
Mentioned as a point of comparison for expert testimony.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, asking clarification questions about Flatley's status.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney |
Representing the government, explaining the classification of Mr. Flatley as a witness.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in the footer.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution team, referred to by Ms. Menninger.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically debating the testimony scope of Mr. Flatley.
Southern District of New York (Implied)
Relationships (2)
Rohrbach discusses how 'we' (the government) are using Flatley as a witness.
Menninger argues against the sufficiency of materials provided by the government.
Key Quotes (3)
"MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the 3500 material doesn't say Mr. Flatley is going to describe the extraction of user data this way."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011644.jpg
Quote #1
"MR. ROHRBACH: We think Mr. Flatley is primarily a fact witness, but the line between a fact witness in a setting like this and someone testifying on the basis of their expertise is not well settled..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011644.jpg
Quote #2
"THE COURT: But are you using Flatley as an expert?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00011644.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,588 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 23 of 43 23
LBNAMAXTps
LBNAMAXTps
1 and the extraction of metadata as his expert testimony,
2 Mr. Flatley's views on those questions should be available
3 through the 3500 material and through his other expert
4 testimony, so there's really no need for any sort of further
5 identification by the government of anything before Mr. Kelso
6 should be able to let us know his views on those questions.
7 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the 3500 material doesn't
8 say Mr. Flatley is going to describe the extraction of user
9 data this way. He's talked about the fact that he has observed
10 the user data, but he hasn't talked about the methods that he's
11 used it. It's not that type of 3500 material from the
12 government. So I don't agree that we could tell from what they
13 have provided thus far exactly what Mr. Flatley's testimony is
14 going to be.
15 And frankly, they said Mr. Flatley was largely a fact
16 witness as well. So if I'm understanding now that they're
17 intending to offer something along the lines Mr. Kelso is, they
18 didn't provide sufficient notice for Mr. Flatley's expertise in
19 that area either.
20 THE COURT: Well, I have to go back and look at the
21 notice. But are you using Flatley as an expert?
22 MR. ROHRBACH: We think Mr. Flatley is primarily a
23 fact witness, but the line between a fact witness in a setting
24 like this and someone testifying on the basis of their
25 expertise is not well settled, and so we've given expert notice
2 Mr. Flatley's views on those questions should be available
3 through the 3500 material and through his other expert
4 testimony, so there's really no need for any sort of further
5 identification by the government of anything before Mr. Kelso
6 should be able to let us know his views on those questions.
7 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the 3500 material doesn't
8 say Mr. Flatley is going to describe the extraction of user
9 data this way. He's talked about the fact that he has observed
10 the user data, but he hasn't talked about the methods that he's
11 used it. It's not that type of 3500 material from the
12 government. So I don't agree that we could tell from what they
13 have provided thus far exactly what Mr. Flatley's testimony is
14 going to be.
15 And frankly, they said Mr. Flatley was largely a fact
16 witness as well. So if I'm understanding now that they're
17 intending to offer something along the lines Mr. Kelso is, they
18 didn't provide sufficient notice for Mr. Flatley's expertise in
19 that area either.
20 THE COURT: Well, I have to go back and look at the
21 notice. But are you using Flatley as an expert?
22 MR. ROHRBACH: We think Mr. Flatley is primarily a
23 fact witness, but the line between a fact witness in a setting
24 like this and someone testifying on the basis of their
25 expertise is not well settled, and so we've given expert notice
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011644
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document