DOJ-OGR-00011142.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page4of17 Def. Br. at 1, 5-6. But one aspect of the Rule 702 and Daubert inquiry is “fit,” which asks “whether expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.” Alto v. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc., No. 1:19-CV- 09758 (GHW), 2021 WL 4803582, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591). Fit is satisfied if the expert’s opinion would assist the jury’s decision on a relevant question of fact without “usurp[ing] either the role of the trial judge in instructing the jury as to the applicable law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it.” /d. (quoting United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994)). The Court finds that at least some of the Government’s arguments that go to fit are ripe for preliminary resolution now. Other aspects of the Government’s motion can be resolved only with additional information and the context of trial. A. The Court will preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall The Government moves to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall. Dr. Hall was re ain aaa ee ee ee ee Thc Defense anticipates that Dr. Hall will testify as to approximately four opinions. First, “[h]e will offer the opinions and diagnoses contained in his report.” Notice at 12. Second, he will testify on “the bases for those opinions[ | and the significance of the diagnoses and opinions.” /d. Third, “[h]e will testify about the facts and circumstances surrounding the evaluation” and “disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4].” Jd. And fourth, he will testify to “the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse.” Jd. DOJ-OGR-00011142