DOJ-OGR-00011175.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 700 Filed 07/12/22 Page2of6 identification.” Jd. (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The “standard for authentication is one of ‘reasonable likelihood’ and is ‘minimal.’ The testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be is sufficient to satisfy this standard.” United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). After this low bar is satisfied, “the other party then remains free to challenge the reliability of the evidence, to minimize its importance, or to argue alternative interpretations of its meaning, but these and similar other challenges to go the weight of the evidence—not to its admissibility.” United States v. Tan Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004) (emphases in original). Il. Government Exhibit 52 The Court has received extensive briefing on Government Exhibit 52, the defendant’s contact book. (See Dkt. Nos. 390, 397, 398, 457, 490, 491). To summarize, the Government’s argument for authentication has to date relied on the testimony of a former employee (“Employee- 1”) of Epstein’s who worked for him in | | along with a household manual that corroborates that multiple copies of the contact book existed. (See Dkt. No. 457, 491). The defense challenges that authentication because Employee-1 cannot state that she has previously seen the particular contact book that is Government Exhibit 52—although she does recognize it as one of a set of the defendant’s contact books in that house when she worked at Epstein’s Palm Beach house LJ ee. The Court has reserved judgment on this issue until Employee-1 testifies at trial. (11/23/21 Tr. at 16).! ' To be clear, the Government continues to believe that Employee-1 can authenticate Government Exhibit 52, but respectfully submits that the following is an independent basis for admission. pe DOJ-OGR-00011175