DOJ-OGR-00011185.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701 Filed 07/12/22 Page6of10 metadata). The defendant understood this to be a disclosure that concerned metadata. 11/23/21 Tr. at 21 (“Mr. Flatley was disclosed by the government for similar purposes to talk about the retrieval of metadata from some of the devices that were seized from Epstein’s home.”’). In any event, the Government made that both explicit and highly specific in the November 26 letter, three days after the defendant expressed concerns about notice. The November 26 letter identifies the precise exhibits about which Flatley will testify, including the exhibits that display metadata fields (which were produced on October 11, 2021), and it provides detail about the methods and metadata about which he will testify. The sufficiency of the Government’s notice is evidenced by the fact that the defendant noticed a rebuttal expert on November 1, 2021, and they likewise have had ample time to prepare any cross-examination on metadata. Thus, to the extent the Court has any doubt as to whether Flatley’s testimony constitutes expert opinion, the Government would seek to qualify him as an expert on the relevant subjects. Second, the remainder of Flatley’s expected testimony stated in the November 26 letter is clearly fact testimony. As the letter explains, Flatley will testify that he examined Government Exhibits 54 and 55 and determined that particular other Government exhibits were stored there. (Ex. A at 2). And he will testify that he, personally, made images of Government Exhibits 54 and 55. (Ex. A at 1). Third, the “newly and untimely-disclosed expert opinion testimony” (Def. Letter at 5) is no such thing: e The primary defense concern appears to be about the statement, reflected in the 3500 material, that Flatley examined metadata to determine the number of times the “ghislaine” user account accessed Government Exhibit 54, as reflected in the notes for December 2. This is not DOJ-OGR-00011185