DOJ-OGR-00011649.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke} a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE LBNAMAXTps appropriate Daubert motion, Necessary. the def And so the governmen Document 739 identi ns specific noti Filed 08/10/22 Fy responsive experts if Page 28 of 43 28 t asks that the Court preclude xperts at this time unless they give at least more ce about what they might testit fy to. THE COURT: Well, they are precluded without more specific notice. That's true. MR. ROHRBACH: OK. Then that's fine for the government, your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. I mean, plainly, Rule 16 hasn't been met at this stage, and the representation is, they're not anticipating anything coming up. If something comes up, they would have to first provide sufficient notice in order for us to be able to resolve this. So it can't being is that could have been anticipated at this point. OK? MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. Totally understood, your Honor. THE COURT: OK. Thank you. All right. Next thing on my checklist, the limiting instructions related to witness 3 that I proposed. Who's taking this one? MR. ROHRBACH: am, your Honor. THE COURT: So Mr. Rohrbach, you propose -—- so suggested, "However, you may not convict the defendant on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual conduct between this witness and Mr. statement of You agree that's a correct Epstein." the law, yes? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011649