DOJ-OGR-00020681.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document “Taso | 3475900, Page63 of 208 | A-59_ 2/22/23, 1:25 PM SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Introduction of Government's Exhibits 251, 288, 294, 313 and 606., 390 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Government Exhibit 52, an Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from Suspect Sources., 389 MOTION in Limine fo Exclude Evidence of Alleged False Statement Evidence., 388 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Flight., 387 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3., 384 MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Introduction of Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements as a Sanction for Failing to Comply with This Court's September 3, 2021 Order., 395 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to the Accusers as "Victims" or "Minor Victims"., 385 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence Offered by the Government Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) for Failure to Comply with the Rule's Notice Requirement., 394 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Testimony About Any Alleged "Rape" by Jeffrey Epstein., 391 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005., 392. MOTION in Limine to Suppress Identification., 393 MOTION in Limine fo Preclude Law Enforcement Witnesses from Offering Expert Opinion Testimony.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E) (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/29/2021) 10/29/2021 399 | JOINT LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated Oct. 28, 2021 re: Justifications for redactions Document filed by USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 10/29/2021) 10/29/2021 402 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of Defendant's letter regarding delivery of Defendant's legal mail at MDC. Dkt. No. 381. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond by Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/29/2021)(bw) (Entered: 11/02/2021) 10/31/2021 400 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, and the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386. The issues raised in the two motions overlap significantly. The Court is required under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 to conduct an in camera hearing. Fed. R. Evid. 412 ("Before admitting evidence under this rule, the court must conduct an in camera hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard. Unless the court orders otherwise, the motion, related materials, and the record of the hearing must remain under seal.). In addition, the Court has determined it will conduct a Daubert hearing with respect to the Defendant's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Because of the overlap in the substance of the motions, the Court will conduct the two proceedings back to back. The Court previously set a tentative date for the Rule 412 Motion hearing as November 5, 2021. Dkt. No. 354. The Court is prepared to proceed with both hearings on that date. Alternatively, the proceedings could be held on either the afternoon of November 9 or the afternoon of November 10. The Government shall confer with its proposed expert regarding availability for the Daubert hearing as well as with alleged victims who wish to attend and be heard at the Rule 412 Motion hearing. After doing so, the parties shall confer with each other as to availability. On or before November 2, 2021, the parties shall jointly file a letter with the Court indicating whether the parties request that the hearings be held on November 5, 9, or 10. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/31/2021) (bw) (Entered: 11/01/2021) 11/01/2021 01 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed. redactions to the parties' motions in limine, responses in opposition, replies in support, and related exhibits. As the Court indicated at today's conference, some of the parties' proposed redactions are overbroad considering the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?211087015221896-L_1_0-1 59/113 DOJ-OGR-00020681