DOJ-OGR-00003092.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 158 of 239 long as the question involves a phrase “which could be used with mutual understanding by a questioner and answerer,” it is not fundamentally ambiguous. /d. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Jenkins, 727 F. App’x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2018) (“An individual of ordinary intelligence would not think that a question asking for information regarding ‘real estate, stocks, bonds, ... or other valuable property’ would allow omission of information regarding money market funds... .”). The use of broad or inclusive terms does not render the question fundamentally ambiguous. As the Second Circuit explained in the context of the term “employment activities,” “[t]he broad language of the question is not fundamentally ambiguous; it is instead designed to capture a// employment activities in an applicant’s recent history.” United States v. Polos, 723 F. App’x 64, 65-66 (2d Cir. 2018). So too here. A “sex toy or device” is an intelligible phrase with an understood meaning. See Sex Toy, Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176989 (last visited February 12, 2021) (“[A] device or object designed for sexual stimulation (as a dildo, vibrator, etc.) or to enhance sexual pleasure or The defendant’s objections to the next colloquy in the indictment are similarly unavailing. Shortly after the above exchange, the following conversation occurred: 131 DOJ-OGR- 00003092