DOJ-OGR-00006216.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page5of41 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Government respectfully moves to preclude certain opinions from Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. Rather than focus narrowly on reliable opinions that would be relevant to issues in this case, the defendant proposes to have Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus testify broadly about a wide variety of topics, from testimony about various psychological disorders to testimony regarding the generation of false memories in laboratory settings, that are not helpful to the jury. Many of those opinions are also unreliable, squarely within the ken of the average juror, or would invade the province of the Court and the jury if offered. To the extent Dr. Rocchio is permitted to testify on her opinions, the Court should admit reliable opinions on the same topics by defense experts. But the defense’s expert notice for Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus is far more expansive, and some of the defense’s responsive opinions are not reliable. The Court should preclude many of their opinions. 1. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS FROM DR. DIETZ A. Background As described in the defense expert notice, attached as Exhibit A!, the defense offers the opinions of Dr. Dietz, an expert psychiatrist, both in response to the Government’s expert Dr. Lisa Rocchio and on several other subjects. ' The Government moves to file a redacted version of Exhibit A and to seal Exhibit B. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although these exhibits are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims, including victims who have not been publicly identified, and who are a subject of the Court’s order granting the motion to let certain victims and witnesses testify under pseudonyms, and third parties. Because the Government has already moved to file a redacted version of Exhibit A (see Dkt. No. 418), the same version is attached to this motion. DOJ-OGR-00006216