DOJ-OGR-00007109.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 58 of 127 58 LB15MAX2 1 post-dating the alleged conspiracy. For example, there ar 2 documents -- I don't know, they weren't specified which 3 documents that this witness intends to authenticate, but among 4 the documents that I believe the witness may attempt to 5 authenticate, they are dated in 2005 and beyond. And so the 6 question really is whether you can -- it is an authentication, 7 one, whether that relates to the conspiracy or not. As we set 8 forth in our reply, your Honor, there is a real concern becaus 9 a number of, I think, the entire first series of exhibits, are 10 largely taken from a period outside of the charged conspiracy. 11 [ think this witness may attempt to authenticate some of those 12 exhibits and they haven't established why that will be relevant 13 to the charged time period of the conspiracy. They really 14 didn't argue 404(b) on this point and we asked for additional 15 time in terms of the direct evidence because we had just 16 received these 400 pages that relate to that particular 17 witness, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: So the basic contention would be if we 19 have a document that, on its face, that post-dates the charged 20 conspiracy. I mean that, alone, is think the first point of 21 your objection, right? 22 MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. 23 THE COURT: The authentication issue aside. What is 24 the relevance of a document that, on its face, post-dates the 25 charged conspiracy? Let's start with that, Ms. Moe. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212%) 805-0220 DOJ-OGR-00007109