DOJ-OGR-00008066.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document507- Filed 11/24/21 Page 25 of 28 See United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 50 (2d Cir. 2019) (concluding that “an account and litigation consultant” who “summar[ized] . . . the relevant financial records” was not an expert witness). The Government has similarly provided expert notice in an abundance of caution for Stephen Flatley, an FBI computer forensic examiner who will testify as a fact witness about his extraction of devices seized pursuant to court authorized search warrants and evidence recovered from those devices. !! To the extent Kelso and Lopez would testify based on their “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,” however, that testimony is expert testimony. /d. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)). And any such testimony is not reflected in the expert notice. These expert notices provide lists of “general and in some cases extremely broad topics,” which is “plainly inadequate” under Rule 16. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. For instance, the notice for Kelso states that he will testify “generally about computer forensic principles associated with the creation of documents,” and testify “about user data associated with certain devices seized and searched by the government’s team in this case.” (Ex. A at 12). It also states that the defense may “update the topics for Mr. Kelso” before trial. (/d. at 13 (emphasis added)). Similarly, Lopez will “discuss various transfers of funds that are reflected in the financial records and explain the information contained in the financial records.” (/d.). These lists of topics do not permit the Government to identify Kelso and Lopez’s opinions, determine whether the proffered experts are in fact expert on those subjects, and litigate the reliability and relevance of those opinions. '! The Government also pointed to four other cases in this District and the Eastern District in which Flatley testified, including United States v. Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.). 23 DOJ-OGR-00008066