DOJ-OGR-00008121.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 509-1 Filed 11/24/21 Page 10 of 10 1997). The case the defendant cites is not to the contrary. (See Opp. 16). There a civil defendant asked to exclude expert testimony on the grounds that the witnesses had given deposition testimony at odds with their proffered trial testimony. R.B. Ventures, Ltd. v. Shane, 91 Civ. 5678 (CSH), 2000 WL 520615, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2000). The court’s disagreement thus was not a ruling on prior inconsistent statements at all, but rather a statement of the obvious point that witnesses can still give direct testimony even if they might then be impeached with prior inconsistent statements during cross-examination. See id. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and in the Government’s initial memorandum, the Government respectfully requests that the Court preclude Dr. Hall’s testimony. Dated: November 22, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys DOJ-OGR-00008121