Epstein Secrets

will testify but actually "summarize the experts' opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Mer

s."). If the Defense's disclosure of an expert witness does not satisfy Rule 16, the Court has "broad discretion" to fashion an appropriate remedy. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. That discretion is guided by factors including "why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing

ive of credibility. E.g., Sasso, 49 F.3d at 348 (finding that a diagnosis of depression lacked probative value); United 8 EFTA00068508 States v. Giovinco, No. 18-CR-14 (JSR), 2020 WL 832920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2020) (finding that depression did not impact the witness's "ability to accurately per

will testify but actually "summarize the experts' opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Mer

s."). If the Defense's disclosure of an expert witness does not satisfy Rule 16, the Court has "broad discretion" to fashion an appropriate remedy. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. That discretion is guided by factors including "why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing

ive of credibility. E.g., Sasso, 49 F.3d at 348 (finding that a diagnosis of depression lacked probative value); United 8 EFTA00087210 States v. Giovinco, No. 18-CR-14 (JSR), 2020 WL 832920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2020) (finding that depression did not impact the witness's "ability to accurately per

will testify but actually "summarize the experts' opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Mer

s."). If the Defense's disclosure of an expert witness does not satisfy Rule 16, the Court has "broad discretion" to fashion an appropriate remedy. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. That discretion is guided by factors including "why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing

ive of credibility. E.g., Sasso, 49 F.3d at 348 (finding that a diagnosis of depression lacked probative value); United 8 EFTA00089911 States v. Giovinco, No. 18-CR-14 (JSR), 2020 WL 832920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2020) (finding that depression did not impact the witness's "ability to accurately per