Epstein Secrets

ense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conduc

the proper interpretation of evidence, "it is not the Court's role to resolve the dispute through exclusion of one of the expert's opinions." In re Digital Musk Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Moreover, Dr. Rocchio addressed these contrary articles during the Daubert hearing, identifying points of agr

ense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conduc

the proper interpretation of evidence, "it is not the Court's role to resolve the dispute through exclusion of one of the expert's opinions." In re Digital Musk Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Moreover, Dr. Rocchio addressed these contrary articles during the Daubert hearing, identifying points of agr

ense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conduc

the proper interpretation of evidence, "it is not the Court's role to resolve the dispute through exclusion of one of the expert's opinions." In re Digital Musk Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Moreover, Dr. Rocchio addressed these contrary articles during the Daubert hearing, identifying points of agr