Day 29 - November 8, 2021

Outside the jury's presence, the court considered the permissible scope of Roger Parloff's testimony about his interviews with Holmes, his firsthand observations, and the resulting Fortune article. The government disclaimed questions asking Parloff to assess Holmes's honesty, while the defense argued that he should be confined to objective facts and warned that subjective interpretations could implicate other reporting sources, hindsight, bias, and Rule 403 concerns. The court permitted limited inquiry into the interview context, Holmes's demeanor, and Parloff's understanding of her responses insofar as it formed the basis for the article, while restricting veracity opinions, speculation about Holmes's meaning, and broad hypotheticals. It approved a proposed comparison between a Holmes statement and language in the article, subject to careful phrasing and question-by-question objections. The court also left Magistrate Judge Cousins's subpoena ruling undisturbed and held related objections under submission pending Parloff's testimony.