{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "211",
    "document_number": "A-5806",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case#: 2326-eb-030838-ABH NuDocument#: 6442 / 2 Exhibit#: 032020122 Page#: 211 of 330 A-5806 349 C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 1 A. She didn't mention what the basis was. 2 Q. But she told you that she had learned of it, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And is it fair that you inferred that she through her 5 Google search or some sort of investigation had learned that 6 fact? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So that's what led you just a moment ago to say you knew 9 that Theresa Trzaskoma had previously learned certain facts 10 pursuant to an investigation, right? 11 A. Well, no. What I was trying to distinguish was what I knew 12 on May 12th, versus what I knew by the time we were writing the 13 brief. 14 Q. Okay, and in this brief, the sentence that you just read 15 conveys the notion, does it not, that you learned of the facts 16 concerning the suspension and the other things only after you 17 received a note, correct? 18 A. Again, that's a difficult question to answer yes or no. I 19 can see now how it might be construed that way, but when it was 20 written, and I still believe it was accurate, that it's 21 describing what we did when we -- and I think it's what I 22 testified to earlier, that when I received the letter it caused 23 us concern and prompted us to investigate. We were describing 24 that. 25 I can see now with hindsight -- I see many things now SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00010089",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case#: 2326-eb-030838-ABH NuDocument#: 6442 / 2 Exhibit#: 032020122 Page#: 211 of 330 A-5806",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "349 C2GFDAU3 Edelstein",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 A. She didn't mention what the basis was. 2 Q. But she told you that she had learned of it, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And is it fair that you inferred that she through her 5 Google search or some sort of investigation had learned that 6 fact? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So that's what led you just a moment ago to say you knew 9 that Theresa Trzaskoma had previously learned certain facts 10 pursuant to an investigation, right? 11 A. Well, no. What I was trying to distinguish was what I knew 12 on May 12th, versus what I knew by the time we were writing the 13 brief. 14 Q. Okay, and in this brief, the sentence that you just read 15 conveys the notion, does it not, that you learned of the facts 16 concerning the suspension and the other things only after you 17 received a note, correct? 18 A. Again, that's a difficult question to answer yes or no. I 19 can see now how it might be construed that way, but when it was 20 written, and I still believe it was accurate, that it's 21 describing what we did when we -- and I think it's what I 22 testified to earlier, that when I received the letter it caused 23 us concern and prompted us to investigate. We were describing 24 that. 25 I can see now with hindsight -- I see many things now",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010089",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Edelstein",
      "Theresa Trzaskoma"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "May 12th"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "2326-eb-030838-ABH",
      "6442",
      "032020122",
      "A-5806",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010089"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}