{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "178",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 178 of 197 2719 LCHVMAX6 from one residence to another one by a certain date in order to advance their claims about ejectment and back rent. MS. MENNINGER: In the answer itself, Mr. Epstein says, You asked me that question three times. And the question was, Is it correct that you moved from the premises to 9 East 71st in or around the beginning of 1996? That's the exact question -- THE COURT: What was the response? MS. MENNINGER: You asked me that question three times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know exactly when. And the position of Jane was that he was living there in 1994. So I think under 401, it is a question of whether that's relevant. It is certainly different than the testimony -- THE COURT: The fact that it was asked three times is the argument that it -- contrary to my immediately prior ruling, that there was a motive to develop it? MS. MENNINGER: There was motive to develop it, your Honor. That was the whole point of this litigation. I mean, I can offer the complaint as well, but it's in the summary judgment ruling. THE COURT: Okay. For the same reason, it's sustained. What else? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014284",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 178 of 197 2719 LCHVMAX6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "from one residence to another one by a certain date in order to advance their claims about ejectment and back rent. MS. MENNINGER: In the answer itself, Mr. Epstein says, You asked me that question three times. And the question was, Is it correct that you moved from the premises to 9 East 71st in or around the beginning of 1996? That's the exact question -- THE COURT: What was the response? MS. MENNINGER: You asked me that question three times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know exactly when. And the position of Jane was that he was living there in 1994. So I think under 401, it is a question of whether that's relevant. It is certainly different than the testimony -- THE COURT: The fact that it was asked three times is the argument that it -- contrary to my immediately prior ruling, that there was a motive to develop it? MS. MENNINGER: There was motive to develop it, your Honor. That was the whole point of this litigation. I mean, I can offer the complaint as well, but it's in the summary judgment ruling. THE COURT: Okay. For the same reason, it's sustained. What else?",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014284",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "9 East 71st"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "1996",
      "1994"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014284"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}