mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012098.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "78",
    "document_number": "745",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 264 484 LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross demanding $25 million in civil litigation while this criminal case was pending? MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. As long as it's framed in terms of her knowledge; we have no objection to what she knows about or was involved in. What we want to avoid is a scenario where following a question like that, a legal document exchanged between attorneys was then shown to the witness to refresh her recollection, and this witness was asked to read into the record comments her attorney made, which would not be admissible under Rule 408 if she doesn't know about them because they can't speak to her bias if she is not aware of those communications. THE COURT: So just to spin out the question, Were you demanding $25 million during -- in a civil lawsuit while this criminal investigation was pending? I suppose one response would be I don't know, one response is yes, and one response is no. So if the response is yes, you move on? MS. MENNINGER: Yes. THE COURT: If the response is I don't know, what do you do? MS. MENNINGER: Refresh her recollection with her own SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012098",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 264 484 LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "demanding $25 million in civil litigation while this criminal case was pending? MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. As long as it's framed in terms of her knowledge; we have no objection to what she knows about or was involved in. What we want to avoid is a scenario where following a question like that, a legal document exchanged between attorneys was then shown to the witness to refresh her recollection, and this witness was asked to read into the record comments her attorney made, which would not be admissible under Rule 408 if she doesn't know about them because they can't speak to her bias if she is not aware of those communications. THE COURT: So just to spin out the question, Were you demanding $25 million during -- in a civil lawsuit while this criminal investigation was pending? I suppose one response would be I don't know, one response is yes, and one response is no. So if the response is yes, you move on? MS. MENNINGER: Yes. THE COURT: If the response is I don't know, what do you do? MS. MENNINGER: Refresh her recollection with her own",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012098",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "745",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012098"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}