mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009367.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "78",
    "document_number": "A-5763",
    "date": "08/24/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 616-2 Filed 08/24/22 Page 78 of 130 A-5763\n\nC2grdau2 Brune - direct 306\n1 A. Except by jury research I want to be sure you understand.\n2 He had done this database work during jury selection but not\n3 pertaining to the juror we were focused on in the call,\n4 Catherine Conrad.\n5 Q. That was the point you made before. That wasn't my\n6 question. You had knowledge here that he did the jury search,\n7 correct?\n8 A. He certainly researched online about prospective jurors,\n9 and then, after we got the letter, we retained him to do an\n10 investigation about whether this was the same person.\n11 Q. The judge on the July 22nd telephone call was clearly\n12 trying to identify all the people who had been involved in that\n13 process, correct?\n14 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this\n15 question.\n16 THE COURT: Sustained.\n17 Q. You didn't identify Mr. Nardello's firm to the judge on\n18 that phonecall? Yes or no.\n19 A. I did not on that phonecall talk about Mr. Nardello, you're\n20 correct on that.\n21 Q. Subsequently, the government requested discovery\n22 specifically about what your firm knew, correct?\n23 A. That's right.\n24 Q. You strongly resisted that discovery, correct?\n25 A. We filed a brief pertaining to our client's work product\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009367",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 616-2 Filed 08/24/22 Page 78 of 130 A-5763",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2grdau2 Brune - direct 306",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 A. Except by jury research I want to be sure you understand.\n2 He had done this database work during jury selection but not\n3 pertaining to the juror we were focused on in the call,\n4 Catherine Conrad.\n5 Q. That was the point you made before. That wasn't my\n6 question. You had knowledge here that he did the jury search,\n7 correct?\n8 A. He certainly researched online about prospective jurors,\n9 and then, after we got the letter, we retained him to do an\n10 investigation about whether this was the same person.\n11 Q. The judge on the July 22nd telephone call was clearly\n12 trying to identify all the people who had been involved in that\n13 process, correct?\n14 MR. GAIR: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this\n15 question.\n16 THE COURT: Sustained.\n17 Q. You didn't identify Mr. Nardello's firm to the judge on\n18 that phonecall? Yes or no.\n19 A. I did not on that phonecall talk about Mr. Nardello, you're\n20 correct on that.\n21 Q. Subsequently, the government requested discovery\n22 specifically about what your firm knew, correct?\n23 A. That's right.\n24 Q. You strongly resisted that discovery, correct?\n25 A. We filed a brief pertaining to our client's work product",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009367",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "Mr. Nardello",
      "Mr. Gair"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 22nd",
      "08/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00336-PAE",
      "616-2",
      "A-5763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009367"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}