mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010057.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "317",
    "document_number": "A-5774",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU3 Brune - recross 317\n1 numbers?\n2 A. The thing has something that said fraud alert and it\n3 indicates that there were two Social Security numbers, and so,\n4 of course I'm just testifying about what I would have thought,\n5 but I thought that would be consistent with what I thought I\n6 knew, that there were two people floating around with the same\n7 name.\n8 MR. SCHECTMAN: Thank you.\n9 THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Davis?\n10 MS. DAVIS: No, your Honor.\n11 THE COURT: Ms. Brune, I have a question for you.\n12 Would your firm have disclosed the information in your firm's\n13 July 21 letter and the investigation into Juror No. 1 if the\n14 Court had not inquired or the government failed to raise the\n15 waiver issue?\n16 THE WITNESS: I don't think we would have, your Honor.\n17 And as I think about it, we have an ethical obligation to be\n18 accurate and honest, and it's something that we take very\n19 seriously. But I don't think that we're obliged to identify\n20 arguments that the government might make in our opening brief.\n21 I mean, when we go through the case law, of course, we have to\n22 say the authority and then if we think there's contrary\n23 authority out there we have to state that, but as I said to the\n24 Court on the call, I kind of assumed it was coming and I was\n25 going to respond accurately. So I didn't spend a lot of time\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010057",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Brune - recross 317",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 numbers?\n2 A. The thing has something that said fraud alert and it\n3 indicates that there were two Social Security numbers, and so,\n4 of course I'm just testifying about what I would have thought,\n5 but I thought that would be consistent with what I thought I\n6 knew, that there were two people floating around with the same\n7 name.\n8 MR. SCHECTMAN: Thank you.\n9 THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Davis?\n10 MS. DAVIS: No, your Honor.\n11 THE COURT: Ms. Brune, I have a question for you.\n12 Would your firm have disclosed the information in your firm's\n13 July 21 letter and the investigation into Juror No. 1 if the\n14 Court had not inquired or the government failed to raise the\n15 waiver issue?\n16 THE WITNESS: I don't think we would have, your Honor.\n17 And as I think about it, we have an ethical obligation to be\n18 accurate and honest, and it's something that we take very\n19 seriously. But I don't think that we're obliged to identify\n20 arguments that the government might make in our opening brief.\n21 I mean, when we go through the case law, of course, we have to\n22 say the authority and then if we think there's contrary\n23 authority out there we have to state that, but as I said to the\n24 Court on the call, I kind of assumed it was coming and I was\n25 going to respond accurately. So I didn't spend a lot of time",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010057",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Brune",
      "Schectman",
      "Davis"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "A-5774",
      "Juror No. 1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010057"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}