mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010059.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "319",
    "document_number": "A-5776",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU3 Brune - redirect 319\n1   sure I completely understand your question, but the point is,\n2   if it became an issue I of course would lay out the accurate\n3   facts.\n4       THE COURT: But then how would the Court or the\n5   government have anticipated that your firm had knowledge about\n6   certain matters if you didn't disclose it?\n7       THE WITNESS: Well, the way that it came up, Judge, is\n8   that the government said something like, well, anybody can see\n9   that if you Google this it comes up. And it was sort of lying\n10  there right on the surface, that if you Google it, it comes up.\n11  And that's why I said to the Court that I assumed it was going\n12  to come up. But I didn't think I was supposed to make\n13  arguments if the government wasn't going to make it.\n14      It would have been a different matter if we had\n15  knowledge. We didn't know. I didn't think it was a\n16  meritorious argument or an issue that in any way undercut the\n17  application that we made. But if the government wanted to\n18  raise the argument and it was sort of their choice, then we\n19  followed that wherever it led.\n20      I mean, I really thought that the government had\n21  Googled too, and that we were in the same place with respect to\n22  Juror No. 1. But the government clearly Googled her at the\n23  point that they received the letter. So it was not like it was\n24  some mysterious thing that one can conduct a Google search on\n25  this juror. I did not know about the Westlaw report at the\n    SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n    (212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010059",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Brune - redirect 319",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1   sure I completely understand your question, but the point is,\n2   if it became an issue I of course would lay out the accurate\n3   facts.\n4       THE COURT: But then how would the Court or the\n5   government have anticipated that your firm had knowledge about\n6   certain matters if you didn't disclose it?\n7       THE WITNESS: Well, the way that it came up, Judge, is\n8   that the government said something like, well, anybody can see\n9   that if you Google this it comes up. And it was sort of lying\n10  there right on the surface, that if you Google it, it comes up.\n11  And that's why I said to the Court that I assumed it was going\n12  to come up. But I didn't think I was supposed to make\n13  arguments if the government wasn't going to make it.\n14      It would have been a different matter if we had\n15  knowledge. We didn't know. I didn't think it was a\n16  meritorious argument or an issue that in any way undercut the\n17  application that we made. But if the government wanted to\n18  raise the argument and it was sort of their choice, then we\n19  followed that wherever it led.\n20      I mean, I really thought that the government had\n21  Googled too, and that we were in the same place with respect to\n22  Juror No. 1. But the government clearly Googled her at the\n23  point that they received the letter. So it was not like it was\n24  some mysterious thing that one can conduct a Google search on\n25  this juror. I did not know about the Westlaw report at the",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010059",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "A-5776",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010059"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the text."
}