mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010038.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "298",
    "document_number": "A-5755",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2grdau2 Brune - direct 298\n1 attached that to your July 21st letter, correct?\n2 A. When we submitted the letter, as she had promised to do, we\n3 certainly attached the Westlaw opinion.\n4 Q. That was a fact that had come to light, correct?\n5 A. Yes, that's correct.\n6 Q. She's telling the Court, we were not aware of them, clearly\n7 trying to imply that you all found this well after the trial\n8 was over, correct?\n9 A. I don't think that's what she meant to imply at all. I\n10 think what she is saying is that we were going to submit a\n11 letter and the plan was then to submit a letter laying it out,\n12 which is what we did.\n13 I don't believe Ms. Trzaskoma was trying to mislead\n14 the Court. I think she would have been not as precise as she should have\n15 been, and she would have done better to say we are going to\n16 submit a letter, but I don't believe she was trying to mislead\n17 the Court. Indeed, we laid it out in the letter.\n18 Q. Let me stop you there. You are so far beyond the question\n19 that I asked that I would like to get us back on track, if I\n20 could. In your brief you told this Court and painted a picture\n21 like the beginning of your knowledge was the letter from Ms.\n22 Conrad. You omitted everything that had happened prior to\n23 that, correct?\n24 A. I believe that it's true that our knowledge came after we\n25 received the letter. That's what the brief was intended to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2grdau2 Brune - direct 298",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 attached that to your July 21st letter, correct?\n2 A. When we submitted the letter, as she had promised to do, we\n3 certainly attached the Westlaw opinion.\n4 Q. That was a fact that had come to light, correct?\n5 A. Yes, that's correct.\n6 Q. She's telling the Court, we were not aware of them, clearly\n7 trying to imply that you all found this well after the trial\n8 was over, correct?\n9 A. I don't think that's what she meant to imply at all. I\n10 think what she is saying is that we were going to submit a\n11 letter and the plan was then to submit a letter laying it out,\n12 which is what we did.\n13 I don't believe Ms. Trzaskoma was trying to mislead\n14 the Court. I think she would have been not as precise as she should have\n15 been, and she would have done better to say we are going to\n16 submit a letter, but I don't believe she was trying to mislead\n17 the Court. Indeed, we laid it out in the letter.\n18 Q. Let me stop you there. You are so far beyond the question\n19 that I asked that I would like to get us back on track, if I\n20 could. In your brief you told this Court and painted a picture\n21 like the beginning of your knowledge was the letter from Ms.\n22 Conrad. You omitted everything that had happened prior to\n23 that, correct?\n24 A. I believe that it's true that our knowledge came after we\n25 received the letter. That's what the brief was intended to",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Trzaskoma",
      "Ms. Conrad"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 21st"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5755"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}