mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014283.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "177",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 177 of 197 2718 LCHVMAX6 where the deposition excerpt was contained. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MENNINGER: And it's on that page 45. It's the first question on that page. THE COURT: All right. I'm sustaining the objection. 201(a) has not been sufficiently established, in light of the posture of the litigation and what was materially in dispute. What's next? MS. MENNINGER: With respect to 804(b)(1), your Honor, for the deposition excerpt for Mr. Epstein. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Mr. Rohrbach. MR. ROHRBACH: It is the same objection here, your Honor. Since this is a question about a fact that was the precise -- sorry, let me -- THE COURT: It's not the same. MR. ROHRBACH: It's not exactly the same. But let's look at the language of 804, which is, in order for it to be offered against a party, the party has to have had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it. The government's motive in developing this fact is completely different than it was in the civil litigation. The government's motive here is to determine where Mr. Epstein personally lived. The government's motive in this deposition was to determine whether he had moved -- whatever that means -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014283",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 177 of 197 2718 LCHVMAX6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "where the deposition excerpt was contained. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MENNINGER: And it's on that page 45. It's the first question on that page. THE COURT: All right. I'm sustaining the objection. 201(a) has not been sufficiently established, in light of the posture of the litigation and what was materially in dispute. What's next? MS. MENNINGER: With respect to 804(b)(1), your Honor, for the deposition excerpt for Mr. Epstein. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Mr. Rohrbach. MR. ROHRBACH: It is the same objection here, your Honor. Since this is a question about a fact that was the precise -- sorry, let me -- THE COURT: It's not the same. MR. ROHRBACH: It's not exactly the same. But let's look at the language of 804, which is, in order for it to be offered against a party, the party has to have had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it. The government's motive in developing this fact is completely different than it was in the civil litigation. The government's motive here is to determine where Mr. Epstein personally lived. The government's motive in this deposition was to determine whether he had moved -- whatever that means --",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014283",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014283"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}