HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842.jpg

1.52 MB

Extraction Summary

2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Deposition transcript (rough draft)
File Size: 1.52 MB
Summary

This document is page 19 of a rough draft deposition transcript. A witness explains a technical word processing error that caused a 'star footnote' to disappear from a legal filing (a joinder motion) near the University of Utah signature block. The questioner presses the witness on whether this error made it appear as though the University of Utah was endorsing the pleading, to which the witness begins to disagree.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Speaker A Witness/Deponent
Explaining a clerical error regarding a footnote and signature block in a legal filing.
Speaker Q Interviewer/Attorney
Questioning the witness about the potential perception of the University of Utah's involvement due to the clerical er...

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
University of Utah
Mentioned in the context of a signature block on a legal document.
House Oversight Committee
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.

Timeline (2 events)

Approximately 3 days after initial filing
Filing of a corrected pleading with the star footnote restored.
Court filing (implied)
Prior to deposition
Filing of a joinder motion where a footnote dropped off due to word processing issues.
Court filing (implied)

Relationships (1)

Speaker A Professional/Legal University of Utah
Speaker A was responsible for filing a document that included a University of Utah signature block.

Key Quotes (4)

"one of the problems with the Word processing program to drop a star footnote is it requires... different sections"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842.jpg
Quote #1
"put in a footnote where the University of Utah signature block is, for example, it becomes footnote 2"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842.jpg
Quote #2
"I realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I filed a corrected pleading"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842.jpg
Quote #3
"You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a reasonable reader... could conclude that the University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing behind this pleading?"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,431 characters)

19
1 A. The footnote -- one of the problems with the
2 Word processing program to drop a star footnote is
3 it requires, under the word programing, you have to to
4 have different sections in the document because
5 otherwise it would be footnote -- let's see.
6 Yes, so there was already a footnote 1 on the
7 joinder motion and so, what happens with footnotes is if
8 you identify it as footnote, put in a footnote where the
9 University of Utah signature block is, for example, it
10 becomes footnote 2, so then you have to create a
11 different section and then once you have a different
12 section you can establish a new number and a new
13 nomenclature instead of numbers. You can have the
14 asterisk, and so somehow with the signature block
15 getting reprocessed here, that star footnote dropped off
16 and within I think -- I think it was about three days, I
17 realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I
18 filed a corrected pleading with the -- with the new star
19 footnote on it.
20 Q. You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a
21 reasonable reader looking at the signature block on the
22 as filed original document, could conclude that the
23 University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing
24 behind this pleading?
25 A. I don't think that's quite fair. I think the
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document