DOJ-OGR-00016168.jpg
640 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
640 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. A lawyer, likely Ms. Sternheim, argues about the timing of a witness's testimony and the non-privileged nature of information provided in 2020, mentioning that a lawyer named Mr. Scarola handled interrogatories. Another lawyer, Ms. Comey, and the Judge discuss whether these are arguments for the jury, with the Judge noting the contention that the story has changed over time due to the involvement of civil lawyers.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Sternheim |
Mentioned in the header as the speaker for the 'Opening'.
|
|
| Mr. Scarola | lawyer |
Mentioned as the lawyer who wrote all the answers to interrogatories, which were signed by the client.
|
| MS. COMEY |
A speaker in the transcript, addressing 'Your Honor'.
|
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, addressed as 'Your Honor'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
A court proceeding where legal arguments are being made regarding evidence, witness testimony, and privileged information.
Court
Relationships (1)
Mr. Scarola, who is the lawyer on this topic, wrote all the answers to interrogatories and were signed by the client.
Key Quotes (2)
"Your Honor, as an initial matter, it's not factually accurate that the deposition is --"Source
— MS. COMEY
(Interrupting or correcting a previous statement during the court hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00016168.jpg
Quote #1
"Okay. So these are arguments you're going to make to the jury. It's not -- the contention is that the story has changed and what happened in between was the involvement of civil lawyers."Source
— THE COURT
(Responding to a lawyer's argument, framing it as a matter for the jury to decide and summarizing the opposing contention.)
DOJ-OGR-00016168.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,653 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 741 Filed 08/10/22 Page 58 of 106
LBTVMAX3
Opening - Ms. Sternheim
62
1
It is only after years and after the fund is open that
2
we then have this witness coming forward in conjunction with
3
this email that I'm talking about that we've referenced in
4
papers to the Court. So, for example, Mr. Scarola, who is the
5
lawyer on this topic, wrote all the answers to interrogatories
6
and were signed by the client. Then we fast forward, and we
7
have all this information that's being provided in 2020 which
8
is not present in 2008.
9
First of all, all the answers to interrogatories are
10
not privileged. The communications in the complaint are not
11
privileged. The lack of information about our client in that
12
complaint can be inferred that after that is when all this
13
comes up, because we are seeking money from the victim
14
compensation fund and we are using the government as part and
15
parcel of that to buttress our claim to the fund.
16
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, as an initial matter, it's not
17
factually accurate that the deposition is --
18
THE COURT: Okay. So these are arguments you're going
19
to make to the jury. It's not -- the contention is that the
20
story has changed and what happened in between was the
21
involvement of civil lawyers. I have no idea what the evidence
22
exactly will show with that, and it sounds like there are going
23
to be arguments to be made on both sides, but that's not based
24
on privileged testimony. And I have a proffer that the story
25
has changed over time and what intervened between civil
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016168
LBTVMAX3
Opening - Ms. Sternheim
62
1
It is only after years and after the fund is open that
2
we then have this witness coming forward in conjunction with
3
this email that I'm talking about that we've referenced in
4
papers to the Court. So, for example, Mr. Scarola, who is the
5
lawyer on this topic, wrote all the answers to interrogatories
6
and were signed by the client. Then we fast forward, and we
7
have all this information that's being provided in 2020 which
8
is not present in 2008.
9
First of all, all the answers to interrogatories are
10
not privileged. The communications in the complaint are not
11
privileged. The lack of information about our client in that
12
complaint can be inferred that after that is when all this
13
comes up, because we are seeking money from the victim
14
compensation fund and we are using the government as part and
15
parcel of that to buttress our claim to the fund.
16
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, as an initial matter, it's not
17
factually accurate that the deposition is --
18
THE COURT: Okay. So these are arguments you're going
19
to make to the jury. It's not -- the contention is that the
20
story has changed and what happened in between was the
21
involvement of civil lawyers. I have no idea what the evidence
22
exactly will show with that, and it sounds like there are going
23
to be arguments to be made on both sides, but that's not based
24
on privileged testimony. And I have a proffer that the story
25
has changed over time and what intervened between civil
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016168
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document