DOJ-OGR-00013849.jpg
543 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
543 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge. The discussion revolves around the defense's potential desire to call plaintiffs' attorneys as witnesses, the implications for attorney-client privilege, and a disclosure made in an email. The judge encourages the parties to reach a stipulation regarding what information was relayed to the government to resolve the issue.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. MOE | Counsel/Attorney |
Speaker in the court transcript, addressing the Court and discussing legal issues such as calling attorneys as witnes...
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the court transcript, presiding over the hearing, asking questions, and encouraging a stipulation between ...
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Counsel/Attorney |
Speaker in the court transcript, addressing the Court on issues similar to those raised by Ms. Moe.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the government | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case with whom counsel would speak and to whom information was relayed.
|
| the Court | Judicial body |
The entity presiding over the case, which has previously made clear its position on briefing certain issues.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the document as the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion in court regarding legal strategy, specifically about the possibility of calling plaintiffs' attorneys as defense witnesses, the implications for attorney-client privilege, and a disclosure made in an email.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
Ms. Moe addresses the Court as 'your Honor' and presents legal arguments during a formal court proceeding.
Ms. Menninger addresses the Court as 'your Honor' and participates in the legal discussion.
They are both counsel in the same case, discussing issues before the judge. The Court refers to an email 'between you all', suggesting they are on opposing sides of the issue being discussed.
Key Quotes (3)
"Our view remains the same as it has been throughout this case, which is that there's no basis for calling plaintiffs' attorneys as defense witnesses. There's no basis for waiving attorney-client privilege."Source
— MS. MOE
(Stating her legal position to the Court regarding the use of attorneys as witnesses.)
DOJ-OGR-00013849.jpg
Quote #1
"And the Court has been very clear that that issue should be briefed in full before any witnesses along those lines should be called."Source
— MS. MOE
(Recalling a previous directive from the Court on the procedure for handling the issue of attorney testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00013849.jpg
Quote #2
"It's in that context that I've encouraged a stipulation as to what was relayed to the government."Source
— THE COURT
(Explaining the Court's preference for an agreement between the parties to avoid further disputes over what information was disclosed.)
DOJ-OGR-00013849.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,697 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 258 of 267 2286
LCAVMAX8
LCAVMAX8
1 It would be something we speak with the government
2 about and brief if we believe that the testimony elicited
3 during the government's case would give rise to such testimony
4 from any other attorney.
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
6 We'd be happy to confer with the defense about any of
7 these issues.
8 Our view remains the same as it has been throughout
9 this case, which is that there's no basis for calling
10 plaintiffs' attorneys as defense witnesses. There's no basis
11 for waiving attorney-client privilege. And the Court has been
12 very clear that that issue should be briefed in full before any
13 witnesses along those lines should be called. But, again,
14 we're happy to confer with the defense about that.
15 THE COURT: Okay. You'll confer.
16 The one that's been teed up is where there's an
17 email --
18 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: -- between you all and which it appears,
20 at least on the face of the email, that counsel made a
21 disclosure.
22 MS. MENNINGER: That's similar to other issues, your
23 Honor.
24 THE COURT: It's in that context that I've encouraged
25 a stipulation as to what was relayed to the government.
2 about and brief if we believe that the testimony elicited
3 during the government's case would give rise to such testimony
4 from any other attorney.
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
6 We'd be happy to confer with the defense about any of
7 these issues.
8 Our view remains the same as it has been throughout
9 this case, which is that there's no basis for calling
10 plaintiffs' attorneys as defense witnesses. There's no basis
11 for waiving attorney-client privilege. And the Court has been
12 very clear that that issue should be briefed in full before any
13 witnesses along those lines should be called. But, again,
14 we're happy to confer with the defense about that.
15 THE COURT: Okay. You'll confer.
16 The one that's been teed up is where there's an
17 email --
18 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: -- between you all and which it appears,
20 at least on the face of the email, that counsel made a
21 disclosure.
22 MS. MENNINGER: That's similar to other issues, your
23 Honor.
24 THE COURT: It's in that context that I've encouraged
25 a stipulation as to what was relayed to the government.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013849
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document