This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge and two lawyers, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on procedural issues, specifically the potential need to docket an exhibit for an unavailable witness and the judge's refusal to act on a previously submitted letter because its application was unclear. The judge states that the item will only be docketed if it is used as a judicial document in the proceedings.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the case, speaking with counsel about procedural matters.
|
| MS. MENNINGER | Counsel |
Speaking to the court about docketing an exhibit and making a record.
|
| MS. COMEY | Counsel |
Speaking to the court, agreeing with Ms. Menninger and the Court.
|
| Hyppolite | Witness |
Mentioned in the header of the transcript, indicating this is part of their direct examination.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
"It may be important for a foundational -- an exhibit that may be predicated on an unavailable witness, and that's the only reason I am considering whether anything else needs to happen."Source
"But, as I said, I didn't understand an application in that letter, so I'm not doing anything with it."Source
"If that becomes a judicial document, if I use it in some way, it will be docketed."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,374 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document