This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The primary issue is the scope of testimony for an upcoming witness, Mr. Flatley, concerning whether a file's 'created date' is the same as its 'modified date' on a CD, and whether this constitutes factual testimony or requires an expert opinion.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Judge | Honor |
Presiding over the court case, referred to as 'your Honor' and speaking as 'THE COURT'.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney |
An attorney speaking on behalf of his client, discussing the scope of a witness's testimony.
|
| Mr. Flatley | Witness |
A person expected to testify regarding CDs, created dates, and modified dates of files.
|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney |
An attorney, likely for the defense, raising concerns about Mr. Flatley's intended testimony.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | government agency |
The judicial body hearing the case, identified as a speaker in the transcript.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding, listed at the bottom of the page.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, 'SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.'
|
"Mr. Rohrbach, let's just get to the issue. It sounds like it's narrowed to two things. Every letter I get, it starts with, We're so surprised or this has already been litigated. Let's just get to the issue."Source
"Your Honor, on the CDs, apparently Mr. Flatley intends to testify that a created date is the same thing as a modified date. And also about once a file is burned"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,573 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document