DOJ-OGR-00010039.jpg
454 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Deposition transcript / court filing
File Size:
454 KB
Summary
This is a page from a deposition transcript involving a witness named Ms. Brune (likely an attorney). She is being questioned about a discrepancy between facts presented in a July 21st letter and a legal brief, and a subsequent conference call with Judge Pauley on July 22nd where the Judge expressed unhappiness with the conflicting information. Brune expresses regret for 'missing' something in the brief.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Brune | Witness/Deponent |
Being questioned regarding legal briefs, letters, and interactions with the Court/Judge Pauley.
|
| Judge Pauley | Judge |
Presided over the conference call; described as 'not happy' with the legal team.
|
| Defense Counsel | Attorney |
Mentioned as being questioned by the Court regarding conflicting versions of facts.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| The Court |
Timeline (2 events)
July 22nd
Court convened a conference call regarding conflicting facts in defense filings.
Court (Teleconference)
Relationships (1)
Ms. Brune describes Judge Pauley's reaction on a conference call.
Key Quotes (3)
"I think we missed it. And it's something that I greatly regret, there is no question about that."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010039.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge Pauley... certainly was conveying that he wanted to get to the bottom of things and that he was not happy with us."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010039.jpg
Quote #2
"Indeed, the Court inquired of the defense counsel why he was getting two different versions of the facts, correct?"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010039.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,533 characters)
Case 1:20-cv-00813-LAP Document 646-20 Filed 08/24/22 Page 17 of 30
A-5756
A-5756
299
C2grdau2 Brune - direct
1 convey. As I think I've already said, though, when I reflect
2 on the brief, I think we missed it. And it's something that I
3 greatly regret, there is no question about that.
4 Q. The Court convened a conference call on July 22nd, correct?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. You participated on that call, correct?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Indeed, the Court inquired of the defense counsel why he
9 was getting two different versions of the facts, correct?
10 A. Something along those lines, yes.
11 Q. When you compare what you said in the July 21st letter to
12 the facts as laid out in the brief, those are two very
13 different set of facts, correct?
14 A. I can't sort of say for sure what Judge Pauley was
15 thinking, but he certainly was conveying that he wanted to get
16 to the bottom of things and that he was not happy with us.
17 Q. That wasn't my question, Ms. Brune. My question was, if
18 you compare the facts as they are laid out in your letter to
19 the facts as they are laid out in the brief, those are two very
20 different sets of facts, correct?
21 A. I don't agree with you. I thought what you were asking me
22 to say was what Judge Pauley was thinking.
23 Q. No, that wasn't my question. Is it your testimony here,
24 Ms. Brune, that you did not find it a material fact, the things
25 that you uncovered prior to the return of the jury's verdict?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
C2grdau2 Brune - direct
1 convey. As I think I've already said, though, when I reflect
2 on the brief, I think we missed it. And it's something that I
3 greatly regret, there is no question about that.
4 Q. The Court convened a conference call on July 22nd, correct?
5 A. Yes, that's right.
6 Q. You participated on that call, correct?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Indeed, the Court inquired of the defense counsel why he
9 was getting two different versions of the facts, correct?
10 A. Something along those lines, yes.
11 Q. When you compare what you said in the July 21st letter to
12 the facts as laid out in the brief, those are two very
13 different set of facts, correct?
14 A. I can't sort of say for sure what Judge Pauley was
15 thinking, but he certainly was conveying that he wanted to get
16 to the bottom of things and that he was not happy with us.
17 Q. That wasn't my question, Ms. Brune. My question was, if
18 you compare the facts as they are laid out in your letter to
19 the facts as they are laid out in the brief, those are two very
20 different sets of facts, correct?
21 A. I don't agree with you. I thought what you were asking me
22 to say was what Judge Pauley was thinking.
23 Q. No, that wasn't my question. Is it your testimony here,
24 Ms. Brune, that you did not find it a material fact, the things
25 that you uncovered prior to the return of the jury's verdict?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00010039
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document