Relationship Details

This document is a page from a legal deposition or court transcript where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness on May 12th of an investigation conducted by a colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, regarding a 'suspended lawyer'. Edelstein admits to knowing about the suspended lawyer on that date but denies being aware of Trzaskoma's investigation itself.

This document is a transcript of legal testimony from an individual named Edelstein, filed on February 24, 2020. Edelstein is questioned about receiving a memo from David Benhamou via email while in San Francisco, which detailed information on 'Juror No. 1', an 'Appellate Division order', and a 'Westlaw report'. The questioning also reveals that Edelstein's partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, referred to the information as a 'dossier' and that Edelstein reviewed a suspension report concerning a Catherine M. Conrad from Bronxville.

This document is a court transcript of the questioning of an individual named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness of a juror's (Catherine Conrad) past involvement in a lawsuit, information received from Theresa Trzaskoma via a Westlaw report, and the subsequent decision to hire Nardello to investigate after receiving a 'juror letter'.

This document is a transcript of legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is being questioned about his role in drafting a legal brief. The questioning focuses on discussions he had with colleagues, Susan Brune and Randy Kim, concerning whether to disclose facts learned from Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12th. The timing of these strategic discussions, specifically whether they occurred before the receipt of a "juror letter," is a central point of the inquiry.

This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness, Edelstein, is questioned about a conversation with Theresa Trzaskoma and Susan Brune. Edelstein recounts that Trzaskoma, after receiving a note from Juror No. 1, recalled that there was a suspended New York lawyer with the same name as someone relevant to their case. The witness denies prior knowledge of this information from their firm and clarifies their understanding of the situation at the time.

This document is a transcript of testimony from an individual named Edelstein. Edelstein is being questioned about their knowledge of a dossier or information gathered on Catherine Conrad. The witness recalls a conversation on June 20th with Theresa Trzaskoma about the information and being directed to a memo from a paralegal, David Benhamou, but denies characterizing the information as a 'dossier' and is uncertain about the exact timeline of events relative to a July 15th conference.

This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about their knowledge of Catherine Conrad, a suspended New York attorney. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein could have researched Conrad on May 12th and clarifies that Edelstein's information came from Theresa Trzaskoma, who stated Conrad was a suspended lawyer but did not mention a specific 'suspension report'.

This document is a transcript from a legal deposition where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned about the timeline of their knowledge concerning certain facts. Edelstein clarifies that their understanding of the situation evolved, distinguishing between what was known on May 12th and what was known later when writing a legal brief. The testimony reveals that a letter received by Edelstein prompted an investigation into the matter.

This document is a court transcript of testimony given by an individual named Edelstein, filed on February 24, 2022. Edelstein is being questioned about his awareness that a juror, Ms. Conrad (Juror No. 1), was the same person as Catherine M. Conrad, a suspended New York attorney. He states that he initially found it 'inconceivable' they were the same person and was not focused on her middle initial, and denies being told by Theresa Trzaskoma about reports or documents that would have clarified the juror's identity.

This document is a legal transcript of testimony given by Ms. Edelstein. She is questioned about whether her partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, informed her on May 12 about potential misconduct by Juror No. 1. Ms. Edelstein denies being told that Trzaskoma believed the juror was a suspended New York attorney and claims she cannot recall the specifics of their conversation.

This document is a court transcript of the testimony of a witness named Edelstein. During questioning by attorneys Mr. Schectman and Mr. Okula, Edelstein denies knowing that Juror No. 1 was a suspended lawyer. However, Edelstein admits to discussing the matter with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma in a park, where they collectively decided not to bring it to the court's attention or conduct an investigation.

This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022, where a witness named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a legal brief. The questioning centers on whether Edelstein was aware that her colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, had already investigated an individual named Catherine Conrad before the final version of the brief was written. The testimony references specific passages from the brief concerning Conrad's credibility and the justification for the investigation.

This document is a legal transcript from a deposition where the witness, Edelstein, is questioned about the discovery of information regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine M. Conrad. The questioning focuses on the timeline of when Edelstein's side learned from a Westlaw report that the juror was a suspended attorney, referencing an email sent within the firm, a letter received on June 20, and a court conference on July 15 involving Theresa Trzaskoma.

This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the questioning of a witness named Edelstein. The interrogation focuses on a phone call that occurred on July 15 involving Theresa Trzaskoma and the Court, probing whether Edelstein's firm made an omission that could be considered a lie. The questioning also explores what the firm knew about certain facts prior to receiving a letter.

This document is a transcript of a legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is being questioned about their role in drafting a legal brief. The questioning focuses on whether Edelstein discussed with colleagues, specifically Susan Brune, the inclusion of certain facts learned from Theresa Trzaskoma on or about May 12th. Edelstein confirms having such a discussion about what to include in the brief prior to the receipt of a 'juror letter'.