← Back to home

Document A-5803

AI Analysis

Summary: The witness is questioned about a court brief they co-signed with Susan Brune, specifically about what they knew before receiving a government letter and whether they intentionally misrepresented facts in the brief. The witness clarifies that they did not try to convey a false impression through the brief's facts section.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals a possible discrepancy in the representation of facts in a court brief and the intentions of the attorneys who prepared it.
Key Topics: testimony about a court brief authorship and content of the brief potential misrepresentation in the brief
Key People:
  • Susan Brune - attorney who co-signed the brief
  • The witness (unnamed) - attorney who testified about the brief

Full Text

C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 346 1 knew beforehand in the brief, right? 2 A. No, that's not accurate. 3 Q. Didn't you tell us a few moments ago that you and Ms. Brune 4 had specifically decided that you were not going to include 5 what your firm knew prior to receiving the government letter in 6 your brief, yes or no? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So are you saying, then, that you were not trying to convey 9 the notion through the facts section of your brief that you had 10 learned of the Appellate Division report only after you had 11 received the letter from the government? 12 A. No, we weren't trying to convey that impression. 13 MR. OKULA: May I have a moment, your Honor? 14 THE COURT: Take your time. 15 (Pause) 16 Q. Could you turn to Government Exhibit -- I'm sorry, it's defense Exhibit PMD 54. Do you recognize that document? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What is it? 19 A. It's the brief that we submitted in support of the motion 20 for a new trial. 21 Q. Can you explain, why does your firm sign it twice? In 22 other words, why do you include it on the front page separate 23 and apart from Susan Brune in New York and you in San 24 Francisco? 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00010086