Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-659House OversightDeposition

The deposition transcript shows Ms. Edelstein being questioned about statements made in a court brie...

The deposition transcript shows Ms. Edelstein being questioned about statements made in a court brief, specifically regarding the defendants' knowledge and investigation into Catherine Conrad. Edelstein confirms the accuracy of certain statements while also revealing her awareness of Theresa Trzaskoma's discovery of the Appellate Division suspension report.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
d-659
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The deposition transcript shows Ms. Edelstein being questioned about statements made in a court brief, specifically regarding the defendants' knowledge and investigation into Catherine Conrad. Edelstein confirms the accuracy of certain statements while also revealing her awareness of Theresa Trzaskoma's discovery of the Appellate Division suspension report.

Persons Referenced (2)

Tags

accuracy of statements in a court briefinvestigation by defendantsknowledge of Appellate Division suspension report
0Share
PostReddit

Related Documents (6)

Court UnsealedDepositionUnknown

Deposition transcript: A-5780

The deposition transcript captures Ms. Edelstein's testimony, where she denies that her partner, Theresa Trzaskoma, informed her about potential juror misconduct on May 12. Edelstein also confirms that she is someone who demands to see underlying documents when confronted with an issue.

1p
Court UnsealedDepositionUnknown

deposition transcript: A-5814

The document is a transcript of a deposition where Ms. Edelstein is questioned about her firm's actions and ethical obligations in a case involving a motion and the government's notification. She testifies that she would have felt comfortable with the court deciding the motion without knowing certain facts, and that the standard is 'actual knowledge'.

1p
Court UnsealedDepositionUnknown

Deposition Transcript: A-5804

The deposition of Ms. Edelstein discusses the accuracy of statements in a court brief, specifically regarding the defendants' investigation into Catherine Conrad and their awareness of an Appellate Division suspension report. Edelstein confirms the accuracy of a statement in the brief but is questioned about the timing and extent of the investigation. The transcript highlights potential inconsistencies in the defendants' claims.

1p
Court UnsealedTestimonyUnknown

Court Transcript: 64432

The transcript is of a court proceeding where Ms. Edelstein is being questioned about her law firm's handling of information regarding Juror No. 1, including whether they would have disclosed it to the Court if not prompted. The discussion also touches on whether they considered raising it as an appellate issue.

2p
Court UnsealedDepositionUnknown

deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-03308-PAE Document 61602 Filed 02/24/22 Page 119 of 130

The deposition transcript shows Ms. Edelstein being questioned about statements made in a court brief, specifically regarding the defendants' knowledge and investigation into Catherine Conrad. Edelstein confirms the accuracy of certain statements while also revealing her awareness of Theresa Trzaskoma's discovery of the Appellate Division suspension report.

1p
Court UnsealedTestimonyUnknown

court transcript: A-5788

The witness testifies that they discussed a Westlaw report with their partner Randy Kim, but did not discuss it with Susan Brune or Theresa Trzaskoma. The witness also states they did not see certain email exchanges until after a court conference.

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.