deposition: A-5750

deposition transcript: A-5810

The transcript captures the cross-examination of Ms. Edelstein by Mr. Schectman, focusing on a conversation about a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1 and the decision not to raise a juror misconduct issue in a post-trial motion.

deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 61102/20

Ms. Edelstein is cross-examined about a conversation with colleagues regarding a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1. She explains that they didn't bring it to the court's attention because they deemed it inconceivable that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer. There was no discussion about raising a juror misconduct issue in a post-trial motion until after receiving a letter from Ms. Conrad.

deposition: 1:20-cv-00330-PAE

Ms. Brune testifies about a brief she wrote, admitting it missed an important issue and did not accurately represent the timeline of an investigation. She also acknowledges that her colleague, Ms. Trzaskoma, was aware of the investigation but it was not accurately reflected in the brief.

deposition transcript: A-5722

The document is a transcript of a deposition where Ms. Brune is questioned about her understanding of the significance of certain information regarding a potential juror and the steps she took or didn't take to verify this information. The questioning attorney presses Ms. Brune for her understanding and actions, with objections and comments from other attorneys and the court.

deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-03363-PAE

The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her team's research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, and whether she had her team conduct additional research before voir dire. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team to do so, relying instead on the voir dire process to determine if Catherine M. Conrad was the same person mentioned in a New York court opinion.

DS9 Document EFTA01221640