Deposition Transcript: A-5801

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.

deposition: A-5783

The deposition transcript discusses Ms. Edelstein's reaction to learning about a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad and whether Juror No. 1 could be the same person. Ms. Edelstein initially thought it was impossible due to Juror No. 1's voir dire responses, specifically her education level. The questioning focuses on whether further investigation was warranted to verify Juror No. 1's identity.

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.

deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-03303

The deposition transcript discusses the authenticity of a juror's identity and the intent behind a court brief's wording. The witness explains that the brief's detail was necessary to establish the juror's identity and denies that the intent was to create a false impression. The questioning highlights a potential misinterpretation of the brief's content.

From: Mark Hermano

deposition transcript: A-5721

The deposition transcript shows Brune being questioned about their actions during a trial, specifically regarding the discovery of information about a potential juror named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they did not immediately inform the court about the information and did not require anyone to explain its significance to them. The testimony highlights Brune's understanding of the potential significance of the information.