The deponent discusses their conversation with Susan Brune about the brief, their level of knowledge...
Summary
The deponent discusses their conversation with Susan Brune about the brief, their level of knowledge regarding juror misconduct, and the editing process. They decided to focus on whether a suspended lawyer and a juror were the same person. The deponent ultimately edited the fact section of the brief.
Tags
Related Documents (6)
The witness testifies about representing Craig Brubaker, recalls a juror's note asking about respond...
The witness testifies about representing Craig Brubaker, recalls a juror's note asking about respondeat superior, and discusses a conversation with Susan Brune about the juror.
deposition transcript: 1616630
The witness testifies about representing Craig Brubaker, recalls a juror's note asking about respondeat superior, and discusses a conversation with Susan Brune about the juror.
deposition transcript: 1:20-cv-03308
The deponent discusses their conversation with Susan Brune about the brief, their level of knowledge regarding juror misconduct, and the editing process. They decided to focus on whether a suspended lawyer and a juror were the same person. The deponent ultimately edited the fact section of the brief.
Deposition transcript: A-5703
The document is a transcript of a hearing where Susan Brune is testifying as a witness. She is questioned about her background, education, and legal experience. Brune confirms she attended Harvard Law School and has been a practicing lawyer for almost 25 years.
deposition: A-5781
The deponent discusses a conversation with Susan Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma about a note from Juror No. 1 and the discovery of a suspended New York lawyer with the same name. The deponent was unaware of the report and didn't ask to see the paper that formed Trzaskoma's belief. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the juror's note and its potential impact on the trial.
deposition transcript: A-5793
The deponent discusses receiving a letter from Catherine Conrad and their subsequent conversation with Susan Brune about it. The letter revealed information about jury deliberations, disturbing the deponent. The deponent discussed the Appellate Division order with Susan Brune but not the Westlaw report.
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.