DOJ-OGR-00018466.pdf

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 129 of 261 1290 LC6VMAX4 1 THE COURT: Well, I would permit it as cumulative if 2 all we're doing is showing the jury that emails happened on 3 these dates. 4 MS. POMERANTZ: I just want to make sure I understand, 5 your Honor. Would all of the substance of the emails be 6 redacted? 7 THE COURT: That's the proposition. 8 MS. POMERANTZ: And what about the subject lines? 9 MS. STERNHEIM: The subject lines would not be -- 10 well, the sender and recipient would not be hearsay. The date 11 would not be hearsay. 12 THE COURT: Right. But the subject line would be. 13 Okay. So with the content and the subject matter 14 redacted, I'll let the dates in. And who's emailing it would 15 have to be sealed because it identifies the witness by her true 16 identity. 17 MS. POMERANTZ: Okay, your Honor. Thank you. 18 THE COURT: Okay. So, Ms. Sternheim, your team will 19 prepare a redacted -- I'm sorry, I lost the number, K -- what 20 was the defendant's mark? 21 MS. STERNHEIM: K-8. 22 And if I may just supplement the record for a moment. 23 THE COURT: Sure. 24 MS. STERNHEIM: If it is not being offered for the 25 truth, why can't it come in with a limiting instruction? Other SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300