DOJ-OGR-00009409.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Extraction** **Header:** Case 1:20-cv-00330-PAL [redacted] Document 6162/20 Filled 02/24/22 Page1 of 130 A-5805 **Page Number:** 348 **Transcript:** C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. So would you agree with me that to the extent that sentence suggested that only after the letter was received did you and the others begin investigating, it was untrue because you knew there Theresa Trzaskoma had previously done some investigation? 3 A. Someone might read that that way, but -- 4 Q. Can you answer -- 5 A. This is a truthful statement. 6 Q. Can you answer my question, please? Yes or no? You just acknowledged that Theresa Trzaskoma had previously done an investigation, some of the results of which she reported to you on May 12th, correct? Correct? 7 A. On May 12th I knew that there was a suspended lawyer with the same name. 8 Q. That Theresa Trzaskoma had discovered pursuant to her correspondence with others in your firm in that little mini investigation, correct? 9 A. I was not aware -- 10 MR. SCHECTMAN: Judge -- 11 THE COURT: Overruled. 12 A. I was not aware on May 12th of any investigation. 13 Q. Well, Theresa Trzaskoma didn't tell you that her information about the suspended lawyer came out of thin air, did she? 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 **Footer:** DOJ-OGR-00009409