| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| From | [REDACTED] (sender) |
| To | [REDACTED] (recipient) |
| Cc | Multiple recipients [REDACTED]; one recipient noted as "[REDACTED], Esq." |
| Subject | [EXTERNAL] RE: Stip |
| Date | Sat, 20 Nov 2021 02:03:31 +0000 |
| Attachments | Stipulation[REDACTED]_Trial_Testimony.DOCX |
| Message preview | "Following-up on our conversation today, is the revised stipulation acceptable to the government?"

Following-up on our conversation today, is the revised stipulation acceptable to the government?

From: <empty>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 7:03 PM
To: Christian Everdell <<empty> >
Cc: <empty>
<empty>; Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. <empty>; Laura Menninger
<empty>; Jeff Pagliuca <<empty> >
Subject: Stop

Hey Chris,

Following up on our conversation today regarding the stip, would you agree to have the sentence say that the document is a "true and accurate copy of the transcript of one witness's trial testimony, but not the full trial transcript, given on February 26 ...."? If so, we are fine with the stip — and, of course, happy to consider other language that makes the same point.

- Type: Email signature block
- Visible greeting: "Thanks,"
- Visible title: "Assistant United States Attorney"
- Visible office: "Southern District of New York"
- Multiple lines redacted (presumably name and contact details)

EFTA00014647