- Document: email header screenshot (many redactions)
- From: [redacted]
- To: [redacted]
- Cc: multiple recipients (mostly redacted; one CC shows a recipient with the title "Esq.")
- Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Stip
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 02:03:31 +0000
- Attachments: Stipulation[redacted]_Trial_Testimony.DOCX
- Context (from surrounding text): "Following-up on our conversation today, is the revised stipulation acceptable to the government?"
- Note: most names and addresses are redacted.

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.

Key entities:

*   Assistant United States Attorney
*   Southern District of New York

EFTA00014647