the first appearance by Council on behalf of Mr Eastman and so let's do this first uh let's have everyone identify themselves for the record and so who's going to be arguing on behalf of the state today just Mr Floyd be argu on behalf of the state all right welcome back Mr Floyd and on behalf of Mr Ean who do we have for the record buddy Parker your honor okay welcome Mr Parker and I note that uh Mr Eastman is here as well so uh Mr Parker uh your motion sir thank you very much your honor um at the outset let me um just identify for the record that often um Mr Eastman is referred to as Dr Eastman he HS a PhD in political science it's not a reference to a jurist doctorate and since that uh degree is often referred to in our country under custom and practice as a doctorial prefect to the name that's the explanation for Dr rean and I wanted to put that on the record um we're here today briefly to supplement if you will not to re uh argue the written motion file on behalf of uh Dr Eastman for special demur on count one um I'd like to say at the outset that we would like to adopt the uh argument made by Amanda Clark prommer last Friday on the Barry issue that we raised in our special Demir as well and on the supplemental brief that was filed on behalf of Mr Smith by the Garland Samuel uh L firm uh on this special issue as well and and yall adopted by way of formal filing as well well I'll be glad to do that um we had we we had not the the the the supplemental brief was not did not come in before the 8th of January so we haven't filed anything but their initial motion that kicked off this whole thing you've adopted that right right okay I think that's sufficient um that's all I just wanted to make it clear on the record um the principle two issues raised in our special Demir was that uh and I argue it as if it were ferally like a bill of particulars uh that the indictment does not describe the connections or relationships among the defendants uh with the Enterprise uh nor does it describe anywhere uh the members how the members of the Enterprise function as a continuing unit now I know the state has filed its response this morning uh to um our pleading and uh so the issues are pretty well joined what I wanted to bring to the Court's attention if I may get my reading glasses so I don't make any further errors so I'm referencing to page six of the state's pleading this morning um in which they point out that the uh overt Act uh including those that consummate that constitute racketeering activity committed by the defendants were designed and intended to further the objective of unlawfully changing the outcome of the election in favor of trump um and so with that as their North Star it would appear that the allegations in the indictment and more specifically looking at page seven uh the state right specifically as to Eastman the indictment alleges that he acted together uh with and was in regular communication with multiple co-conspirators Eastman's activities and furtherance of the Enterprises objectives uh included Communications to Georgia government officials Communications with conspirators in Georgia and efforts at unlawfully changing the outcome of the election that went to the highest levels of government and involved direct coordination with defendant Trump in that regard it notes that uh Dr Eastman at a point in time made a presentation uh it was a zoom presentation before the Georgia uh sub subcommittee of the Georgia Senate um and um and just focusing on that conduct uh your honor uh uh which which was described as being collectively allegedly uh together with others at that period of time in presentations to the Georgia Senate uh Dr Eastman making false statements to the Georgia Senate we have no indication specifically as to the alleged false statements that he made but to the extent this has not been raised before I wish to raise it now unlike the under the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution freedom of speech Clause we also have a clause of being able to uh address government for grievances uh so we have yet a different type of First Amendment right being exercised by Dr Eastman in his presentation to the Georgia uh State assem uh Senate now whatever was said is recorded it's evidence it's going to be played so it is what it is but in the indictment we have on page 16 paragraph 1 the grand jury uh alleges that members of the Enterprise corruptly corruptly solicited Georgia legislators instead to unlawfully appoint their own presidential legislators for the purpose of cast electorial votes for Donald Trump the word corruptly is an interesting word because it would appear to connote a degree of men's re or specific intent what is it that makes what was said corrupt was it something in the words themselves we don't know this is where I'm coming at to from the work from the special demur we don't know what it is is the state's theory of the underlying nature whether by direct it should be by direct quotes taken in the full context of the presentation that makes the words of Dr rean corruptly stated likewise um and more particularly because this is more unique to Dr rean their allegations and in its response to the special Mur demotion um motion the state makes a point to bring up the various meetings Dr Eastman had with vice president Mike Pence um some involving then president Trump as well and in the indictment uh referring uh to uh the same phrase phraseology uh on page 18 uh paragraph 6 it identifies that members quote members of the Enterprise including several of the defendants corruptly solicited the vice president of the United States to violate the United States Constitution and federal law by unlawfully rejecting electorial College votes cast in filton County Georgia by duly elected and qualified president electors from Georgia members of the Enterprise also corruptly solicited the vice president to reject votes cast by the duly elected qualified presidential electors from several other states again what is it within the language of the communication allegedly made by DR reesman or within his presence that indicates what is corrupt about the language what is it that are we do we refer back to or are we referred back to the overall so-called objective of the racketeering the alleged objective of the LA R racketeering uh activity in the Enterprise through the acts of racketeering or are we just to anticipate that what corruptly will be defined as is whatever the state just simply argues it to be it's a violation you know it so facto the Electoral the election had been certified therefore any communication contrary to the certification of the Biden electors if so facto makes it corrupt is it is it so much the word corrupt or it's just that you you believe that there should be a more specific reference to exactly the content of the speech so for example that it just said said illegally solicited again maybe we'll hear exactly where the word corrupt was used if that's more of a term of art or what but is it the corruption that's causing the confusion in your argument or is it more that just they haven't put in the quote this is what he said on this particular I'm looking for more detail specifically I'm looking for more detail why because the issue is going to Arise at the time of the resting of the state's case in Chief whether or not based on the terms and language of this indictment the state has met its burden or or the case can proceed to a jury if you will so I don't have any hesitation and telling the court this is where we're coming from more detail and that essentially is our argument and I don't give certainly given the amount of time the court has had to spend it already with the uh adoption of the previous arguments I have nothing further to say at this time y well I'm curious I know the the the filed motion focused more on kind of the boil factors kind of identifying how this Enterprise is associated what they did kind of wanting more detail about the Enterprise I'm just curious have you found an indictment maybe post boil that you think satisfies that in your opinion or that a court said satisfied it and no one's actually handed me an indictment that says this is a good posto boil indictment other than this one which the state is saying is I'm just curious I I mean I I for to answer directly I have not yet tried to make that search because I think it's a caseby casee specific analysis clearly in an Associated Association in fact Enterprise there has to be some delineation as to the relationship among the conspirators in ter terms of their role now from a federal racketeering point of view you can't have uh you know uh a person who has lack manager IAL capacity or some level of decision making Authority as part of the minister member of the Enterprise I mean there is some substance to each and every person's role in the ernby that's erby young the the the the Supreme Court case dealing with the position of of a person with some Authority in the association in fact Enterprise um the janer is not a person who would generally be swept into the me terminology of an Enterprise of an organization is my simple point but what I will be glad to do for the court is to supplement our position answering the Court's question directly all right uh well I guess that I don't know I don't if I'm worried I'm going down the rabbit hole on this one was the argument that I know you said you wanted more information about the Enterprise and and Mr uh you know all each defendant's role in it but I hadn't heard this one yet that if they don't have some level of authority they can't be included in the Enterprise I don't know that's basic uh Federal uh law I I I I hesitate to suggest it should be adopted by the court but okay well I'll put it this way if it's if it's not in the written motions initially uh I won't get there okay well then we're not going to get there okay well let's let's turn it over to Mr Floyd and we'll let you have the last word as well good afternoon your honor good afternoon um I will uh uh start where my friend Mr Parker ended uh the test he's referring to as he said is Rees versus and some young that's referred to as the operation or management test under federal law it does not apply to Georgia law there is a uh linguistic distinction the federal statute uh 18 USC 1962 C says conduct or participate in the conduct of the Enterprise the second the two dual use of conduct led the Supreme Court United States Supreme Court to conclude that that imposes some level of influence or control Georgia says conduct or participate under Georgia law participation is sufficient there is no operation man or conduct uh requirement uh this is expressly laid out in falace uh F AI L LA a c which we've cited a number of times all right fair enough but I think because I don't think a brief has actually raised this yet or a motion so we can it there uh in fact I don't think anything Mr Parker argued was in the brief there is no reference to petitioning for redress of grievances in the brief there's no reference to corruptly in the brief uh um and he omits to address the fact that Mr Eastman I mean what what this has mutated into it started out as a challenge to the boil factors let me just knock that out for a second um there are four reasons why uh those don't apply uh first and we've talked about this so I'll be brief and try and avoid repeating myself for the record I'll adopt the same arguments we made in opposition to Miss Palmer's motion last week and I will do my very best not to repeat them uh unnecessarily uh first no Georgia court is adopted boil second Bole was not a conspiracy case uh Bole dealt with jury instructions after the record had been made after the trial third boil um uh uh let's see jury instruction case fourth an Enterprise is not an element of a RICO conspiracy case we site you United States the appin out of the second circuit on that it's in our brief there are num there are at least three other circuits have reached the same conclusion I haven't found a federal circuit that reached the opposite conclusion um so boil just doesn't apply but if boil did as I pointed out in earlier arguments we Trace its language exactly so there's not there's not a boil problem here um what the argument has really mutated into is the idea that we haven't said enough detail about over acts we alleg Mr Eastman engaged into engaged in two flaws for that as we've pointed out in earlier brief so I won't belabor it the state isn't required to allege the details of overx at all we don't have to allege elements we don't have to get into things like corruptly which really just means illegally in a context like this um this just not a pleading requirement and and M Dr Eastman cites no case saying it is um the federal cases which incidentally apply exactly the same pleading standard uh as the Georgia cases do when they look at special demurs um have rejected any such requirement and I'll give you the sites of a couple of those in a moment but just to start with United States versus Kelly 462 F sub3 191 at 196 97 in eastern district of New York 2020 case so relatively fresh off the presses expressly goes into this and says there is no requirement that an indictment allege the sub elements of Enterprise like the three boil factors the federal courts have just said no that's not a pleading requirement it may go to whether the state has proved its case at the end might be subject to directed verdict motion but it is not a a pleading requirement uh and there are multiple Federal cases holding that um so uh basically what the federal courts have said is if the indictment basically explains who participated in the Enterprise what they did describes the purpose the means and methods that's sufficient an example of that is United States which is Tores t r r 191 F3 799 at 806 that's a sth circuit case um United States versus Johnson 825 fed appendix 156 at 171 fifth circuit case also 2020 if the ident if the indictment identifies the criminal Enterprise establishes the time in which it operated name the co names of co-conspirators and list the violations uh that constitute predicate offenses and says which co-conspirator performed which act and when that is sufficient we've done exactly that um we charged in the language of the statute so that satisfies 17554 I believe it is your honor uh that's number one out of the gate that's presumptively sufficient if more detail is required we said we described the enterprise we described its objective we described the eight schemes that were pursued in furtherance of it two of which Mr Parker referred to we then laid out 161 over it acts they have the dates they have the participants uh Dr Eastman um who is saying he can't figure out what he's charged with at least that's what his demur said we have laid out 16 overt acts and where he acted with another person which is the vast majority of them uh we have identified who those persons were and the nature of what the communications involved um so for example we do refer to his representations to the Georgia Senate along with defendants Giuliani and Ellis we refer to his email Communications with defendants with defendant chiley and unied co-conspirators 8 and two we uh reference him mailing a memo from M defendant chesbro to defendant Giuliani we reference his meeting together with Doc Mr Trump sometimes it's telephone call sometimes it's face to-face meeting um further emails with chesbro and unindicted co-conspirator 3 filing a uh knowingly false verified complaint together with defendant Trump here in Fulton County um call to the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives soliciting him to unlawfully appoint presidential electors from uh Arizona and then this all culminates in approximately four overt acts towards the end of the list which directly involve meetings and Communications with vice president Pence Andor vice president Pence's chief of staff and counsel all imp pruning Pence directly or through his representatives to not count the electoral votes from certain States or to suspend the count on January 6 um whe was a reference to the janitor and there actually is a federal case that does involve a janitor in the second circuit and he was charged in Rico and the second circuit said no the janitor doesn't operate or manage right that case has nothing to do with this number one because that test doesn't apply and number two because janitors don't go to meetings with vice presidents and presidents uh Dr Eastman did so we're really just getting down to did this happen or not um and the argument that they need every detail we've laid out this is the meeting this is who was there this is when it happened and this is what was discussed I can't find any case that says that's not good enough um and uh this that just basically um walks through it there the Nexus argument we've briefed it it really hasn't been offered here but you asked about indictments that were adequate um and I have a couple of references for you first in Georgia and I've talked about these so I won't belabor it but Pasha has been cited to you many times this is what Pasha said and it was a RICO conspiracy indictment challenged by a special demur the indictment clearly gives posha notice of the nature of his involvement in the conspiracy the overt acts attributed to him as advancing the conspiracy and and the underlying predicate offenses which establish racketeering activity check check check we have done all three of those um and why hey check it's because we used Pasha and we literally did check um Grant versus State um a case that preceded Pasha and is frequently looked to by the Georgia courts to look at the adequacy of indictments Grant said the indictments are in no way defective for being insufficient to support a prosecution conviction the requisite predicate acts and Enterprises comprising the charges against appellants are precisely described and named in each instance no greater detail was required to allege the RICO offense under Georgia law and Mr Floyd I think what I was getting at is that they'll you know say we've reviewed it we pronounced it maybe they'll quote portions but a lot of times they won't do it at length right probably because these indictments are so long so I just wonder if you've ever pulled any of them and we could actually have that as an attach exhibit by way of direct comparison to see what the court of appeals was looking at um I I will tell you honor in response to your question we pulled quite a few federal indictments um and uh I I recall reading at least 20 um and I would be happy to provide examples of those would be useful to the court um they're under federal law they're not under Georgia law but the the federal sufficiency standard is functionally the same um and uh uh you for example these Georgia cases that are cited to so frequently like Pasha and some of those others I don't know if those are indictments we can get our hands on just that would be interesting by way of comparison to be actually seeing what the court of appeals and the Supreme Court was looking at when they said this is sufficient I'm happy to I'm happy to try that yes sir uh um I hadn't done it before because um um I don't think I've encountered a court that would have appreciated my attaching that in the past they tend to be a little weighty um but anyhow it's an interesting it's an interesting point and and when I say the federal standard is the same um one of the things I noticed and one of my colleagues noticed is we kept going through the formulation of how the Georgia courts State the pleading standards and I recognized that this sounded very much like federal law but the Georgia courts generally were not citing the federal cases there was a time when Georgia pel courts often did not site the United States Supreme Court even if they were used using the same language but if you look at Cochran versus State 157 US 286 at 290 in 1895 case you will see the standard is expressed in almost exactly the same the way the Georgia courts put it now and that continues through a case called hamling versus United States 418 us87 at 117 in 1974 case it really is the same language and that really is what the federal courts um are are following here um and uh you know that's as I said I've cited you a number of cases I'll give you just one more before I sit down and actually I mentioned this in Johnson um the court went through it and this was a challenge to an association in fact Enterprise that was a street gang called the black boys uh and they said you haven't you haven't told us enough um that count was 15 pages ours is 71 uh Court said it was adequate he identifies the black boys as the criminal Enterprise establishes the time period during which they operated name the co-conspirators listed the violations the constitutive predicates said who performed each Act and the DAT it was performed that's precisely what we've done um and uh there was an argument in that case that the indictment failed because it didn't tell the defendant exactly what activities conducted were part of the conspiracies agreement the court said this court has not required that AO indictment includes such specificity nor does the Constitution um we refuse to adop Duran's offbeat position was the language the fifth circuit used to dismiss uh to dismiss that so um the argument that Dr Eastman started making in his briefs fails uh it doesn't work on Nexus and it doesn't work on Bo for the reasons I've said the argument that he makes today is not in his briefs and recognizing that and uh any initial reactions just offand to this idea of well the petition for right right of grievance uh the petition uh this is an issue that that has uh people have alluded alluded to it number one it's not really his grievance he's not the candidate but number two one thing that petitioning does not permit is any sort of lie any sort of false statement um there is no protection for that um one doesn't get to speak to governmental officials say something is that's false and then say Oh but okay I was petitioning for for redress of grievances um the the conversations with vice president Pence and his uh his closest advisors aren't for redress of grievances they are asking him to break the law and in fact in one of the uh overt acts we set forth we actually quote a communication uh from Dr Eastman in which he says and I am paraphrasing these are not the exact words he basically says I'm asking you to violate the law one more time makes it abundantly clear he he his position is the law has been violated um and then he is asking that it be violated again that is not asking for a redress of grievances that is asking someone to violate the law those are not the same things and there is no protection for that sort of behavior the last point is as as Pasha qua and other cases that I have cited to you on numerous occasions make clear um the only the only argument that's been set forth here today goes to over acts alleged against Dr Eastman um that leaves 142 I believe alleged against others under Pasha he's respons responsible for all of those and only one is sufficient to make out of Rico uh conspiracy violation under the express language of 16144 C and so even if he was right it wouldn't matter thank you okay thank you Mr Floyd Mr Parker any final thoughts just a few um I believe although I my good friend Mr Floyd said he was paraphrasing Dr Eastman in in reference to conversation with the vice president um as I understand the conversation Dr Eastman had expressed his opinion that the electorial count act itself was unconstitutional and that was the reference to violating the law he was referring to not complying with what he views under from his perspective the Electoral count act as being an unconstitutional Act passed by Congress uh the um I think I think what what Mr Floyd on behalf of the state really has crystallized in the argument and it is going to come down to this just what are the facts when the state put forth its evidence I will acknowledge that what he has said as a matter of law by and large is correct and I stood here and I say to the court I will be more than glad to join in with him in providing a joint appendix on indictments we can we've worked together over the years many times we can work together in providing to the court those indictments that Mr Floyd has identified that answer the courts will provide some insight for the court as to what is sufficient in the details as far as the allegations go at the end of the day it's going to be whether or not the state has met its burden in its proof at the trial compared to the allegations in the indictment and so I agree to that uh and with those words I have nothing further than to say your honor all right thank you Mr Parker uh since we have you here I believe this was the only sure thing Mr the the specific act so we don't have to guess about what I was talking about the specific Act is 141 and I don't need to belabor what it says the court can look at it itself the language is quoted right there okay for ease of reference that's all all right well while we have you here Mr Parker and as well as your client uh I believe other than adopted motions this was the only other substantive one that we needed to address before you know a case management conference where whenever that day arrives that that's correct we we did file a what I referred to as a placeholder Fourth Amendment motion dealing with two different uh one a search and seizure of Dr Eastman's cell phone by the FBI I believe that occurred in New Mexico is that correct yes in New Mexico and and I'm remembering that one I wonder if since we're all here in the states here maybe we could provide some clarity on that instead of having yeah because we haven't seen yet anything in Discovery that in it would appear to come from that U Source uh if it if the state does have it and they intend to use it then that that's an issue we we sought to preserve sure well let's uh thank you for for reminding me of that let's let's see maybe we can even address that today uh just to the state generally do you recall the preliminary kind of placeholder motion to suppress on the cell phone evidence State have a position on that we we haven't provided it because we don't have and if the uh does the state have any leads or intentions or idea of where that could be or when if they would obtain it at this point at this point we don't all right if that were to change that would be something you'd have to disclose to the defense would you not yes sir all right so and then the other one dealt with the um litigation in federal court in California over the Chapman uh University files uh of Dr Eastman there are numerous emails some of those did make their way to the January 6 committee which now have been disclosed but many many many did not and the reason we raised that as a placeholder is that the federal court in uh the California litigation one found Dr Eastman had standing on as to those uh Communications and two required that before any be disclosed to the j6 committee they be reviewed by a tank team for attorney client Communications uh and whatnot cuz that was even though on some attorney client Communications he found the crime fraud exception he did he the court the district judge did not make make a across the board ruling on all Communications that that the crime fraud exception applied so doct Eastman licensed attorney is still asserting that issue should the state have any material that came forth from that Source okay all right and so I'll put that same question to the state but first just uh again as a matter of housekeeping uh are are we all on the same page that as it relates to the phone issue issue raised by uh Mr Parker that that's effectively moot or not right at this point I guess Mr Park I'll put that on you since it was your motion based on what you've heard the state say is there anything to hand uh what I've heard the state say is they have no uh they have no material from the cell phone of Dr Eastman that was seized by the FBI right and per our standing order within five days of them obtaining any new evidence that they would intend to introduce a trial that's supposed to make its way into your hands all right so that we should know um if that ever comes up all right I hear heard that okay so let's move on then uh he raised the issue of uh some emails that were seized by the FBI at some point is that also something it sounds like hasn't made its way into Discovery or has it we haven't seen any documents uh that reflect the a bait stamp of that Dr Eastman uniquely placed on the on the the Chapman University docu or that work I don't know whether he did it but someone did it it's just that that emanates from from his his employment at Chapman using a computer they owned and control that contained what the federal court found to be clearly attorney client Communications that Dr Ean had standing to assert the privilege over and so in the Federal federal court order were we to have to litigate this issue which we would provide to prove that the material had to be reviewed by a tank team before it could be disclosed and so until we know that it's been disclosed and the state has it and the state intends to use it we have no ability to litigate fur Okay tur into the state does this ring a bell it it does Judge we've actually we've disclosed everything that we have um but we do have a a search warrant that relates to that that's with the buil team now I I well this is the issue the search warrant came from a superior court judge of this court we we we we haven't litigated anything because let's set aside the issue of the EXT territorial authority of this court to issue a search warrant for materials in the state of California you know this search warrant from this court cannot obviate and supersede a a United States super District Court's order as to how that material must be handled okay so I'm I'm still trying to get up to to speed on this and see where we are y'all are ahead of me because I don't know what's in Discovery uh so it sounds like the evidence that you're saying the state may introduce they have actually got with a filter team right now pursuant to a search warrant obtained by a judge and Fon County well I I don't think I signed that you'd have to remind me um and you're still waiting on the results of that yes sir do you have a time frame for that um the last conversation that we had with fil team judge he had not got not gotten to it yet um but we had some implication that they would make their way through uh the any do that they would have um within a 3 we period we can follow up all right so there's a possibility the filter team gets through it they disclose to you that there's nothing matching the Criterion so there's really nothing that needs to be suppressed because you don't have anything right um but in three weeks maybe they do give you something that's exactly along the lines of what Mr Parker is identifying as in his contention having some legal issues that we need to sort through yes okay all right so then it sounds like like we'll have a better idea of that later next month and whether we need to come back on an evidentiary hearing on that and and and once once you've we've identified that Mr Parker if you can just you know particularize your motion and supplement it and we'll get us scheduled thank you very much okay good to know um and if after a month you haven't heard anything from the state of the filter team uh ask let's ask for an update from the state and and try to hold them to that deadline be glad to do that your honor okay was there anything else nothing further on behalf of Dr rean okay all right well there anything else from the state then nothing all right and I think there there had been some other attorneys just generally jumping on the zoom they weren't notice to be argued on anything but I kind of open the floor to any other business since we have this state here not hearing anything uh we'll transition over to Mr Floyd thank you all thank you your h all all right let's transition over uh same case number but this is State versus Harrison Floyd and we are back together from the last time we had had a hearing on this I believe was in November if I'm not mistaken and this is on the uh motions to uh quash as well as uh tangentially the motion to unseal I believe the um election materials filed back in September and let me just kind of try to lay out the where we are and I'll let the parties jump in to supplement as they see it but I believe where we had left it is we had heard some initial argument from uh on behalf of the clerk of superior court and on behalf of uh Fulton County Board of Elections uh that not only and their contention were these materials not relevant but um that that would be unduly oppressive or burdensome to produce them and so I took under the advisement the relevance issue and I think that uh I don't know if that's necessarily something we need to get into further today but the overriding focus was that exactly what it would take to produce these materials and uh after that hearing back in November we had uh Mr Floyd's team uh come back with an amended subpoena request was that ever made a part of the record uh well actually first let me do this we need to identify Council for the record and wave your client's presence good afternoon your honor Christopher curo for Mr Floyd Co counsel Todd Harding you're onon M you're on and Mr Floyd has given you his express permission to proceed without him yes sir he has all right and on behalf of the County afterno Judge Chad Alexis on behalf of the clerk okay and Mr Alexis just for the benefit of our court reporter if you could really make sure to speak up and into a microphone um medically are you able to proceed today so judge okay all right and uh who else do we have David lman your honor can you spell that for the court reporter last name is lman l w m first name David all right thank you okay and so uh back to uh uh Floyd's team here did we ever make the amended subpoena part of the record or has it been up to this point just want to make sure everything's complete not quite sure you judge I apologize we we'll make it so if if it hasn't been and but then to continue kind of the prologue here is that uh we received a response back from Fulton County kind of Point by Point saying how many man hours it would take to comply and it was substantial and uh in the thousands if not I think tens of thousands of hours 57,000 hours on some of these issues and so I think where we left it is very much that we have contested issues of fact I don't know if these are going to be solved by way of profer and so um I I think um at this point uh well let me start there anything we need to add before we get into it in terms of the lay of the land let me let me let me start with I'll start with Mr CH just because you're standing up here okay um I would propose that we go through them some we can go through pretty quickly some I can agree with I'm not going to nitpick over an hour here or two hours there I think I can add some clarity why there's no need to put 37 years of Manpower into what should have been done in one day on November 3rd 2020 okay uh so at this point you think we can still just kind of go through this in almost a mediation style we don't need to have a witness here telling you exactly how something's produced in in the manner I agree because a lot of this stuff believe it or not I mean I have serves as a basis for our response the motion of quash for open records requests but some open records requests have certifications others don't and I think that I can add Clarity to each of the requests and their corresponding time estimates and one time estimates are in correct I think it make sense okay well I'll do it I mean I'm optimistic that that's the case I will say the caveat is I I don't know the nuances of how ballots are collected and counted and and and and I think you have done you're you're studying on these things so for me to grasp exactly how these are collected and the processes behind them we may need need to lay out more so we can really understand that but we'll see how we go uh Mr Alexis yeah I just want to put on the record that we are not a party to this case you know we're just here to address this subpoena you know we don't have a dog in the fight aside from the relevance issue all only contention is that this is burden sumon oppressive we're in the middle of a federal election to that end judge we do have two witnesses here who the court can make inquiries to but I do agree that immediate style approach may be best because again as nonp parties you know I'd hate to subject my clients to being grilled and cross-examined and and who are those two witnesses you'd have we have Marisa bodison and Derek Gilstrap and you ordinarily we would have our directors and Leadership coming and testify but again we are preparing for a federal election um sure I can have them stand and introduce themselves uh I I I think for now if you could just let me know what their respective titles are and what they would be testifying to generally Adler I got shaky on their titles let me just just generally what their job roles are why they're here why they have the expertise Mr Gilstrap is in uh it he does the tech part of of um elections department and Miss bodison she does she's the executive um assistant to the BR and for the election Department okay all right so turning to the uh amended subpoena with the additions provided by Fon County with the time estimates and Page Three we have items to be produced uh Mr K I think you offered to kind of just take the lead on this I'll just let you have the floor so for the first item user manuals 4 hours no disagreement the issue there is my I talked to my colleague ahead of time before the hearing trying to work some of the things out probably should have talked more with him but he said those are in a warehouse in a box and so they have to spend time to go get them I suggested well uh maybe Dominion can provide those user manuals that were in use of the time via PDF um the option was well you can subpoena Dominion well I didn't want to do that because if I subpoena Dominion then the response might be well those weren't the ones we had so I was hoping that we could short circuit some of this so I mean some of it it is what it is I'm not going to argue about number one number two an election equipment inventory they should have a list of these things I don't understand why it would take 24 hours to to pull up lists with with all of the different machines and what the serial numbers are in the machines you would think think that there is an inventory somewhere in a file it and it's we're looking for digital production I'm not looking for new copies of what was in existence in 2020 what if uh this is where we might have to pause uh you know I'm reminded of the open record standard which is they're not obligated to go out and create documents for you if if they're going to sit here and testify today is that they don't keep that list and that they would have to go around and actually make you a list what happens then if that's what the answer is the response they don't go around keeping the list then they don't go around keeping the list I I accept the response you know but I just want to know what they have and what they don't have all right well let's start there uh item two on the items to be produced you wonder if it might be easier for my colleague and myself you want me you just remain seated that's fine just make sure you get that microphone very close to your mouth okay was this the one that you said okay judge a lot of these a lot of this information is in hard copy and pursuing to election code it was submitted to the clerk and it is in that warehouse that we that um opposing Council just mentioned so to actually go and get this information would require employees to go to the warehouse and rumage through the boxes and pallets to try to find the information that's needed and from what I understand we're looking at about 100 pallets with maybe 30 to 45 boxes per pallet and because they've been moved so many times there's no there's no way to determine what sort of I guess format they're in they're not arranging a particular order so for us to actually go find it it wouldn't take 5 minutes judge and that's why we put the 24-hour time period on it and it sounds like that's a similar process to what you were going to need to do for user manuals so why the difference between the 4 hours and the 24 hours well I think it's because it's we're looking for more information in number two as opposed to one okay and Mr ker uh feel free to respond to that but I'm also wondering too I guess as we go along through here accepting for today Mr Floyd's relevance solely for Discovery purposes we're not saying that this could potentially be relevant at trial that's another bridge to cross when we get there why is this particular aspect of your request relevant to essentially auditing uh the election because part of the audit process requires taking the inventory of the system that created for instance the pole tabulator tape it's it shows you security is the election secure with the Machin that were said to be used actually used and it's a way to match up serial numbers from machines and devices to other types of reports all right so once you've got serial numbers for all these devices you're saying you can then compare that to something else a number of things for instance uh the logic and accuracy testing to see which equipment was tested and which equipment was not okay and more to uh in response to what he added I'm not going to argue about the 24 hours if they think that's their time estimate and it's in the warehouse I get it so one and two all right then we'll move on to number three we've got 688 hours listed for um I guess this is still part of item to rather 688 hours for election equipment uh with test results uh this is all the tabulators and actually you're on it's the logic and accuracy testing that's we're literally looking for the test results for all the things that have serial numbers so I would think that they could all be produced together I don't know how they keep it in the boxes whether they have hazard throw them in the boxes with ballots I would think it' be some just a couple ballots or a couple boxes that have administrative items in them that they could pull from okay so what can you tell us about the logic and accuracy testing results so the bulk of this of these hours come from the pole tapes and we're looking at about 656 open tapes and 656 Clos tapes and each tape is about 12 ft long of course if we're handing over information that or I guess documents that they would produce an Evidence we'd H we give them a copy so for us actually copy the tapes we'd have to put them on the printer piece we've already y'all y'all have already surpassed what I'd warned you about which is when you say tape I have no idea what you're talking about I'm thinking of video tape I don't know oh it's a you want to explain what the pole tape is tape produced by the scanner scanner tape that's produced when uh lman actually this person doesn't identified themselves yeah uh my name is Derek gilra I'm election system supervisor all right great and you were explaining to us uh what it means to have a p tape what produces it and what's it look like and all that the poate is produced uh from our scanners our tabulators they produce the pole tape once we uh run the ballots from uh LNA testing through the scanner uh it produces a uh a tape of all the results from from those batteries so it's not more like a it's not like a digital file I'm picturing a movie reel is it something like that like a old I mean like a a wound tape on a wheel again this is like it's like a calculator roll of tape it's like a uh like like you have a cash register and a tape produces once you okay once you buy something so that that does sound like something it's not they're just picking up and copying it on a hard drive this is something physical that they have to then make into another format and that takes time that's true but 688 I don't think 688 hours and the reason why I say that is is because Fon records an open records request dated December the 1st 2021 provided tabulator pole tapes for the 113 2020 election including those that were used for advanced voting and logic and accuracy testing so they actually should have these scans already uh done first of all and I think that that would be and I've got the open records request number here let's start there has this already been produced in some format to somebody I can't speak to that judge I I I really can't if it if it has I can I can go look at it but I can tell you what the process is and the and that we got this number based on what they have done in the past when they had to give the information to let's say the SOS and basically you put it on the on the printer and you print each portion of it and because it's 12 ft long you have to close the copier open it move it to the side close The copier open it move it to the side and that takes about 30 minutes per tape so if you have 656 tapes and you're Printing and you're doing a 30 minutes per tape judge and you're doing that for open and close tape tapes you're looking at 656 hours and let me add to this we're actually looking you read the one of the things we're looking for is the actual LNA report itself that has the testing results on it that should not require more than a couple of hours to copy that and I don't understand how we get 688 hours I I don't know what the poll tapes are and they're 12T long but it doesn't take 30 minutes to copy a 12 foot long receipt essentially um so I don't think 68 hours is appropriate and I will remind the court Mr Floyd is looking at 37 years and they're claiming it's going to take more time than the amount of jail sentence that he's faced with at this point so I don't this should have been done on November 3rd what are the total number of roles that are um that issue here and to satisfy this how many how many pull tape roles are there total 656 open and 656 close and how does one get open and how does one get Clos no well there one's called an open tape and one's called a Clos tape so they do the open tape at the beginning of the election and do they do the Clos tape at the end of the election and and The subpoena asked for both yes you said it was 656 open and how many are closed and 656 okay and each of these are 12 feet long yeah about 12 feet long yeah so there's only over 12,000 of excuse me not 12,000 1,200 of these that they'd have to be copying I can buy the scanner for the County scanner will cost me about $400 and I'll have each one can be scanned in about a minute the county will appreciate that okay if that's going to be the solution sold well uh so there's a special scanner that you don't have to then do each foot by foot by foot not that I'm aware of Judge I don't but you have one yes R we can Supply one okay well again I think these are things that you the two of y'all know more about this than I do I don't know what I'm value I'm adding to this but we can keep going in this manner it sounds like again something that could have been solved through an email um I'll make this easier for my colleague I know he want you talked about this earlier uh four five six I should say requests 4 through 11 there's no argument on does that include just cuz since we're I see the labeling there's a three on on the top of page [Applause] four uh no that's that was the LNA testing we were that was part of the LNA testing we what I'll do is I will provide a scanner for the county but I want it back um I'm just trying to make sure I'm I'm accounting this right so the top of page four there's there's labeled paragraph 3 underneath election certification packet yes uh yes I'm looking at the amended subpoena are we on the same page I think so I I have under yeah so the election certification packet section okay yeah the election night reporting web page chain of custody no disagreement okay the ballot images which is the next section I do quibble with that because they already have it in a zip file they sent all this stuff I'm sure they've sent this stuff to the SOS secretary of state so I don't understand why 24 hours when they they don't need 24 hours to look unless they have to go look for it but I would think that that's on a computer hard drive or something that they could just dip to another images they have to be they have to be copied so moving on on we're now at on the bottom of page four of the amended subpoena with responses ballot images where I think the county had replied back 24 hours any insight on that okay so judge in review of this request uh we did state that as 24 hours but it should have been more an overnight um run and that's because we actually have to I guess fire the system up and let it run overnight so it's supposed to be a one- day turnaround but it ended up getting logged in as 24 hours okay so I think what we actually need to reflect is the man hours because that's what they're going to have to cut you a check for right so what are the man hours to get the ballot images to you and J we can't run both systems at the same time the the original count and the recount so it have to be done separately and that's I mean we do it overnight one day and then overnight the next day yeah and I don't think the time is so much our Focus as so as what what the man hours are and how much you know they owe you okay can I confirm Jud the actual work itself of 2 hours and and then it would just it would just be a matter of the system populating the information overnight all right so ballot is revised es of two hours any issues with that Mr kro okay I seeing none for the record moving on tabulator files and reports the heading this is listing uh 2866 hours uh I think mainly because it's saying it doesn't exist in the format requested I'm uh any reactions to that jri made a few modifications on this as well okay so for 14 14a we don't have the information requested in that format uh 14b it will be much like the last one we just discussed wherein the system will have to be fired up and run overnight so that's why we have the uh 8 hours now now the man hours itself would probably be an hour as for 14 C we're looking at because we have the open pole tapes the status tapes and the closed tapes we're looking at 9 1968 tapes Le okay oh L tapes okay so we're looking at 1,968 tapes and at 30 minutes per tape that's 984 hours is this the same issue as before that the bulk of this time is because of uh scanner limitations yes all right and so potentially that is going to be dramatically lessened if you have better equipment I mean if this this equipment exists yeah I I will agree with that I mean and one thing I just want to I guess keep in the Court's air is that we do still have to go in the warehouse and locate this stuff so right well I think I mean that's just that's reflected in in the hours I I I don't I'm not I don't think we can quible with that but okay and as for number 15 we will have to contact knowing to get that information and once we do that we're on knowing's time um for the you say say that again the what time no in that's the vendor I'm sorry judge so is this something that's not even in your possession it's not then I don't see how you could respond to that subpoena all right right we couldn't probably get the material without permission from the county to obtain it from where you said no ink no ink yes well I think a vendor would have to respond to a court order for subpoena right so well I'm G to go ahead and send a subpoena up for that's that's the tabulator pole closing tapes number 15 my numbering is off I'm sorry oh uh copies of all tabulated pole closing reports and tabulated reports generated by each Precinct and polling location okay got it you need to make sure you talking to the microphone our Cor reporter is having some trouble and and just for the I'll just State this for the record any conversations between Council we're not going to have those on the record okay so uh you were going down the list here I think you still it sounds like bottom line for the entire section listed tabulator files and reports where originally the estimate was 2,866 hours that's largely driven by copying limitations that may be remedied through upgraded equipment is that fair yes judge okay so we'll flag that I think where we're getting with this is assuming we can make it through all this is that uh the parties are going to need to again I direct them to confer once more and I'll need an updated and revised uh time estimate in a week or two we'll talk more about how much time that's going to take um all right election management system EMS County's estimate was 72 hours is there concern with that from Mr Floyd no your honor all right backup copies of hard drives SD drives and USB drives County estimated 16 hours any concerns there which number judge my numbering is off I'm sorry so I tried to start just looking at headings now instead of the numbers back up copies of hard drives right I don't think the county maybe County can elucidate on this uh it said it didn't have the original the original format was not an Inc case format and maybe there since Tech guys here when we say Inc case format we're basically talking about a forensic image which is a standard in the industry and that copies everything on a hard drive including the empty spaces without impacting the inte of the d a mirror yeah yes you're H we cannot produce those we cannot produ we we're not able to produce those in that format in that format and why not basically um our our system uh will not allow us to produce those I mean um they may be able to uh uh get that from Dominion or the Secretary of State uh they may be able to produce those but we cannot produce those all right but in the format that you could produce them in was that part of the estimate yes sir yes your honor okay all right with that profer sorry I didn't hear the last part your honor he was saying that they can produce them but it has to be in a different format and that's what accounts for the 16 hours I mean if that's what they have it's the original 16 hours and in the format without making an image of the actual drive I'll take it all right moving on reports and logs they list four hours for that no objection and then we have lists of several items no objection okay and that's they say number 25 through 41 for 24 hours to produce that we have Oath documents that they which they say will take 6 to8 hours to produce I I don't like I said I don't try not to be picky but 6 to8 hours for documents that basically show somebody took an oath I don't maybe I'm I misunderstand but it seems that that's a pretty quick one in a folder are those all kept in in the same place or those scattered about Warehouse judge so it's in the warehouse you are these boxes labeled or they just I can't speak to what what the format of the boxes are right now but from what I understand they're not in in a properly identifiable order well that leads me to have less confidence in these estimates of the if we have no idea where they are in the warehouse or the status of them or the state they're in how did we ever arrive at 68 hours to begin with well judge we were trying to give conservative estimates because we we do want to work with whomever you know again we don't have a dog in the fight um you know we just believe that if we I guess did a diligent search that we can come up with this information within that time period okay I I I do say hey it's it's a about a 90 to 100 pallets but again it's still only 9 to 100 pallets so 6 8 hours may work and again I'm trying to draw on kind of open records experience where often in response you give an estimate uhhuh and if it's actually less time is spent the ultimate bill is less right um or you get halfway through and you start warning the other side hey it's actually going to be higher than we thought do you want us to keep going I think that's what we're going to have to do on this as well and we can do this in stages and um but I also think part of this is going to have to be paid upfront we can get into all these things I think these are some that the parties can negotiate and get back to me on but I just want to flag these issues for yall uh it sounds like that's something that on the uh um the oath documents let's take another closer look at that in terms of what we think the state of the warehouse is actually how long it takes to drive over there and find that box if they're all in the same box okay okay uh signatures absentee ballots envelopes envelopes yes your honor so we're looking for the outer part of the envelope the estimate was 57,000 hours I think maybe uh well we started I think let's well I know that's the heart of it but let's start with I think paragraph 43 says the outer I'm I'm trying to make sense of this under the heading I've got 72 hours unredacted 150 hours redacted what is is that in reference to something different than the 5700 hours 57,000 hours yes so the um the the signature exemplars that's the 57,000 hours and the absentee ballot envelopes that's the 72 hours okay let's start with the envelopes um and remind me what would be redacted if they are redacted what would be unredacted do you want to explain and uh if you could identify yourself for the record yes sir Marisa bison the executive assistant and the board director board secretary excuse me and so uh what needs to be redacted off these that effectively doubles the time to produce them on the both envelope there is uh the date of birth okay I couldn't hear I'm sorry the date of birth oh date of birth and judge if I can just um give an explanation as to the redaction process so usually when we make a copy of something we take a a magic marker we' strike through but usually if you hold that paper to the light you can still see some of the information so what happen happens that we have to then make another copy and possibly redact again and that's what causes the extra time cuz your plan is to produce these in physical form you're not just going to send them in a PDF well well the on the envelopes themselves they are in a physical format and you actually have to do them one by one because they're they're used envelopes so if you try to scan them in and batch is they will just Jam in the printer okay what do you think M uh yes so this is where I think I could short circuit this tremendously I think it'll be my understanding from talking with my my colleague earlier is that the blue Crest sorting and signature verification machine was not operational so I didn't really want new scanned images I wanted the existing scanned images that were done on November third for purposes of signature verification so my understanding is that did not occur because the blue Crest verification machine was not working for the 2020 General com all right we've got someone do we know who that is okay Mr Alexis I'm not commenting on on whether or not the blue press machines were working we didn't use the blue press machines um at that time period okay so if the subpoena as intended by Mr Floyd is for the image any images produced by this machine on this date your response is you don't have any in your possession that's correct judge so so there can you ahead can you see give me a second your honor sure you all right I can have my Tech Guy appear here on site under there under teex supervision write a script that can once we scan all the files we can uh have a script that automatically blocks out the date of birth that is the that is pii under Georgia law well we still have to we we're jumping back in time to the envelopes right so the on the envelopes you're saying that you think you have a more efficient way to redact them correct I have a more efficient way but I just my colleague is saying that they didn't do signature verification using the uh blue Crest sorting and signature verification machine correct okay and so is that solely the 57,000 hourss estimate I'm sorry are we on to the next one oh we hadn't gotten there okay we're still just on the 150 hours yeah okay and is that where the blue Crest becomes relevant I I'm looking at Mr Floyd's team oh okay I'm sorry yeah uh your honor um the blue Crest sorting and signature verification machine would take the ballot envelope and scan it and create an image of it image appears on screen with a signature Exemplar and the two are compared that way okay so my understanding is now the blue Crest sorting and signature verification machine is not working or no we we didn't use it they did they they did not use that not use it so for the item you're requesting to obtain for the scans of all the outer envelopes they're going to have to they would have to rescan those again is what we're hearing well it sounds like they they were never scanned to begin with and so I don't know unless they were scanned I want the scanned version right that they had on that day so are there any are there any documents in the County's possession of these items having already been scanned not that I'm aware of but I can check at headquarters and see if they do have it okay so the difference here is not so much that there's a total new rescanning it's what was scanned and is still in your possession from that day well we are we are we making the distinction here nothing will scan your honor okay so we're absolutely clear we're talking about the outer return envelopes in November 2020 okay so where does that leave your subpoena requests I think your honor if we can put that to the side like as as an item for me to work out with the county so I understand exactly because I was under the impression that they had a sorting machine that did all that so if that signature verification process was not used I just want to be able to see what so I can when we do our audit we can look at it and say okay this is what was done um I'll see whether I actually need those or not I don't I'm not sure at this point all right takes us on is that does this now take us to the signature exemplars and reference images or is that the same thing uh this takes us to that new section judge the yeah the signature Exemplar is under the same section same issue same image yeah yeah but no it's a different image it's a separate image from the ballot envelope image one is signed on the back okay use that so so this whole section you're setting that aside for now yeah for yes I'm setting that aside okay then that takes us to absentee ballot application forms which actually no I'm sorry I I apologize we do want 45 or 4 number 44 the provide all signature exemplars and reference images for all registered voters okay so that is the 57,000 hour response and actually judge that's just the signature example those are digital that should be another copying of of a digital file massive file so we do not have a file of Simply signatures we actually have them in different databases for different voters and we're looking at 860,000 voters and we have two different systems that we have to look in to ensure that we do find the signature because if it's not in one it could be in the other so at 860,000 and let's conservatively say we can check each system in 2 minutes we're looking at 4 minutes per so 860,000 multip by 4 minutes gives us 3 million plus minutes you divide that by 60 okay a lot of time so what is it that you're doing in those four minutes exactly per voter we're going to check one system to see if we can find the signature and if it's not there we'll check the other system and why do we need to check either system why not just have both if we think they're in there somewhere I'm not following so as as I'm understanding it there's just a general data datase that has all the signatures in it well well why do we need to cross reference them no it's not it's not a database of signatures we actually have to go into the the database and find the the voter and look up look at the information and search through and find the signature wherever it may fall and then when we get that we I guess export it somewhere have it printed and if it's not in that database we go look in the other database to find it so essentially you have a database with each voter as its own folder or file in some way and to go in and it pull out the signature image that's what's taking the time yes sir so for each voter I would have to put in your driver's license number or your voter registration number I then have to go to your profile to see if you actually have a signature on file if in the Georgia uh if in the registration database Georgia's registration database you don't have a signature on file we have an in-house electronic uh database that we uh scan documents into and we check that there are no guarantees that we'll have all 860,000 signatures the hope is that we will we're not looking for 860,000 we're only looking for the absentee ballot signatures at this point um you said all registered voters in your request I'm sorry I'm still stuck on number on on which one I thought we' moved on to 44 you'd said 43 was you needed to double check about the um the machines and the signature verification audit we were looking at 44 that's the 57,000 hour request right okay so so 44 and 45 if I can put that to the side to talk I think I can that out with them so I understand the process I don't want to delay this anymore I think we can get through that okay and I can talk work with the County's it person and and my colleague and get a solution for both of those together okay it maybe I just need a certification from the county that we didn't use the we didn't do signature verification well I don't know if you're ever going to get a certification because I don't know if that's allowed through the subpoena process I mean you could always call them as a witness if they want to voluntarily give you certification great but again what is what is being asked of this court is whether to enforce the subpoena and that's what I'm trying to focus on and that is whether documents are their in possession or whether they're not uh and I think that's taking us closer to the end the last thing we have is Hardware networking uh with 32 hours of of work we skipped one I believe judge the absentee ballot application oh well I thought you said 45 I think that's about our numbering being off again yeah okay so absentee valid application form 10,000 hours redacted yeah I yeah I my my I can have my tech gu show up and write a script that automatically redacts it and you can hold it up to the light all day long and you won't see the date of birth the only thing on the and I have a 2020 application here the only thing on it that is pii is a uh one line that says date of birth so okay if I could get the county to walk me through um their thought process here so so on the application from 2020 there is uh the date of birth their email address their phone number um yeah so there's actually multiple areas that you you're required to r that you honor under Georgia law the only pii is the date of birth nothing else is pi now we don't intend to go publish this we're not going to publish this this is for our I mean there's going to be there would be protective no matter what we do with this um and then we can go into the details of what that would look like I think we've already expected here that the parties need to continue their conversations here's what I would ask to add to the agenda is that you'd be outlining exactly to the county the process and how you're planning to review this who would be involved and then I'll let the county make the initial decision of whether they think that's um adequately protecting uh the date of birth if if that's something we need to come back and and clarify um and and that's something you could also make preconditions of and ask um or suggest what else could be done again I'm trying to encourage the parties to find the middle ground here um but the bottom line if it's if it's assuming it's unredacted and the county decides to take you up on this offer of software I'm not saying they have to because they might not be comfortable with whatever this program is you're proposing um this this unredacted the 460 hours where does that come from so judge we have and I think that number could be we have 4 what was it 470,000 470,000 absentee ballot applications um you do them in batches of 150 at 50 minutes per you know the I will start racking up at that point yeah okay so basically you're saying you have to pull these one by one or these aren't something that can just be pulled in Mass no we can pull them in Mass but when you have to feed them into the printer you know you can only feed them in at in so many uh but when you say you're pulling them in mask can't you just save them as a digital file do we have to print them all oh no they're they're in physical format they're they're in physical format they are currently in physical format yes judge well I understand that some would have been done online that you could do your online registration as well no if if they were one second your honor J if they came in in emails we have to be coming through email to find applications but all the applications were printed okay I'm I'm still getting the impression just generally here that the we haven't placed our finger exactly on what it is that's being asked and how it could be produced and whether it's the most cost effective way and whether there are alternatives and so the ultimate point I know we still have one more section to cover but to the uh just like the previous two sections it it seems like we're still not ready to make a ruling if I need to make a ruling and what I would uh what I would just go ahead and say at this point is um I would propose again directing the parties to address the issues we've covered today and some of the points we've brought up uh that by February 2nd I'd like that's two weeks from now that we have a little more guidance that you can provide me perhaps with an amended amended subpoena and uh maybe more narrowly tailor the time estimates and again I think more of an exchange of information is going to reduce a lot of time on the back end um of what needs to happen and I think what you're also going to need to do as well as start putting those hours into a a cost you know exactly what is it going to cost per hour as well right okay and if there's equipment again I would I would encourage everyone to find ways that if there's a a more efficient way of doing it digital or otherwise that we that we do that and it's not just the longest way possible so if there is a a type of a piece of equipment that can make it more um make it more efficient more quickly how much is it going to cost to buy that piece of equipment if he can identify you a scanner and it's $10,000 maybe you buy that scanner instead of saying it's going to be 20,000 hours right well I mean and no I'm not saying you buy it because he's gonna pay for it okay I want it back well we'll see I just that's what I'm clarifying is that when you're making the bill we can do this in a way that and Jud you know that the the fact of the matter is that a lot of the stuff from 2020 it's just all in physical format you know things were done a lot differently back then you know back then years it's not that long ago right listen has changed uh okay has changed a whole time perspective you know and you know a lot of things have changed um in Fulton County elections and how we I guess process information and store information so you know we're just sort of um but you're sort of stuck in that in that regard okay uh understood and so I think that's why you're we're having to work through so much and I appreciate y'all continuing to do that uh but I think that we're We Stand now and the demands of this case uh that we we're going to need to still work through those very enough okay so I'll wait to hear back from you another report uh on 112 in a perfect world maybe y'all have come to terms and something along the lines of what was presented from the Secretary of State's office and the gbi with the protective order agreed to by the parties with the amended subpoena made part of the record with the terms and conditions with how what payment is to be conveyed and win again with some of these ideas in mind how much up front there going to be steps along the way where you pause and give them updated estimates all those kind of things these are the things things you need to think through okay what else do you think we need to discuss today and that's going to be you know just saying up front that will be difficult as we are prepping for a federal election we have all the time in the world we're not rushing anything so want to get it right sure so if after two weeks you're still stuck you think you need more time let me know and then let me know how much more time you need question okay what else nothing from us okay it's been great your honor I appreciate the opportunity to talk to them for and and I didn't realize there were the tech guys were here I would have had at it okay fair enough um I'm trying to I'll I'll try to avoid what happened today where we just got really behind schedule but I am trying to prioritize getting some of the other hearings you find generally speaking um if we can have schedules where we have you know our brief you got your motion filed got your memorandum of law like I want to do in one state gets its opportunity and then we get a reply and then set for issue we we do the hearing I think that's much more U efficient and less costly on on my resources and even the Court's resources because going back and having additional hearings and back and forth is no I think that's a fair point I I just I never know unlike you know Federal practice where it's just assumed someone's going to file a response and reply that's not generally what we do it's it's just if you want to to and so I haven't really stepped in and said required it yet cuz everyone's seems to elect to do it so if that's going to continue to be the practice then I think all we need to make clear is um what what the expectations are from the parties but I mean generally when you file the motion that's considered step one and and I know you still want to file a resp a reply right and so we can allow that um so I guess what I'm hearing from you is you think that the 26th is is too tight a turnaround for that yes honor and I and I think there's other I mean the state is not here so I don't no I would just talking Logistics logistically speaking there's other matters in the docket that I think need to be heard first um the the February 15th matter is going to be heard and I didn't think much of it until uh just a couple days ago but that would be something that I would want to have heard first before my motions are scheduled well I don't know if I can promise that uh just because i' I'd kind of set aside the week of February 12th just try to have as many hearings and motions as we can and since the latter half of that week is devoted to that motion still want to utilize the 12th 13th and 14th just as a heads up but we can continue this discussion with all the parties attached through email okay all right thank you judge all right we'll be off the Record thank you everybody we be released who's who's not released oh
